CAR_Public/160510.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 10, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 93



                            Headlines


2169494 ONTARIO: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
9281-4268 QUEBEC: Recalls Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Products
9281-4268 QUEBEC: Updates Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Recall
ALJ REGIONAL: Faneuil Still Defending "Brown" Class Action
ALL FLORIDA PARCEL: "Vasco" Suit to Recover Overtime/Minimum Pay

ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for June 22
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Defending Against Retailers' Suit in N.D. Cal.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct.
AUSTRALIA: Mediation in Equine Flu Compensation Case Begins
AUTONATION INC: Faces Class Action Over Unexplained Service Fees

AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yale" Action Pending
AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Suit Ongoing
AXA EQUITABLE: "Zweiman" Plaintiff Dismissed Appeal
AXA EQUITABLE: "Shuster" Class Action Dismissed
AXA EQUITABLE: "O'Donnell" Action Transferred to New York

BABCOCK LUMBER: "Walter" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
BARD ACCESS: Recalls Venous Catheter Kits
BEST BUY: Class Action Proceedings Stayed Pending Appeal
BLUE CROSS: "Richmond SA Services" Sues for Anti-trust Violation
BLUE CROSS: "American Surgical" Sues for Anti-trust Violation

BLUE EARTH: Bankruptcy Stayed Securities Litigation
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
BP PLC: Shareholders Lose Bid to Revive Oil Spill Class Action
BROOKFIELD DTLA: Oral Arguments Held on Bid for Attorneys' Fees
BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire & Burn Hazard

CANADA: Drafts Letter of Assurance as Afghan Vet Settlement Looms
CARMIKE CINEMAS: Faces Securities Class Action in Georgia
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Provides Updates on Texas and Delaware Suits
CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 15 Billion Class Action Claim
CELLCOM ISRAEL: 013 Netvision Still Faces Class Action Claim

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 13 Billion Class Action Claim
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: "Hampton" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CERAGON NETWORKS: Parties Debate Plaintiffs' Right for Discovery
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Cert. Bid for State Law Classes Due May 2016
CONFORMIS INC: Lead Plaintiff Filed Consolidated Amended Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Frozen Organic Sweet Peas
CREDIT SUISSE: $110MM RMBS Case Deal Awaits Final Court Approval
DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Varela" Case Not Successful
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Pleasant" Case Remains Stayed
DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Sullivan" Case Not Successful

DOLLAR GENERAL: Facing Class Actions Related to Motor Oil Sales
DOLLARAMA INC: Recalls Mandarin Oranges in Light Syrup
ERIN ENERGY: Faces Class Action and Derivative Complaint
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Texts to Recycled Numbers
FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Case Pending

FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Automatic Transmission
GAMESTOP CORP: Agreed to Pay $72,500 to Plaintiff's Counsel
GASTRONOMIA: Recalls Michel et Augustin Cookies Due to Almond
GASTRONOMIA: Updates Michel et Augustin Cookies Recall
GHIRINGHELLI SPECIALTY: Recalls Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Issacharoff Files Brief in Avandia Class Action
GREY PLUME: Recalls Charcuterie Meat Products
GS WILCOX: Conn. Judge Denies Gorss' Motels Class Cert. Bid
HEILINDMIL-AERO: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. for Sexual Harassment
HUNG GAY: Recalls Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Due to Milk

HUNG GAY: Updates Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Recall
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Settles Securities Class Action for $55MM
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Defective Drug, Risperdal
KIA: Recalls V8 Elite 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Class Suit in Israel

KLX INC: Securities Class Action Filed in S.D. Florida
MAJOR LEAGUE: Still Face Legal Threat Despite Settlement
MATCH GROUP: Defending Against Securities Class Action
MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. Settlement Proceeds
MICHAEL ANGELO'S: Recalls Vegetable Lasagna Products

MICHAELS COMPANIES: Background Checks Suits vs. MSI Still Pending
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Dismissal of Data Breach Suit Under Appeal
MINILAND EDUCATIONAL: Recalls Moogy Toys Due to Choking Hazard
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Sue Lawyers Over Concussion Case Fees
NATERA INC: Faces 2 Class Actions in California State Court

NATURE'S TOUCH: Recalls Organic Berry Cherry Blend
NEC TOKIN: Settles Antitrust Class Actions for $37.25 Million
NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
NIKE: Assistant Store Managers' Unpaid OT Class Action Tossed
NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk

OPOWER INC: Class Action Mulled Over Oracle Merger Agreement
ORBITAL SCIENCES: To Pay $165,000 in Fees and Expenses
PULASKI FINANCIAL: Missouri Court Dismissed "Patel" Case
PIERCE: Recalls Enforcer and Saber 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015 Models Due to Fire Hazard

POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015, 2016 Models
POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2014, 2015, 2016 Models
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: "Rabin" Sues over Age Discrimination
PROSKAUER ROSE: Faces New Class Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme

PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $5.9MM
ROYAL BANCSHARES: Settlement in NJ Taxpayers Suit Awaits Court OK
ROYAL BANK: Still Defends MBS Class Actions
ROYAL BANK: Deal in ISDAFIX Suit Subject to Final Documentation
ROYAL BANK: Settlement in CDS Action Paid in Escrow

ROYAL BANK: Paid $255 Million Settlement in Escrow
ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action in Ontario and Quebec
RUBY TUESDAY: June 28 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SABINE OIL: Stourbridge Case Remains Stayed
SE3 LLC: "Gooden" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

SIBANYE GOLD: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending
SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitrator Granted Claimants' Motion for Stay
SILVER CARE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Medical Records
SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: "Long" Sues Over Discrimination
STAR BULK: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Still Pending

STEMCELLS INC: "Guardino" Suit Questions Fees By-Laws
STRATASYS LTD: Court Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss
SUNEDISON INC: Glenview Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
SUNEDISON INC: Oklahoma Firefighters' Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
SUNEDISON INC: Omega Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.

SUNLAND FOODS: "Bolton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SYNERON MEDICAL: Written Summations Submitted in Class Action
TALMER BANCORP: "Bushansky" Sues over Shady Merger Deal
TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Penny Arcades Machines
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Wertheim" Suit in D.N.J.

TRXADE GROUP: Discovery Has Not Commenced in Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Another Class Action in Illinois
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bill That Would Set Fares Fails to Get Support
UBS GROUP: $141MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval
UBS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss LIBOR Litigation Remains Pending

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Key Aspects Not Yet Disclosed
WEN: Faces Another Suit Over Shampoo Adverse Effects
WOODBURY CHILD: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Work Termination
ZANIMO INC: Recalls Vermi Liquid Products

* Class Actions Over Parmesan Cheese Mislabeling Pile Up
* Law Firms Take Steps to Avert Additional Data Breaches
* Gig Economy Sector to Face More Legal Battles After Uber Deal


                            *********


2169494 ONTARIO: Recalls Fish Cake Products Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 23, 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: 2169494 Ontario Inc. (PK Trading)
Distribution: Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10554

2169494 Ontario Inc. (PK Trading) is recalling Chongga brand Fish
Cake products from the marketplace because they contain egg which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold in Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.

Check to see if you have recalled product 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 product
as it 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       ---
  ----      ------             ----------
  Chongga   Fish Cake  400 g   11.02.2016    8 801024 032914
           (slice)
  Chongga   Fish Cake  1 kg    11.02.2016    8 801024 050208
            (mixed)
  Chongga   Fish Cake  500 g   23.11.2016    8 801024 032938
            (mixed)
  Chongga   Fish Cake  500 g   07.09.2016    8 801024 032938
            (mixed)

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


9281-4268 QUEBEC: Recalls Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 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: 9281-4268 Quebec Inc. (A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish
market)
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10539

9281-4268 Quebec Inc. / A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish market is
recalling Asian Star brand Shrimp Shaped Surimi and Lobster Tail
Shaped Surimi from the marketplace because they 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

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          ---
  -----       ------           ----------
  Asian Star  Shrimp   300 g   Production Date: 0 85737 50300 0
              Shaped           08 FEB 2015
              Surimi           Best Before:
                               08 FEB
  Asian Star  Lobster  255 g   Production Date: 0 85737 50065 8
              Tail             08 FEB 2015
              Shaped           Best Before:
              Surimi           08 FEB

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YcSQ9L


9281-4268 QUEBEC: Updates Shrimp and Lobster Surimi Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 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: 9281-4268 Quebec Inc. (A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish
market)
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10539

The food recall warning issued on April 15, 2016, has been updated
to include additional distribution information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

9281-4268 Quebec Inc. / A1 Ocean Fish Kosher Fish market is
recalling Asian Star brand Shrimp Shaped Surimi and Lobster Tail
Shaped Surimi from the marketplace because they contain egg which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold nationally.

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 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          ---
  -----       ------           ----------
  Asian Star  Shrimp   300 g   Production Date: 0 85737 50300 0
              Shaped           08 FEB 2017
              Surimi
   Asian Star  Lobster  255 g   Production Date: 0 85737 50065 8
              Tail              08 FEB 2017
              Shaped
              Surimi

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YcSQ9L


ALJ REGIONAL: Faneuil Still Defending "Brown" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. said in the Amendment No. 1 to Form 10
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28,
2016, that Faneuil, Inc. is named as a defendant in a proposed
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia. The case, styled Brown, et. al., v.
Transurban USA, Inc., et. al., was filed on April 15, 2015,
alleging that Transurban USA, Inc. ("Transurban"), an express lane
operator in Virgina, and its debt collection agents Faneuil and
Law Enforcement Systems, LLC ("LES" and together with Transurban
and Faneuil, the "Defendants"), violated state and federal law in
assessing and seeking to collect administrative fees and penalties
for unpaid tolls on express lanes operated by Transurban.
Specifically with regards to Faneuil, plaintiffs allege that (i)
the Defendants knowingly received and retained wrongful benefits
as a result of their wrongful conduct in conscious disregard of
plaintiffs' rights, (ii) the Defendants violated the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act,
by engaging in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practices,
(iii) the Defendants knowingly interfered with plaintiffs'
contractual relationship with the E-ZPass entities under the E-
ZPass contracts and (iv) that Faneuil and LES violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by making false and
misleading representations, by engaging in unfair and abusive debt
collection practices and by attempting to collect knowingly
excessive and inflated fines and fees.

Plaintiffs have sought six forms of relief, including to (1)
declare Defendants' fee policies and collection methods to be
wrongful, unfair, and unconscionable, and enjoin any such future
collections; (2) order restitution of fees and penalties paid by
Plaintiffs to Defendants; (3) order disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains derived from Defendants' conduct; (4) award actual damages;
(5) award punitive and exemplary damages; and (6) award pre-
judgment interest and costs as applicable.

On November 2, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia dismissed all claims against Faneuil
except for the (i) tortious interference with contract and (ii)
violation of the FDCPA claims. Faneuil and the other Defendants
have reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs and are
working on finalizing a settlement agreement for presentation to
the court.

"While the outcome of the action and the proposed settlement noted
above cannot be predicted with certainty, we believe that the risk
of a material adverse impact is remote," the Company said.


ALL FLORIDA PARCEL: "Vasco" Suit to Recover Overtime/Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Esteban Vasco, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. All Florida Parcel Delivery, Inc. and Alfonso Ruvalcaba,
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60926-RNS. (S.D. Fla. April 27,
2016), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney fees, all
overtime wages still owing, along with court costs, interest and
any other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a parcel delivery service owned by Alfonso Ruvalcaba
based in Broward County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a
driver. Vasco claims being denied overtime and/or minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALP LIQUIDATING TRUST: Fairness Hearing Scheduled for June 22
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing on fairness is
scheduled for June 22, 2016, in the "Rothal" class action
settlement.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to expand the class to include
other homes in Weston. The motion to expand the class was
withdrawn.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not
settle.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.
The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the
class. The case has been returned to the trial court for further
proceedings including trial.

The parties and their insurers have entered into agreements in
principle to settle this case. The Rothal settlement is subject to
various conditions, further court approval, and a hearing on
fairness now scheduled for June 22, 2016.

There are no assurances that the Rothal settlement will in fact be
consummated. The costs associated with the agreement in principle
are reflected in ALP's financial statements. The case does not
currently have a trial date. If the matter is not settled, the
defense of the case will proceed.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. This case has
been tendered to one of the Partnership's insurance carriers,
Zurich American Insurance Company (together with its affiliates
collectively, "Zurich"), for defense and indemnity. Zurich is
providing a defense of this matter under a purported reservation
of rights. The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in
connection with this lawsuit.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Defending Against Retailers' Suit in N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
American Express Company intends to vigorously defend against the
claims in the case filed by B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC.

On March 8, 2016, Plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's
Market and Grove Liquors LLC, on behalf of themselves and others,
filed a suit, captioned B&R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's
Market, et al. v. Visa Inc., et al., for violations of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, California's Cartwright
Act, and unjust enrichment in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, against the Company, other
credit and charge card networks, numerous issuing banks, and
EMVCo, LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, through EMVCo,
conspired to shift liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise
rejected consumer credit card transactions from themselves to
merchants after the implementation of EMV chip payment terminals.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Oct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
final approval hearing is scheduled for October 17, 2016, in the
"Lopez" class action lawsuit.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a
class of California American Express Card Members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that
complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class
members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 3,
2016.


AUSTRALIA: Mediation in Equine Flu Compensation Case Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC Rural reports that the fight for compensation for losses
suffered by horse businesses after the 2007 equine influenza
outbreak was set to begin on May 2, with parties meeting for
mediation.

If mediation is unsuccessful and the case is not settled
beforehand, the case will go to trial for three months from
June 6.

The horse flu outbreak resulted in the widespread quarantine of
horses, which caused big financial losses for equine businesses
such as horses breeders, racehorse owners and horse transporters.

A class action is alleging the Commonwealth negligently caused the
outbreak after the equine influenza virus escaped from Sydney's
Eastern Creek Quarantine Station.

Darling Downs horse breeder Gary Turkington is leading the
claimants.

The lead plaintiff said he purchased two stallions for $1.65
million, which he planned to syndicate but, because of quarantine
measures put in place, he says he made a significant loss.

"I was unable to sell shares because when I did sell shares, a lot
of the shares fell over because people couldn't bring the mares to
my property, so there's no point in buying a share in a stallion
for 25 grand and not being able to send the mares,"
Mr. Turkington said.

"I basically went into a couple of million debt in five months,
and a couple of years later I sold those stallions for five
grand," he said.

Mr. Turkington is not holding his breath that the mediation will
result in fair compensation for those affected by the equine
influenza outbreak.

He claims the Commonwealth Government wants to see the class
action fought out in court.

It is a claim reiterated by the Independent candidate for the
Federal seat of New England, Tony Windsor, who is calling on
agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce to intervene.

"The Government doesn't look as though it wants to negotiate with
you, and that's the fear that these people have, and if the
election is called they have no time to actually get the mediation
to work," Mr. Windsor said.

"Industry has been told by the Department, and this is why we're
asking Minister Joyce to be involved, that they've been informed
not to negotiate so that says to me 'red flag'."

As outlined in last year's Federal budget papers, there is a
compensation fund set aside for those affected by equine
influenza, but Mr. Turkington said only lawyers stood to win if a
resolution was not found in mediation.

"I just want to get back to where I was in 2007, get the debt off
my shoulders but what I know is if we go into courts in a month's
time and we spend another $15 to $20 million on legals there's
going to be very little left for any of us because the longer it
goes the more the legals keep chewing it up," Mr. Windsor said.

Claims of Commonwealth negligence

Tamworth quarter horse breeder and camp drafter Amanda Nicholson
is another one of the 587 individuals and businesses who are part
of the class action, led by law firm Maurice Blackburn, alleging
The Commonwealth was negligent in its administration of the
Eastern Creek Quarantine Station.

She estimates her horse flu losses to be $300,000 as a result of
not being able to utilize a stallion purchased the day before the
outbreak.

"I hope to see some sort of resolution and be financially
compensated.  I don't think we're going to receive the full
amount, that's unrealistic to expect that, but we have heard that
it's not been our fault, we didn't bring it here and I've been at
a loss because we didn't campaign that horse," Ms. Nicholson said.

"We didn't get the progeny sales, and we had additional transport,
veterinary costs, fighter costs, all those sorts of things that
went on top.

"Why should we have to fork that out when it wasn't our fault to
start with?

"We need some action on this. It's gone on too long."

No legal liability: Joyce

In a written statement to the ABC, Agriculture Minister Barnaby
Joyce said that a 2008 commission of inquiry into the outbreak,
the Callinan Inquiry, did not make a finding of legal liability.

QUESTION: In many cases the losses were substantial and resulted
in people losing their farms and businesses.  Is it not fair that
horse business owners are compensated for losses incurred?

Following the outbreak of equine influenza the Commonwealth
introduced measures to provide financial assistance to those most
affected and established and an independent Inquiry into the cause
of the outbreak and how it spread.  The Callinan Inquiry did not
make a finding of legal liability, but the Government adopted its
38 recommendations.

QUESTION: Mr Joyce, with just a couple of months from an election,
you are openly stating that "a vote for me is a vote for power".
As Deputy PM you are saying you have a "lot of pull"? Are you
standing behind bureaucratic processes when say you can't say too
much about this case because it is before the courts?

This is not a bureaucratic process.  It is a matter before the
court where the Commonwealth is being sued directly by those
involved in the class action.

It is unfortunate that some have sought to misrepresent what
capacity I have as Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources
and Deputy Prime Minister to intervene in this matter.

I understand the pressure and financial burden the equine
influenza outbreak has had on those in the horse industry,
however, my capacity to deliver a better future for the people of
New England both as the local member and through my role in the
Government is completely separate to having the ability to
intervene in sensitive legal matters of this nature.

QUESTION: You are the ultimate head of the Department and you have
the ability to direct the Department to find a sensible
resolution.  What have you told your Department about finding a
resolution to this case? Are you willing to intervene?

The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is not the lead
agency in this matter.  As such I have no decision-making capacity
as to whether or not a settlement can be reached.

Under the Legal Services Directions 2005, the Commonwealth and
Commonwealth agencies must behave as model litigants in the
conduct of litigation.

I have been assured that the Commonwealth will act in good faith
and act fairly in handling this litigation and on behalf of those
affected I would expect nothing less.

QUESTION: Is the Government going to mediation in good faith that
a resolution can be found?

As previously stated under the Legal Services Directions 2005, the
Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies must behave as model
litigants in the conduct of litigation and I have every
expectation that the Commonwealth will act in good faith
throughout the mediation process.

QUESTION: Plaintiffs allege Government lawyers have made it clear
this case will go to court.  The case will cost millions of
taxpayer dollars and add to the stress of people who have already
suffered great loss.  Do you support the Government's position if
the case is fought in the courts?

Again, I can't comment on what government lawyers may or may not
have said, suffice to say that I have every expectation that the
Commonwealth will act in good faith throughout the mediation
process and I would support every effort being made to ensure an
equitable outcome can be achieved for all involved.

QUESTION: As outlined in previous budget papers in the schedule of
risks in the agriculture portfolio there is money in the
compensation kitty (Budget Paper 1 2015/16).  Why not give it to
the people who were wronged by the failings of the Commonwealth
Government, as outlined by your predecessor and a Royal
Commission?

As previously mentioned as Agriculture Minister I do not have the
capacity to pre-empt the outcome of the mediation process or any
potential court proceedings.


AUTONATION INC: Faces Class Action Over Unexplained Service Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
AutoNation Inc., the largest automotive retailer in the U.S.,
faces a class action lawsuit in Broward Circuit Court challenging
some unexplained service charges.

Class representatives Jessica Melamed and Sylvia A. Reichert claim
the company surprised clients with hidden fees for services with
vague descriptions in violation of Florida's Motor Vehicle Repair
and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices acts.

"These charges are listed on AutoNation repair shop invoices as
'misc. charges,' along with an explanation that these charges are
for 'shop supply costs' or miscellaneous shop supplies and waste
disposal charges,'" the suit claims.  "AutoNation uniformly fails
to disclose the unlawful charges to customers before it performs
services or repairs."

AutoNation's invoice forms outline shop supply costs and
miscellaneous supply and disposal charges.  They reference charges
of $3 or 12 percent of the total cost of labor and parts,
whichever is greater.

"This charge represents costs and profits to the motor vehicle
repair facility for miscellaneous shop supplies and waste
disposal," the complaint said.  The suit claims customers get the
documents only after the company has completed repairs.

Ms. Melamed claims AutoNation Mercedes-Benz of Pompano Beach
required her to sign a statement acknowledging her right to a
written estimate with the option to request one when she dropped
off her car for service.  It is unclear whether she asked for the
estimate, but her bill for more than $3,022 included $59.75 for
shop supply costs. On another visit in 2014, a charge for the same
amount appeared on a $1,216 invoice.  The pattern continued with
shop supply costs charged for multiple service visits in 2015.
Court records detail in 2014 and 2015 when Ms. Melamed claims she
spent a total of about $8,157, including $299 in supply costs.

AutoNation operates more than 50 locations in Florida, according
to the lawsuit. It also operates car dealerships that sell and
service more than 35 vehicle brands.  Parts and service accounted
for 40 percent of gross profits on nearly $2.8 billion in revenue
in 2014, up from $2.6 billion in 2013.

The suit suggests deceptive billing boosted AutoNation's financial
performance, with hidden markups creating a lucrative profit
center.  The complaint alleges that instead of providing upfront
estimates, the company circumvents the vehicle repair law designed
to "reduce the number of five o'clock surprises to customers at
the time of paying their bill."

State law requires written estimates for repair work exceeding
$100 to disclose charges for shop supplies or waste disposal.
"AutoNation's conduct, which results in customers being forced to
pay unanticipated and undisclosed unlawful charges, is unlawful,
unfair and deceptive," according to the suit filed April 11 and
assigned to Judge William Haury Jr.  The plaintiffs filed a motion
on April 26 requesting a transfer from the civil to complex
business division.

Plaintiffs attorneys are Rachel Soffin, Jonathan Cohen and Marisa
Glassman of Morgan & Morgan's complex litigation group in Tampa.
Washington attorney Jeffrey Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei has a
pending pro hac vice admission request to participate in the
litigation.

No attorney was listed for AutoNation by deadline, and the company
did not reply to requests for comment.


AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yale" Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal
is pending from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit in New
York.

In April 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Andrew Yale,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Life
Insurance Company F/K/A AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of all persons and
entities that, between 2011 and March 11, 2014, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by AXA Equitable (the "Policies"). The complaint
alleges that AXA Equitable did not disclose in its New York
statutory annual statements or elsewhere that the collateral for
certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance
companies was supported by parental guarantees, an omission that
allegedly caused AXA Equitable to misrepresent its "financial
condition" and "legal reserve system." The lawsuit seeks recovery
under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of all premiums
paid by the class for the Policies during the relevant period.

In June 2014, AXA Equitable filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on procedural grounds, which was denied in October 2014.
In February 2015, plaintiffs substituted two new named plaintiffs
and the action is now entitled Ross v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company. In July 2015, the Court granted AXA Equitable's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In
August 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.

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


AXA EQUITABLE: Appeal from Dismissal of "Yarbrough" Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal
from the dismissal of the case by Calvin Yarbrough remains
pending.

In April 2015, the plaintiffs' law firm in the case, Ross v. AXA
Equitable Life Insurance Company, filed a second action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a putative class of variable annuity holders with
"Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders," entitled Calvin W.
Yarbrough, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The new action covers the
same class period, makes substantially the same allegations, and
seeks the same relief (return of all premium paid by class
members) as the first action on behalf of life insurance
policyholders.

In October 2015, the Court, on its own, dismissed the Yarbrough
litigation on similar grounds as Ross. In October 2015, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal.

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


AXA EQUITABLE: "Zweiman" Plaintiff Dismissed Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Jessica
Zweiman in February 2016 voluntarily dismissed her appeal from a
class action ruling.

A lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Westchester, Commercial Division ("New York state
court") in June 2014, entitled Jessica Zweiman, Executrix of the
Estate of Anne Zweiman, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company. The
lawsuit is a putative class action on behalf of "all persons who
purchased variable annuities from AXA Equitable which subsequently
became subject to the ATM Strategy, and who suffered injury as a
result thereof." Plaintiff asserts that AXA Equitable breached the
variable annuity contracts by implementing the volatility
management tool. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

In July 2014, AXA Equitable filed a notice of removal to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. In September 2015, the New York federal district court
granted AXA Equitable's motion to dismiss the Complaint. In
October 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.


AXA EQUITABLE: "Shuster" Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New
Jersey State court in February 2016 dismissed the "Shuster" class
action complaint.

In November 2014, one of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman
filed a separate lawsuit entitled Arlene Shuster, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden
County ("New Jersey state court"). This lawsuit is a putative
class action on behalf of "all AXA [Equitable] variable life
insurance policyholders who allocated funds from their Policy
Accounts to investments in AXA's Separate Accounts, which were
subsequently subjected to volatility-management strategy, and who
suffered injury as a result thereof" and asserts a claim for
breach of contract similar to the claim in Zweiman.

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


AXA EQUITABLE: "O'Donnell" Action Transferred to New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Axa Equitable Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Connecticut federal district court in November transferred the
"O'Donnell" action to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In August 2015, another of the plaintiff's law firms in Zweiman
filed a third lawsuit entitled Richard T. O'Donnell, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company in Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial Division
of New Haven ("Connecticut state court"). This lawsuit purports to
cover the same class definition, makes substantially the same
allegations, and seeks the same relief as in Zweiman.


BABCOCK LUMBER: "Walter" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary Walter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Babcock Lumber, Inc., a Pennsylvania
Corporation, and Carl Borntraeger, Courtney Borntraeger, and R.
Jeffrey Kimball, individually, the Defendants, Case No. GD-15-
05320, was removed from Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of
Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh). The Western District Court assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-00523-CRE to the proceeding. The Assigned
Magistrate Judge is Hon. Cynthia Reed Eddy.

Babcock Lumber Company manufactures and distributes hardwood and
building products in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James W. Carroll Jr., Esq.
          ROTHMAN, GORDON, FOREMAN & GROUDINE
          310 Grant Street
          Grant Building, 3rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 338 1117
          E-mail: JWCarroll@rothmangordon.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter J. Ennis, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 392 2000
          Facsimile: (412) 392 2128
          E-mail: peter.ennis@bipc.com


BARD ACCESS: Recalls Venous Catheter Kits
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Posting date: April 29, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58158

Bard Access Systems is informing customers of an incorrect
expiration date on product labeling for specific lots of Hickman
and Leonard Central Venous Catheter Kits. The expiration date for
the needle provided in these specific kits was not reflected in
the unit or case product labeling. Product return is not required.

Affected products
A. LEONARD CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETER
Lot or serial number: HUYL1323
                      HUZA0513
                      HUZB0323
                      HUZB1191
                      HUZC1074
                      HUZD1465
                      HUZL0688
Model or catalog number: 600630

Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc.
              605 North 5600 West
              Salt Lake City
              84116
              Utah
              UNITED STATES

B. HICKMAN CENTRAL VENOUS CATHETERS
Lot or serial number:
More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 0600560
                         0600600
                         0600620
                         0600650

Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc.
              605 North 5600 West
              Salt Lake City
              84116
              Utah
              UNITED STATES

C. HICKMAN 10FR TRIPLE LUMEN CV CATHETER
Lot or serial number: HUZA0561
Model or catalog number: 606560

Manufacturer: Bard Access Systems Inc.
              605 North 5600 West
              Salt Lake City
              84116
              Utah
              UNITED STATES


BEST BUY: Class Action Proceedings Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a trial court has stayed
proceedings in a securities class action lawsuit while an appeal
is pending.

The Company sid, "In February 2011, a purported class action
lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public."

"Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and
certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice.

"In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012,
the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's
decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November
2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A
hearing was held on April 26, 2013.

"On August 5, 2013, the court issued an order granting our motion
to dismiss in part and, contrary to its March 2012 order, denying
the motion to dismiss in part, holding that certain of the
statements alleged to have been made were not forward-looking
statements and therefore were not subject to the "safe-harbor"
provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class.

"By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal.
Oral argument was held in October 2015, and we await a decision.

"The trial court has stayed proceedings while the appeal is
pending. We continue to believe that these allegations are without
merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter."


BLUE CROSS: "Richmond SA Services" Sues for Anti-trust Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richmond SA Services, Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Group and
Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01089, S.D. Tex., April
27, 2016), seeks treble damages, relief and attorneys' fees and
costs for anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of allocating markets among
themselves, thereby controlling the prices of premium for their
Blue Plans.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is based in Chicago
Illinois is composed of 36 health insurance plans that operate
under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Earnest W. Wotring, Esq.
      David George, Esq.
      Karen Dow, Esq.
      BAKER & WOTRING LLP
      700 JPMorgan Chase Tower
      600 Travis Street
      Houston, Texas 77002
      Telephone: (713) 980-1700
      Facsimile: (713) 980-1701
      Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com
             dgeorge@bakerwotring.com
             kdow@bakerwotring.com

           - and -

      Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      W. Tucker Brown
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 488-1200
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
             tbrown@whatleykallas.com

           - and -

      Edith M. Kallas
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 447-7060
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

           - and -

      Dennis C. Reich
      REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
      4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
      Houston, Texas 77027
      Telephone: (713) 622-7271
      Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
      Email: dreich@rbfirm.net


BLUE CROSS: "American Surgical" Sues for Anti-trust Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Surgical Assistants, Inc., d/b/a American Surgical
Professionals, Fortbend SA Services, Inc., National SA Services,
Inc., Woodbridge SA Services, Inc., Pasadena SA Services, Inc.,
Sugar Land SA, Inc., Brazos SA Services, Inc. and WV Medical
Services, Inc. Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Group and
Affiliates, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01146, (S.D. Tex., April
27, 2016), seeks treble damages, relief and attorneys' fees and
costs for anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

Plaintiffs accuse the Defendants of allocating markets among
themselves, thereby controlling the prices of premium for their
Blue Plans.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association is based in Chicago
Illinois and is composed of 36 health insurance plans that operate
under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Earnest W. Wotring, Esq.
      David George, Esq.
      Karen Dow, Esq.
      BAKER & WOTRING LLP
      700 JPMorgan Chase Tower
      600 Travis Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 980-1700
      Facsimile: (713) 980-1701
      Email: ewotring@bakerwotring.com
             dgeorge@bakerwotring.com
             kdow@bakerwotring.com

           - and -

      Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      W. Tucker Brown
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 488-1200
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
             tbrown@whatleykallas.com

           - and -

      Edith M. Kallas
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 447-7060
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

           - and -

      Dennis C. Reich
      REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
      4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 622-7271
      Facsimile: (713) 623-8724
      Email: dreich@rbfirm.net


BLUE EARTH: Bankruptcy Stayed Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
As reported by Blue Earth, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 8-K filed
on March 24, 2016, a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (Case No.
16-30296-DM).  Blue Earth, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016,
that as a result of the pendency of the bankruptcy case and the
application of 11 U.S.C. 362, all proceedings against the Company
are automatically stayed until the bankruptcy case is dismissed or
closed, including In re: Blue Earth, Inc. Securities Litigation,
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western
Division (CV 14-08263-DSF (JEMX)).


BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Steering
Units affected: 4482
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016163TC
ID number: 2016163

On certain vehicles, steering coupler splines may become damaged
at the rack and pinion. This could potentially result in complete
loss of steering, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: To be determined.

  Make       Model                   Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----                   ----------------------
  CAN-AM     COMMANDER XT 800R       2013, 2013
  CAN-AM     COMMANDER X 1000        2013
  CAN-AM     COMMANDER LIMITED 1000  2013
  CAN-AM     COMMANDER DPS 800R      2013
  CAN-AM     COMMANDER DPS 1000      2013


BP PLC: Shareholders Lose Bid to Revive Oil Spill Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donal Scully, writing for Splash 24/7, reports that the US Supreme
Court on May 2 denied shareholders of BP a request to revive their
class action against the Britain-based oil supermajor relating to
the loss in share value caused by the Deepwater Horizon disaster,
according to Reuters.

The shareholders' contention was that BP misrepresented its safety
procedures before the April 2010 catastrophe, which saw a fatal
explosion on the Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

The blast killed 11 people and was followed by the worst offshore
oil spill in US history as it took 87 days to staunch the gush of
oil from the uncapped well.

The May 2 ruling left in place a ruling from last September by the
5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that refused to
certify the suit.

BP has already paid out $55bn in liabilities over the disaster,
including $18.7bn in settlements with government bodies.


BROOKFIELD DTLA: Oral Arguments Held on Bid for Attorneys' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
the Maryland State Court was scheduled to hold oral arguments on
the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses on April
6, 2016 in the merger-related litigation.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.

On June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 21, 2013 is false
and/or misleading because it fails to include certain details of
the process leading up to the merger and fails to provide adequate
information concerning MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s financial
advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty.

On July 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions
filed a joint amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s
board of directors failed to disclose material information
regarding BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger was consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding, regarding a proposed settlement of
all claims asserted therein. The parties subsequently entered into
a stipulation of settlement dated November 21, 2013 providing for
the release of all asserted claims, additional disclosures by MPG
concerning the merger made prior to the merger's approval, and the
payment, by the defendants, of an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount not to exceed $475,000.

After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California State Court
granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement,
and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding the plaintiffs'
counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $475,000,
which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014. BPO is seeking
reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014.

At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the Maryland State Court heard oral
arguments on the defendants' motion to dismiss and reserved
judgment on the decision. On October 21, 2014, the parties sent a
joint letter to the Maryland State Court stating that since the
June 18 meeting, the parties have commenced discussions towards a
possible resolution of the lawsuit, requesting that the court
temporarily refrain from deciding the pending motion to dismiss to
facilitate the discussions.

On March 30, 2015, the plaintiff in the Cohen Action and the
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding setting
forth an agreement in principle to settle the Preferred Stock
Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case with prejudice
in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of Series A
preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends (the "Dividend
Payment") to holders of record on a record date to be set after
final approval of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus
any attorneys' fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the
plaintiff's counsel. The dividend would reduce the amount of
accumulated and unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock,
and the terms of the Series A preferred stock would otherwise
remain unchanged.

On August 18, 2015, the Maryland State Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and scheduling a final
fairness hearing for October 27, 2015. On September 28, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a motion for final certification of the settlement
class, final approval of the class action settlement and approval
of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, seeking a total
fee and expense award of $5,250,000. The defendants submitted
their opposition to the plaintiff's fee application on October 13,
2015.

On October 16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking
discovery related to the valuation of the Dividend Payment in
connection with its fee application and served related discovery
requests on the defendants. On October 23, 2015, the defendants
filed their opposition to that motion, as well as a motion for a
protective order precluding discovery. On October 27, 2015, the
Maryland State Court held a hearing to decide whether to grant
final approval of the settlement and to rule on the parties'
discovery motions. At the hearing, the Court ordered limited
discovery to occur prior to ruling on the fee application.

On October 28, 2015, the Maryland State Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement. The time to appeal the
order expired on November 30, 2015 without any appeals having been
filed. On December 4, 2015, in accordance with the final approval
order and the terms of the parties' settlement agreement, the
board of directors declared a cash dividend of $2.25 per share to
holders of record of its Series A preferred stock at the close of
business on December 15, 2015.

On January 4, 2016, Brookfield DTLA paid the Dividend Payment
totaling $21.9 million using cash on hand.

On December 16, 2015, after taking certain limited discovery
permitted by the Maryland State Court during the October 27
hearing, the plaintiff served the defendants with its reply
memorandum of law in support of its motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses. That same day, the plaintiff requested that the Court
permit it to file the reply memorandum and an exhibit thereto
under seal given the confidential nature of the information
contained therein.

On December 17, 2015, the plaintiff provided the Court with
plaintiff's counsel's time records for the Court's in camera
review. On January 15, 2016, the defendants filed a surreply to
the plaintiff's reply memorandum after obtaining the Court's
permission to do so.

The Maryland State Court scheduled oral arguments on the
plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses on April 6,
2016. Management is not in a position to estimate the amount of
attorneys' fees and expenses that will ultimately be awarded by
the Court.


BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Battery Packs Due to Fire & Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Posting date: April 19, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57888

This recall involves certain energy storage systems sold as two
models: Brunton Impel and/or Brunton Impel 2 battery packs. These
products are internal rechargeable lithium polymer batteries in a
durable, rubberized shell with a capacity of 13,000 mAh at 12
volts. The Impel model is either orange or blue in colour and the
Impel 2 model is black and gray. These products do not contain
visible identification codes or serial numbers.  The Impel 2 model
has 16, and 19 volt outputs and a USB port, while the Impel model
also has a 12 volt output. The word "Brunton" is embossed on the
top of the battery pack, along with the power button and five LED
lights. These products weigh 2 lb. 10 oz. each and have dimensions
of approximately 7.5" x 7" x 1".

The battery pack can overheat, posing a potential fire and burn
hazard to consumers and property.

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

Brunton Outdoor Inc. has received two reports, including one from
Canada, of the Brunton Impel battery pack overheating and catching
fire, resulting in reports of property damage to the battery pack
and its surroundings. No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 38 units of the recalled battery packs were sold in
Canada.

Approximately 1050 units of the recalled battery packs were sold
in the United States.

Approximately 230 units of the recalled battery packs were sold in
Europe.

The recalled battery packs were sold from February 2011 to May
2015 in Canada, and in the United States and Europe.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Brunton Outdoor Inc.
             1900 Taylor Avenue
             Louisville
             Colorado
             UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Shenzhen Topband Co., Ltd.
              Top band Industrial Park
              Tangtou Village, Shiyan Town, BaoAn District
              Shenzhen
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected stock of
Brunton Impel or Impel 2 battery packs, unplug it and contact
Brunton Outdoor Inc. for further instructions on how to return the
product, without charge, and receive a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Brunton Outdoor Inc.
by telephone at 1-800-443-4871 from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or online and click on "Impel Charger Product
Recall" the top or bottom of the page or email.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


CANADA: Drafts Letter of Assurance as Afghan Vet Settlement Looms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press reports that the
Trudeau government is drafting a letter of assurance it hopes will
end a class-action lawsuit by Afghan veterans angry about a 10-
year-old overhaul of their benefits and entitlements.

The legal challenge, which became a lightning rod under the
Conservative government, was put in abeyance over a year ago in
the B.C. Supreme Court, where it was filed on behalf of six
complainants.

The legal time-out was intended, at the time, to give the Harper
government an opportunity to introduce a series of improvements to
the so-called New Veterans Charter, which -- among other things --
replaced lifetime pensions for serious injuries with lump-sum
awards and a patchwork of stipends.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, says those changes --
along with new measures introduced in the Liberal budget and the
promise of a return to the lifetime pension -- may be enough for
them to drop the case.

He says a meeting involving the minister, senior Veterans Affairs
officials and lawyers for the Department of Justice, brought them
close to a settlement, but the ex-soldiers want to see the federal
government acknowledge its commitments in writing.

"We told the minister that we didn't need another Rotary Club
meeting where he goes around and shakes hands and says how nice
everybody is," Mr. Sorochan told The Canadian Press.  "We wanted
to get a firm commitment from them about what their intentions are
to implement the (minister's) mandate letter."

After being sworn in last November, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent
Hehr was ordered, in writing, by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to
implement the Liberals' campaign promises and
Mr. Sorochan says the measures outlined in the mandate letter
satisfy the grievances of his clients.

The Liberal budget poured $5.6 billion into veterans programs over
six years, but it did not restore lifetime pensions.

Since there are thousands of veterans who come under the umbrella
of the new system, Mr. Sorochan says it's only natural that the
government is trying to figure out how to straighten out the
system in a way that's fair to everybody.

Grits did not restore lifetime pensions

"My guys are quite happy with the way it is going," Mr. Sorochan
said, referring to both the regulatory changes and the amount of
consultation federal officials have done with the ex-soldiers.

Indeed, Mr. Trudeau's commitment to wounded soldiers was on full
display on May 2 in Toronto as he joined Prince Harry for events
marking the countdown to the 2017 Invictus Games.

He underlined the government's recent commitments

"Our soldiers deserve the greatest attention and much compassion
from their nation," Mr. Trudeau said.  "They embody the best of
the Canadian identity and have won our respect and our gratitude
forever."

Lawsuit caused trouble for Tories

Aside from embarrassing Conservatives among their core political
constituency, the way federal lawyers defended the lawsuit three
years ago caused enormous political damage.

Their statement of defense made clear that the federal government
believed it had no special obligation to soldiers and that
promises of care for the wounded, dating back to the First World
War, were political statements not binding on present or future
governments.

Mr. Sorochan says the language has since been modified, but he
believes the debate strikes at the heart of the Constitution in
the sense that it would be impossible for a nation to raise a
citizen's army during war -- or even a peacetime volunteer force -
- without some kind of assurance that the wounded and the families
of the fallen would receive special attention.


CARMIKE CINEMAS: Faces Securities Class Action in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
Tony Adams, writing for Ledger-Enquirer, reports that Carmike
Cinemas, on the path to being purchased by AMC Entertainment
Holdings, reported on May 2 a profit of $2.2 million, or 9 cents
per share, on total operating revenue of $206.2 million in the
first quarter of 2016.

That was up from a profit, or net income, of $391,000, or 2 cents
per share, on total operating revenue of $184.3 million in the
January-March period of 2015.

"Our first-quarter results reflect a favorable U.S. box office
environment that included blockbuster releases, as well as the
successful execution of our theater-level initiatives and the
effective integration of recent acquisitions," Carmike President
and Chief Executive Officer David Passman said in a statement.

The May 2 earnings release follows the March 3 announcement by
Columbus-based Carmike and Leawood, Kan.-based AMC that they had
signed an agreement in which AMC will acquire the smaller theater
chain in a deal valued at $1.1 billion.  The purchase is pending
approval by federal regulators and shareholders.  A class-action
lawsuit was filed recently in U.S. District Court claiming the
$30-per-share that AMC has pledged to pay Carmike shareholders is
too low.

Carmike issued its quarterly earnings report on May 2 after the
stock markets closed. In earlier trading, its shares slipped 8
cents, or 0.2 percent, to $29.91, the general vicinity its stock
has been treading since the major acquisition announcement.  The
stock's 52-week range is $18.52 to $32.70 per share.

Major numbers in the report showed the theater firm's theater-
level cash flow rising from $35.5 million to $43.1 million and
operating income climbing from $12 million to $15.6 million in the
quarter year over year.  Revenue from ticket admissions and
concessions both rose, as did film exhibition and concession
costs, salaries and benefits, and theater occupancy expenses --
all indicative of a theater chain that has grown since
Mr. Passman took the helm in June 2009.

That growth has included new theaters constructed in leased
buildings and acquisitions of smaller theater company's movie
complexes.  The company also has renovated some of its older
theaters along the way.  As of March 31, Carmike operated 276
theaters and 2.947 screens in 41 states. It's total debt stands at
$463.3 million, up from $454.7 million at the end of December.

"Our focus on delivering differentiated food and beverage
offerings and innovative dining concepts supported strong first
quarter concessions and other spending per patron, marking 25
consecutive reporting periods of year-over-year concessions and
other per patron spending growth," Mr. Passman said.  "Carmike's
14 percent increase in total concessions and other revenues and 12
percent rise in concessions and other spending per patron again
highlight the value of our strategies to drive food, beverage and
concession growth."

The theater firm reported average admissions revenue per customer
of $7.80, with average concessions of $5.31 per person.

"In summary, we are pleased with the first quarter financial and
operating performance . . . and remain optimistic that the
positive consumer, economic and box office environments will
continue for the remainder of 2016," Mr. Passman said.

Typically, after its earnings reports are released, Carmike
conducts a conference call and webcast with Wall Street analysts
who track the firm and its industry.  It said recently that no
call would be held this quarter in light of its pending buyout by
AMC Entertainment, which operates AMC Theatres.

Class-action lawsuit

Not everyone is happy with the acquisition terms.  San Diego-based
law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP filed the class-action lawsuit April
25 on behalf of John Solak and "all others similarly situated" in
the Columbus division of U.S. District Court of the Middle
District of Georgia.  The suit names Columbus-based Carmike, its
board of directors, AMC Entertainment Holdings and Congress Merger
Subsidiary Inc., alleging U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
violations.

Mr. Solak, using Robbins Arroyo and its attorney Darnell Donahue,
alleges the defendants in the lawsuit filed a preliminary proxy
statement with the SEC that contained "materially false and
misleading" information in order to gain support of shareholders
for the sale.  It says the filing did not have enough information
for shareholders to make an "informed decision" concerning the
sale of Carmike.

Specifically, according to court documents, the plaintiff alleges
that Carmike and its board are not receiving fair-market value for
the company based on previous theater acquisitions in the
industry.  It also notes that analysts who follow Carmike, AMC and
others in the motion-picture exhibition sector have placed target
prices of between $33 and $36 per share on the company's stock.

"Despite Carmike's continued success and impressive admissions
revenues per screen growth, defendants agreed to sell the company
to AMC for a meager purchase price per screen of only $372,376,"
the court filing says, pointing toward the median per screen price
of $497,002 and average per screen price of $544,632 in six other
theater industry transactions since 2012.

"We believe this suit is without merit and intend to defend
ourselves vigorously," Carmike said through a public relations
firm.

The legal filing by Robbins Arroyo said the lawsuit is open to
those owning stock shares as of March 3, and asks for anyone who
wishes to serve as a lead plaintiff to step forward within 60 days
of April 28.

Robbins Arroyo LLP, in a release, said it has gained more than $1
billion for shareholders and investors in previous lawsuits it has
spearheaded. Major moves by companies, including sales and
critical decisions made by management and boards of directors,
often are the target of law firms seeking to file suits on behalf
of shareholders.

Carmike Cinemas and AMC Entertainment Holdings have said they
expect the acquisition to be completed before the end of this
year.  The Columbus company has roughly 8,000 employees, all but
the corporate staff working inside its movie complexes scattered
across the country.


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Provides Updates on Texas and Delaware Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CECO Environmental Corp., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, provided updates on Texas and
Delaware class action lawsuits.

Since the public announcement of the proposed Mergers on May 4,
2015, CECO, Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II, PMFG and the members of
the PMFG Board have been named as defendants in three lawsuits
related to the Mergers, which were filed by alleged stockholders
of PMFG on May 17, 2015, June 29, 2015 and July 17, 2015. The
first filed lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also
purports to assert class claims, was filed in the District Court
of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and
third filed lawsuits, which are class actions, were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and have now been
consolidated into a single action (the "Delaware Lawsuit," and
collectively with the Texas Lawsuit, the "Lawsuits"). In the
Lawsuits, the plaintiffs generally allege that the Mergers fail to
properly value PMFG, that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, and that those
breaches were aided and abetted by CECO, Merger Sub I and Merger
Sub II.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, (a)
that the PMFG Board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Mergers for inadequate consideration and pursuant to a tainted
process by (1) agreeing to lock up the Mergers with deal
protection devices that, notwithstanding the ability of PMFG to
solicit actively alternative transactions, prevent other bidders
from making a successful competing offer for PMFG, (2)
participating in a transaction where the loyalties of the PMFG
Board and management are divided, and (3) relying on financial and
legal advisors who plaintiffs allege were conflicted; (b) that
those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by CECO,
Merger Sub I, Merger Sub II and PMFG, and (c) that the disclosure
provided in the registration statement filed by CECO on June 9,
2015 was inadequate in a number of respects.

In the Lawsuits, the plaintiffs sought, among other things, (a) to
enjoin the defendants from completing the Mergers on the agreed-
upon terms, (b) rescission, to the extent already implemented, of
the Merger Agreement or any of the terms therein, and (c) costs
and disbursements and attorneys' and experts' fees, as well as
other equitable relief as the courts deem proper.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, PMFG and the other defendants
entered a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the Delaware Lawsuit.
In connection with this memorandum of understanding, PMFG agreed
to make certain additional disclosures to PMFG's stockholders in
order to supplement those contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus. After PMFG enters into a definitive
agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit, the
proposed settlement will be subject to notice to the class, Court
approval, and, if the Court approves the settlement, the
settlement, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, will
resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in
the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims relating to the
decision to enter into the Mergers, entry of the Merger Agreement
and any disclosure made in connection therewith including any such
claims against CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but did not
affect any stockholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights. It is
expected that the resolution of the Delaware Lawsuit will also
resolve the Texas Lawsuit, which was stayed voluntarily by the
plaintiff, but placed on Texas court's two-week docket for a non-
jury trial on August 15, 2016.

On March 2, 2016, the Texas Lawsuit plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Nonsuit Without Prejudice.

On February 22, 2016, the Delaware Court asked the parties to
submit a status report regarding the Delaware Lawsuit no later
than March 14, 2016.

On August 24, 2015, PMFG made a filing with the SEC on Form 8-K
satisfying its obligations under the memorandum of understanding
to make additional disclosures to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the Mergers, dated as of July 31,
2015.

The memorandum of understanding was not, and should not be
construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any
defendant.

The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-
related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local
tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business.  The
final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and
investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to
many variables, and cannot be predicted.


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 15 Billion Class Action Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "In March 2015, a
purported class action was filed against us, by plaintiffs
alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming compensation
for non monetary damages in connection with allegations that we
unlawfully violated the privacy of our subscribers. The amount
claimed from us, if the lawsuit is certified as class action is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS 15 billion."

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


CELLCOM ISRAEL: 013 Netvision Still Faces Class Action Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "In August 2015 a
purported class action was filed against 013 Netvision Ltd., or
Netvision, and three other defendants, alleging that another
defendant unlawfully sold the other defendants, including
Netvision, private data of its customers, which was used by the
other defendants to approach such customers with commercial
proposals. The amount claimed from each of the defendants
allegedly purchasing the data, including Netvision, if the lawsuit
is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to
be NIS 1000 for each customer whose private data it allegedly
purchased and/or each approach made to such customers, the total
of which was assessed by the plaintiff to be approximately 1.5
million customers."

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


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Still Faces NIS 13 Billion Class Action Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "In December 2015, a
purported class action was filed against us and two other Israeli
cellular operators, alleging that the defendants unlawfully offer
cellular pre-paid calling cards for very high prices by allegedly
coordinating such prices. The total amount claimed from all
defendants, including us, if the lawsuit is certified as a class
action, was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 13
billion (out of which, based on the data specified in the lawsuit
by the plaintiff, an estimated amount of approximately NIS 6.7
billion is claimed from us)."

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


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: "Hampton" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikyamicha Hampton and Marquine S. Williams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Centene
Management Company, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04693 (N.D.
Ill., April 27, 2016), seeks recovery of all back wages due,
statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred and
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Defendant operates a call center in Westmont, Illinois where
Hampton and Williams worked as call center agents. They claim to
have been denied overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 201-0575

           - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 726-3400


CERAGON NETWORKS: Parties Debate Plaintiffs' Right for Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in a class
action lawsuit are now debating the Plaintiffs right for
discovery.

On January 5, 2015, a motion to approve a purported class action,
naming the Company, its chief executive officer and its directors
as defendants, was filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv
(Economic Department), on behalf of holders of ordinary shares,
including those who purchased shares during the period following
the Company's follow on public offering in July 2014.

The purported class action is based on Israeli law and alleges
breaches of duties by the company and its management, by making
false and misleading statements in the company's SEC filings and
public statements, during the period between July and October
2014. The plaintiff's principal claim is that immediately prior to
the follow on public offering, the defendants presented misleading
guidance concerning the expected financial results for the third
quarter of 2014, indicating an anticipated improvement in the rate
of gross profit based on orders which were already received by the
Company at the time of such presentation. Although the plaintiff
admits that, in accordance with the actual results for the third
quarter, the Company did meet the guidance as far as revenues were
concerned, the actual rate of gross profit turned out to be much
lower than the one anticipated. Plaintiff argues that at the time
such guidance was presented by the defendants, they already knew,
or should have known, that it was incorrect. The plaintiff seeks
specified compensatory damages in a sum of up to $75,000,000, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The motion was received by the Company on January 6, 2015 and the
Company filed its defense on June 21, 2015. The parties are now
debating the Plaintiffs right for discovery. The Company filed its
response to the plaintiff's request for discovery on January 25,
2016 and the plaintiffs submitted their response on February 24,
2016.

Once the court decides in relation to discovery, it is expected
that a date for submission of plaintiff's response to the
Company's defense will be set. The initial procedure, i.e. until
the District Court decides whether to approve the motion or to
deny it, has been conducted for over a year now, and it is
difficult to estimate how long it is expected to last. The Company
believes that the District Court should deny the motion.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Cert. Bid for State Law Classes Due May 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
22, 2016, that the motion for Rule 23 class certification of the
California, Connecticut, Missouri, and North Carolina state-law
classes is currently due from plaintiffs in May 2016 in the
Strauch et al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
the Company violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) with respect to system administrators who worked for the
Company at any time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs
claim that the Company improperly classified its system
administrators as exempt from the FLSA and that the Company
therefore owes them overtime wages and associated relief available
under the FLSA and various statutes, including the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair Competition Law,
California Labor Code, California Wage Order No. 4-2001, and the
California Private Attorneys General Act.  The relief sought by
plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in the amount of
twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil penalties.

The Company's position is that its system administrators have the
job duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and
are properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements. The Company's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in
February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 4,000 system administrators. Courts typically undertake a
two-stage review in determining whether a suit may proceed as a
class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court noted that,
as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and affidavits, and
if it finds that proposed class members are similarly situated,
the class is conditionally certified. Potential class members are
then notified and given an opportunity to opt-in to the action.
The second step of the class certification analysis occurs upon
completion of discovery. At that point, the Court will examine all
evidence then in the record to determine whether there is a
sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed class members are
similarly situated. If it is determined that they are, the case
will proceed to trial; if it is determined they are not, the class
is decertified and only the individual claims of the purported
class representatives proceed.

The Company's position in this litigation continues to be that the
employees identified as belonging to the conditional class were
paid in accordance with the FLSA.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add additional plaintiffs
and allege violations under Missouri and North Carolina wage and
hour laws. We do not believe these additional claims differ
materially from those in the original complaint. The next stage in
the litigation will be a motion for Rule 23 class certification of
the California, Connecticut, Missouri, and North Carolina state-
law classes.  That motion is currently due from plaintiffs in May
2016.


CONFORMIS INC: Lead Plaintiff Filed Consolidated Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ConforMIS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit has file a consolidated amended complaint.

The Company said, "On September 3, 2015, a purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us, our chief executive
officer, and chief financial officer in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought
on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common
stock in connection with our initial public offering or on the
open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015, which we
refer to as the class period."

"On November 2, 2015, two motions were filed on behalf of persons
seeking to be named as lead plaintiff in the litigation. On
November 10, 2015, the Court granted one petition, denied the
other, and set a deadline for lead plaintiff to file a
consolidated amended complaint, which the lead plaintiff filed on
January 11, 2016.

"The consolidated amended complaint purports to allege claims
arising under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because the defendants allegedly made
misrepresentations or did not make proper disclosures regarding
our manufacturing process prior to our voluntary recall of
specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for
certain of our knee replacement product systems.

"Specifically, the complaint alleges that statements made during
the class period were false and misleading because our
manufacturing processes purportedly were flawed and, as a result
of such flaws, a number of our knee replacement product systems
were defective. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
certification of the class, unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

"We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit,
and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. There can be no
assurance, however, that we will be successful. An adverse outcome
of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our
business, financial condition or results of operations. We are
presently unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any, related
to the lawsuit. Additional complaints also may be filed against us
and our directors and officers related to our voluntary recall of
specific serial numbers of patient-specific instrumentation for
our iUni, iDuo, iTotal CR and iTotal PS knee replacement product
systems."


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Frozen Organic Sweet Peas
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 23, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10556

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. is recalling Organic by Nature brand
frozen Organic Sweet Peas from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold by Costco warehouse locations
in British Colombia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

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

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product,
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommends contacting
your doctor.

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

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country.  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       ---
  ----     ------               ----------
  Organic  Sweet Peas-  2.5 kg  Best by       8 46358 00061 9
  by       Organic              dates:
  Nature   (frozen)             10.22.17
                                12.03.17
                                03.16.18

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


CREDIT SUISSE: $110MM RMBS Case Deal Awaits Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse Group AG said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement of US$110
million in a class action lawsuit is still subject to final
approval.

In class actions and putative class actions against CSS LLC as an
underwriter of other issuers' RMBS offerings, CSS LLC generally
has or had contractual rights to indemnification from the issuers.
However, some of these issuers are now defunct, including
affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp (IndyMac). With respect to IndyMac,
CSS LLC was named as a defendant in a class action, In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, in the SDNY, brought on
behalf of purchasers of securities in various IndyMac RMBS
offerings. CSS LLC and five other underwriter defendants agreed to
a settlement of the IndyMac class action for a total of USD 340
million.

In an order dated September 30, 2014, the SDNY granted preliminary
approval to the settlement and held a final approval hearing on
February 3, 2015.

On February 23, 2015, the SDNY entered a final judgment and order
of dismissal with prejudice, discontinuing the In re IndyMac
Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. A further class action
lawsuit pending in the SDNY against CSS LLC and certain affiliates
and employees, New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Home Equity
Mortgage Trust 2006-5, relates to two RMBS offerings, totaling
approximately USD 1.6 billion, sponsored and underwritten by the
Credit Suisse defendants.

On March 17, 2014, the SDNY granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for the second of the two RMBS offerings, having
previously certified the class for purchasers of the first
offering.

The parties have agreed to a settlement of USD 110 million. In an
order dated January 6, 2016, the SDNY granted preliminary approval
of the settlement, which is still subject to final approval.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Varela" Case Not Successful
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that a mediation held in the
"Varela" lawsuit has been unsuccessful.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 ("Varela") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside. In the original complaint, the Varela plaintiff alleges
that he and other "key carriers" were not provided with meal and
rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages,
pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs and seeks to represent a putative class of California "key
carriers" as to these claims. The Varela plaintiff also asserts a
claim for unfair business practices and seeks to proceed under
California's Private Attorney General Act (the "PAGA"). The
Company filed its answer to the complaint on July 1, 2013.

On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended
complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and
to add putative class claims on behalf of "key carriers" for
alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide
appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law.
The Company filed its answer to the amended complaint on December
23, 2014. The parties have been ordered to engage in informal
discovery. A mediation was held in November 2015, which was
unsuccessful.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Pleasant" Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that a lawsuit filed by Kendra
Pleasant has been stayed.

On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar
General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50
("Pleasant") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff
seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of
California's Labor Code. Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that
she and other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level
employees were not paid for all time worked, provided meal and
rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and
provided with accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid
wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

On March 12, 2015, the Company filed a demurrer asking the court
to stay all proceedings in the Pleasant matter pending an issuance
of a final judgment in the Varela matter. The court granted the
Company's demurrer and stayed proceedings until resolution of the
Varela matter. Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to
transfer this matter to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside where the Varela matter is
pending, which the Company opposed. The court denied the Pleasant
plaintiff's motion to transfer.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Says Mediation in "Sullivan" Case Not Successful
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that mediation conducted in
early March 2016 in the "Sullivan" lawsuit was unsuccessful.

On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 100 ("Sullivan") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other
similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the
State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees
and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage
statements in violation of California law. The Sullivan plaintiff
also alleges that she and other California store employees were
not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in
violation of California law. The plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory penalties,
interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
filed its answer on the same date. On April 29, 2015, the Sullivan
plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the PAGA. The
Company's response to the amended complaint was filed on May 14,
2015. The plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed on
March 12, 2016. The matter has been set for trial on October 31,
2016. A mediation conducted in early March 2016 was unsuccessful.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Facing Class Actions Related to Motor Oil Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 29, 2016, that the Company has been
named as defendant in class action lawsuits related to the sale of
motor oil.

In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs allege violation of state consumer protection
laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar
General private-label motor oil. Six of these lawsuits were filed
in various federal district courts of the United States: Bradford
Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015) ("Barfoot");
Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General Corporation (filed in the
Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) ("Cooke");
William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for
New Jersey on December 17, 2015) ("Flinn"); John J. McCormick, III
v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on
December 23, 2015) ("McCormick"); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Central District of California on December 17, 2015)
("Sanchez"); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) ("Sisemore").

The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC ("Hill"), was
filed in Orleans County Superior Court in Vermont on December 22,
2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016.

In February and March 2016, the Company was notified of thirteen
additional lawsuits alleging similar claims concerning Dollar
General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were filed
in various federal district courts of the United States: Allen
Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in
the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016) ("Brown"); Miriam
Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed
in the Southern District of Ohio on February 10, 2016)
("Fruhling"); John Foppe v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky on
February 10, 2016) ("Foppe"); Kevin Gadson v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Southern District of New York on February 8, 2016)
("Gadson"); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern
District of Michigan on February 8, 2016) ("Gooel"); Janine Harvey
v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
District Court for Nebraska on February 10, 2016) ("Harvey");
Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC
(filed in the District of Kansas on February 9, 2016) ("Meyer");
Robert Oren v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Western District of Missouri on February 8, 2016)
("Oren"); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar General Corporation and DG
Retail, LLC (filed in the District Court for Minnesota on February
9, 2016) ("Sheehy"); Gerardo Solis v. Dollar General Corporation
and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
February 12, 2016) ("Solis"); Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Central District of California on February 8, 2016)
("Vega"); Matthew Wait v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of Arkansas on
February 16, 2016) ("Wait"); and James Taschner v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of
Missouri on March 15, 2016) ("Taschner").

The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to
proceed on a nationwide and statewide class basis, while the
plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a
statewide class basis. Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or
herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent, some
or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive
relief prohibiting the sale of the products at issue and requiring
the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
his complaint without prejudice.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and a
motion to strike the class allegations in the Barfoot matter on
February 4, 2016; in the Hill matter on February 8, 2016; in the
Cooke matter on February 24, 2016; in the Sisemore matter on
March 4, 2016; and in the Flinn matter on March 10, 2016.

On March 7, 2016, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation requesting that
all cases be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, or, in the alternative to the
Western District of Missouri or the Southern District of Florida,
for consolidated pretrial proceedings ("Motion to Transfer").
After receiving notice of the Company's Motion to Transfer, the
court stayed and administratively closed the Barfoot matter
pending a transfer decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

The Company's responsive pleadings were due in the McCormick
matter on March 21, 2016; in the Fruhling matter on April 4, 2016;
in the Meyer matter on April 6, 2016; in the Sheehy matter on
April 7, 2016; in the Solis matter on April 8, 2016; in the Foppe
matter and Gooel matter on April 15, 2016; and in the Harvey, Oren
and Vega matters on April 22, 2016.

The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its
private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state
requirements and is not misleading. The Company further believes
that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar
treatment. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions;
however, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether any
of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class or the size
of any putative class. Likewise, at this time, it is not possible
to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no assurances
can be given that the Company will be successful in its defense of
these actions on the merits or otherwise. For these reasons, the
Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or range of loss
in these matters; however if the Company is not successful in its
defense efforts, the resolution of any of these actions could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements as a whole.


DOLLARAMA INC: Recalls Mandarin Oranges in Light Syrup
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Dollarama Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10452

  Brand       Common    Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  name        name      ----    product         ---
  -----       ------            ----------
  Fruitropic  Broken    284 ml  LH 11 ZC 2017   0 63205 19907 8
              Segments          DE 11 and
              Mandarin          LH 15 ZC 2017
              Oranges           DE 15
              in Light
              Syrup


ERIN ENERGY: Faces Class Action and Derivative Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Erin Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action and
derivative complaint was filed on February 5, 2016, in the
Delaware Chancery Court purportedly on behalf of the Company and
on behalf of a putative class of persons who were stockholders as
of the date the Company (1) acquired the Allied Assets pursuant to
the Transfer Agreement and (2) issued shares to the PIC in a
private placement (collectively the "February 2014 Transactions").

The Company said, "The complaint alleges the February 2014
Transactions were unfair to the Company and purports to assert
derivative claims against (1) the seven individuals who served on
our Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions and (2)
our majority shareholder, CEHL.  The complaint also purports to
assert a direct breach of fiduciary duty claim on behalf of the
putative class against the seven individuals who served on our
Board at the time of the February 2014 Transactions on the grounds
that they purportedly caused the Company to disseminate a false
and misleading proxy statement in connection with the 2014
Transactions, and a direct claim for aiding and abetting against
Dr. Lawal.  The plaintiff is seeking, on behalf of the Company and
the putative class, an undisclosed amount of compensatory damages.
The Company is named solely as a nominal defendant against whom
the plaintiff seeks no recovery."


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Texts to Recycled Numbers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook Inc. on
April 26 was hit with a class action claiming the company sends
spam text messages to people who get assigned cellphone numbers
that used to belong to Facebook users.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California by lawyers at privacy specialty firm Edelson P.C.,
highlights the headaches created for online communication services
like Facebook when cellular carriers recycle previously used phone
numbers.

The suit claims that when a Facebook user deactivates a phone
number and it gets reassigned, the company continues to send
automated text messages without the new owner's consent.  The suit
claims that the unwanted messages violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), which carries damages of $500 per
violation, a number which can be tripled in cases of willful
violations.

"Despite knowing that its text messages violate the TCPA,
[Facebook] continues to send thousands of text messages to
recycled numbers without the text recipients' consent," wrote
Edelson's Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- in the April 26 17-
page class action complaint.  "Facebook's ongoing text messaging
is hardly surprising given that each text message sent by Facebook
has the potential to directly increase its advertising revenues,"
he wrote.

Consumer-facing technology companies have become big targets for
TCPA litigation.  Earlier in April, plaintiffs lawyers with the
Kazerouni Law Group sued PayPal Inc. for alleged TCPA violations.
Lawyers for a Florida woman who sued Facebook in late 2015 over
unwanted texts informed the court April 5 that they have reached a
settlement.  Facebook is represented in that case by Kirkland &
Ellis.

The Edelson suit seeks to certify a class of cellphone users who
received text messages from Facebook without consent and a
separate class of people who made an express attempt to get
Facebook to stop sending the texts that was ignored.  The lawsuit
asks that Facebook be barred from any future telemarketing until
it establishes an internal "do not call" list as required under
the TCPA.

In a phone interview on April 27, Edelson partner
Christopher Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- said the suit's name
plaintiff, Christine Holt of Washington, D.C., made multiple
attempts to stop a "barrage" of text messages from Facebook.

"This is something that is a known issue.  There are known
solutions," Mr. Dore said.

A Facebook spokesperson didn't immediately respond to an email
message seeking comment.


FOOT LOCKER: Appeal in "Osberg" Case Pending
--------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is appealing
the Court's decision in Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion. Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description.

The trial was held in July 2015 and the court issued a decision in
September 2015 in favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The
court ordered that the Plan be reformed. The Company is appealing
the court's decision, and the judgment has been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

As a result of this development, the Company has determined that
it is probable a liability exists. The Company's reasonable
estimate of this liability is a range between $100 million and
$200 million, with no amount within that range more probable than
any other amount. Therefore, in accordance with U.S. GAAP, the
Company recorded a charge of $100 million pre-tax ($61 million
after-tax) in the third quarter of 2015. This amount has been
classified as a long-term liability. The Company will continue to
vigorously defend itself in this case. In light of the
uncertainties involved in this matter, there is no assurance that
the ultimate resolution will not differ from the amount currently
accrued by the Company.


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Automatic Transmission
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for CarsGuide, reports that an automatic
transmission designed to save fuel has increased complaints among
Ford customers who claim it's not a smooth operator.

More than 60,000 Ford cars in Australia may be the subject of a
new class action because of a transmission that lawyers claim is
"unsafe to drive".

Ford's twin-clutch automatic -- a similar design to those used in
Volkswagens -- is fitted to its Fiesta hatchback, Focus small car
and Ecosport SUV.

According to Bannister Law, which is proposing the Class Action,
the transmission is "defective" because it "slips, bucks, jerks,
and harshly engages when driven".

The proposed action only includes Fiesta, Focus and Ecosport
models made from 2011 to 2014, even though two of the three cars
on sale on May 3 continue with the same transmission.

Ford replaced the transmission in the Focus to a regular automatic
with an update introduced last year.

"Customers who've contacted us believe there is clearly a problem
with this particular gearbox, some people have returned to
dealerships to get their cars fixed up to 10 times for repair or
replacement, while others are being asked to sign confidentiality
agreements in order to get a refund," said Charles Bannister --
charles@bannisterlaw.com.au -- the principal of Bannister Law.

"We believe these faults constitute major defects and trigger a
full refund under Australian Consumer Law."

On a website inviting owners of affected vehicle to register their
interest, a statement from Bannister Law says: "some consumers are
concerned that, as a result of their experiences on the road,
their vehicles are unsafe to drive".

The law firm says it will start the Class Action "should Ford not
agree to compensate customers appropriately".

A statement from Ford Australia said: "Ford is committed to
providing its customers with top quality vehicles.  We are equally
committed to addressing potential issues and responding quickly
for our customers".

The car maker said it has "addressed the majority of our
customers' questions and are pleased with our ongoing improvement
in customer satisfaction levels".

A Ford representative said Ford's "PowerShift" transmission uses
an "advanced configuration that provides exceptional powertrain
efficiency, along with the potential for unique shift feel
compared with conventional automatics".


GAMESTOP CORP: Agreed to Pay $72,500 to Plaintiff's Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------
GameStop Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, that the
Company has agreed to pay $72,500 to plaintiff's counsel in full
satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in
the action.

As disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, by GameStop
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("GameStop" or "Parent"), Parent
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, by and among Parent,
Gadget Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Purchaser") and Geeknet Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company" or "Geeknet"), pursuant to which, among
other things, Purchaser commenced a cash tender offer for all the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock.

On June 10, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported Geeknet stockholder in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court") challenging the transaction and
alleging that the defendant companies-GameStop, Purchaser, and
Geeknet-and individual members of Geeknet's Board of Directors
violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties
and/or aiding and abetting such breaches.  The plaintiff sought
among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as
fees and costs.  The case is titled Aich v. McCarthy, C.A. No.
11133-VCN.

After limited discovery, the plaintiff and defendants agreed on
certain additional disclosures to the Company's Schedule 14D-9
filed on June 15, 2015, which were made in Amendment No. 3 to the
Schedule 14D-9 on July 7, 2015, and the plaintiff withdrew his
motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger.

On February 11, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation under which
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice as to
himself and without prejudice as to the putative class members.
The Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
adjudicating plaintiff's counsel's anticipated application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in
connection with the disclosures in the July 7, 2015 Amendment
No. 3.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $72,500 to plaintiff's
counsel in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees
and expenses in the action.  The Court has not been asked to
review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of a fee or its
reasonableness.


GASTRONOMIA: Recalls Michel et Augustin Cookies Due to Almond
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Gastronomia
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Gastronomia is recalling Michel et Augustin brand Super Cookies
with melty middle from the marketplace because it may contain
almond which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy
to almond should not consume the recalled product described below.

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

If you have an allergy to almond, 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 a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand     Common name    Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name      -----------    ----    product       ---
  -----                           ----------
  Michel    Super Cookies  180 g   Best before   3760122961708
  et        with melty             31/12/2016
  Augustin  middle -
            Milk chocolate
            and hazelnuts

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


GASTRONOMIA: Updates Michel et Augustin Cookies Recall
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Gastronomia
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10535

The food recall warning issued on April 14, 2016 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Gastronomia is recalling Michel et Augustin brand Super Cookies
with melty middle from the marketplace because it may contain
almond which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy
to almond should not consume the recalled product described below.

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

If you have an allergy to almond, 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 a recall in another country. 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 name    Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name      -----------    ----    product       ---
  -----                            ----------
  Michel    Super Cookies  180 g   All dates     3760122961708
  et        with melty             from 04/2016
  Augustin  middle -               up to and
            Milk chocolate         including
            and hazelnuts          12/2016

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1rqLE4


GHIRINGHELLI SPECIALTY: Recalls Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad
----------------------------------------------------------
Ghiringhelli Specialty Foods, a Vallejo, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 33,610 pounds of Broccoli Slaw & Kale
Salad with White Chicken Meat product that may be adulterated with
Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Trader Joe's Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad with White Chicken
Meat product that is affected by this recall was produced April 26
through May 1, 2016, and has "USE BY" labels on the plastic
packaging containing dates 05/02 through 05/07. The following
products are subject to recall:

9.3-OZ. clear plastic container packages with the label "Trader
Joe's Broccoli Slaw & Kale Salad with White Chicken Meat;
Sunflower Seeds, Cranberries and a sweet & Spicy Vinaigrette."
The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-17156"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
Trader Joe's distributors in Arizona, California, Nevada, and
Utah.

The problem was discovered on May 3, 2016, when the company's
vendor of sunflower seeds notified the company that the product
might have been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. There
have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. According to the recalling firm,
all affected product has been removed from the market channels.
FSIS will verify removal through recall effectiveness checks.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects
older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant
women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these
risk groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

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.
FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Mike Ghiringhelli, Jr., General Manager, at (707) 561-7670
extension 105.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Issacharoff Files Brief in Avandia Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that New York
University law professor Samuel Issacharoff filed a brief in his
fourth U.S. Supreme Court case of the term, once again standing up
for class action plaintiffs.  This time, Issacharoff's client is a
union benefits fund prosecuting a racketeering class action
against GlaxoSmithKline for allegedly defrauding private insurers
by falsely marketing the diabetes drug Avandia.  If Issacharoff is
successful -- as he has been in his three other cases this term --
the justices will decide not to take the case.

Mr. Issacharoff's record this year cements his reputation as the
man to see if you don't want the Supreme Court to grant certiorari
in your class action. It's an unusual specialty within the already
constricted niche of Supreme Court litigation, but Mr. Issacharoff
seems to have mastered the art of dampening the justices' interest
in tough class action issues, even those the court has
highlighted.

In Wells Fargo v. Gutierrez, for instance, Wells Fargo's lawyers
at Covington & Burling argued in a last-minute brief in March that
the Supreme Court should hear its challenge to a $203 million
judgment for Californians suing over the bank's overdraft policies
in order to clear up lingering uncertainty over the constitutional
standing of supposedly uninjured plaintiffs.  The justices took up
that question in this term's Tyson v. Bouaphakeo, and held the
Wells Fargo cert petition until the court decided Tyson.  The bank
said its case could answer the standing questions the Tyson ruling
didn't end up addressing. Issacharoff and class counsel from Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein countered that standing wasn't even
at issue in the case because the trial judge determined every
class member was injured by Wells Fargo's policies.

The other cert petitions Mr. Issacharoff squelched this term
featured a clear split between federal circuits on the emerging
issue of whether class actions can be certified without objective
criteria to identify potential class members, aside from
plaintiffs' affidavits.  The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has
said classes may not be certified if affidavits are the only way
to ascertain class membership. The 7th Circuit, however,
explicitly repudiated the 3rd Circuit's ascertainability standard
in July 2015.  The circuit split led to two different cert
petitions, one by Direct Digital, the class action defendant in
the 7th Circuit case; the other by Procter & Gamble, the loser in
a 6th Circuit decision that adopted the 7th Circuit view of
ascertainability.

Mr. Issacharoff was counsel of record for the class in both cases
-- and in both, he argued that defendants were ignoring facts to
try to arouse the justices' ideological interest.  The Direct
Digital and P&G cases involved nutritional supplements that were
sold with allegedly deceptive ads. Most purchasers, according to
the cert opposition briefs, were identifiable through the
defendants' own records.  Even if ascertainability is under debate
among the circuits, Mr. Issacharoff's briefs said, neither the
Direct Digital nor P&G cases is the right vehicle for Supreme
Court review.

Similarly, the new opposition brief in the GlaxoSmithKline Avandia
case argues that the Supreme Court should focus on underlying
facts and not allow the defendant and its amici to engage in class
action fear-mongering.  "There is one overriding problem with this
account of innocents adrift in the land of rapacious lawsuits,"
the brief said.  "Petitioner and all three of its amici must
withhold the fact -- reported all over the public record -- that
(GSK) pled guilty to criminal charges and agreed to pay the
government $3 billion in what is the largest settlement ever
against a pharmaceutical company."

The theme of all of Mr. Issacharoff's cert opposition briefs is
that facts unique to a particular case overwhelm broader class
action issues.  His briefs concentrate on the message that
specific lower-court rulings are routine and unremarkable, rather
than arguing broadly in defense of class actions.

Since Justice Antonin Scalia's death, many commentators have
speculated that the Supreme Court will be less inclined to
scrutinize class actions, and I should point out that all of
Mr. Issacharoff's successful cert oppositions this term have been
decided after Scalia died. But he fended off some big-business-
backed cert petitions while Justice Scalia was still alive,
including two related petitions in the infamous moldy washer
litigation.  If we're headed for a drought in class action cases
at the Supreme Court, at least part of the thanks -- or blame,
depending on your perspective -- should go to the NYU prof.

Mr. Issacharoff declined to comment for this story.


GREY PLUME: Recalls Charcuterie Meat Products
---------------------------------------------
The Grey Plume Provisions, LLC, an Omaha, Neb. establishment, is
recalling approximately 471 pounds of charcuterie meat products
that were produced, packaged, and distributed without the benefit
of federal inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The salami, soppressata, pepperoni, and chorizo items were
packaged on multiple dates between Aug. 4, 2015 and Feb. 11, 2016.
The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 1-lb. packages of "Dill Black Pepper Salami" with Batch
      #008 and "Best if used by" date of Nov. 11, 2016 listed on
      the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Fennel Salami" with Batch #004, Batch
      #005, Batch #006, and/or Batch #007 and "Best if used by"
      dates of June 22, 2016, Sept. 30, 2016, and/or Oct. 1, 2016
      listed on the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Pepperoni" with Batch #005 and "Best if
      used by" date of May 4, 2016 listed on the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Herbes De Provence Salami" with Batch
      #005, and/or Batch #006 and "Best if used by" dates of May
      10, 2016 and/or Sept. 29, 2016 listed on the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Soppressata" with Batch #005 and "Best
      if used by" date of May 4, 2016 listed on the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Red Wine Garlic Salami" with Batch #005,
      and/or Batch #006 and "Best if used by" dates of May 4,
      2016 and/or Sept. 30, 2016 listed on the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Gin and Juice Salami" with Batch #004
      and "Best if used by" date of Sept. 26, 2016 listed on the
      label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Chorizo" with Batch #006 and "Best if
      used by" date of Sept. 29, 2016 listed on the label.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Kaffir Lime Salami" with Batch #002,
      Batch #004, and/or Batch #005 and "Best if used by" dates
      of July 26, 2016, March 26, 2016 and/or Oct. 21, 2016
      listed on the label.

The products subject to recall do not bear the USDA mark of
inspection and were shipped to wholesale locations in Iowa and
Nebraska.

FSIS was alerted of charcuterie meat products produced without the
benefit of federal inspection by the Iowa Department of
Agriculture.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
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.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Provisions by The Grey Plume at (402) 934-7690.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


GS WILCOX: Conn. Judge Denies Gorss' Motels Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Gorss Motels Inc. v. G.S. Wilcox & Co. et al, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00349-SRU (D. Conn.), Judge Stefan R. Underhill
denied, without prejudice, the motion to certify class and the
motion to stay.

The case alleges violation of the Telecommunications Act.

Gorss Motels Inc., a Connecticut Corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, is
represented by:

     Aytan Y. Bellin
     Bellin & Associates LLC
     85 Miles Avenue
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Tel: 914-358-5345
     Fax: 212-571-0284
     E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


HEILINDMIL-AERO: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. for Sexual Harassment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Mcneil, and in behalf of all other individuals similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Heilindmil-Aero LLC t/a and/or d/b/a
Interstate Connecting Components; Kelly Services, Inc., Brien
Burton and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, the Defendant, Case No. L-
001573-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), demands judgment
against the defendants with compensatory damages, non-economic
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees and any other relief the
Court deems equitable and just, under New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination (LAD) alleging sexual harassment and unlawful
discharge.

According to the complaint, between August and December 2015, on
approximately seven occasions, the Defendant Burton rubbed
Plaintiff's shoulders and placed his arm around her. The alleged
physical conduct was uninvited, unwelcomed and unappreciated. In
response, Plaintiff would shrug the Defendant Burton off her
shoulders and tell him that she did not like it. Plaintiff thereby
engaged in protected conduct under the LAD. When plaintiff would
reject his sexual advances, Defendant Burton would respond by
saying things such as, "Oh girl." Plaintiff also observed
defendant Burton rubbing the shoulders of and placing his arm
around other female employees.

Heilindmil-Aero was founded in 2012. The Company manufactures
electronic connectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700
          Facsimile: (856) 727 9797


HUNG GAY: Recalls Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10533

Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd. is recalling Bingquan brand and
Soyspring brand soy drinks from the marketplace because they may
contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an
allergy to milk 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, 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          ---
  -----     ------           ----------
  Bingquan  Ladies'  360 g   All codes where  6 901432 031287
            Soya             milk is not
            Drink            declared on the
                             label
  Soyspring No Added
            Sucrose
            Soya
            Drink
            (Powder) 200 g    All codes where  6 901432 031119
                              milk is not
                              declared on the
                              label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6qWsuJ


HUNG GAY: Updates Bingquan and Soyspring Soy Drinks Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10543

The food recall warning issued on April 14, 2016, has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Hung Gay Enterprises Ltd. is recalling Soyspring brand Ladies'
Soybean Drink from the marketplace because it may contain milk
which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk
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 milk, 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 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          ---
  -----      ------           ----------
  Soyspring  Ladies'  400g    All codes where  6 901432 031287
             Soya             milk is not
             Drink            declared on the
                              label


INTERCEPT PHARMA: Settles Securities Class Action for $55MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
On May 2, 2016, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or
the "Company") reached an agreement with the lead plaintiff to
seek Court approval of a proposed resolution of class action
litigation pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit, styled In re: Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, claimed that Intercept and certain of its
officers made material misrepresentations and/or omissions in
Intercept's disclosures regarding the early stopping of the Phase
2b FLINT trial of obeticholic acid in non-alcoholic
steatohepatitis, or NASH.  The lawsuit was filed by stockholders
claiming to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or
otherwise acquired Intercept common stock between January 9 and
January 10, 2014.  The lead plaintiff sought unspecified monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

The proposed settlement contemplates payment of $55 million, of
which $10 million will be funded by the Company's insurers. Under
the proposed settlement, the defendants do not admit any
liability.  The defendants also continue to deny all allegations
against them and to maintain that the suit has no merit. It is
anticipated that the settlement will not have a material impact on
Intercept's business.

Following preliminary approval of the settlement, a notice will be
sent to class member with information regarding the terms of the
settlement, the plan for allocation and distribution of the
settlement funds, and claim procedures.  It is anticipated that
the process will take several months.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Defective Drug, Risperdal
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Saice, and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., aka Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a California company of unknown formation;
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., a California company of unknown
formation; Johnson & Johnson Pharamceutical Research &
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California company of unknown formation; Does
1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC618156 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 27, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages,
general damages, and punitive and exemplary damages, as a result
of the Defendants' alleged unlawful marketing and promotion of the
defective and unreasonably dangerous Drug, Risperdal (TM), which
was taken by Mr. Saice to treat his adolescent bi-polar syndrome
in or about 2012 and 2013.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was prescribed the
defective and dangerous drug, Risperdal (TM), which is also known
by the generic name Risperdone. As a result of taking the Drug,
Mr. Saice developed gynecomastia, or male breasts. The defendant
also developed tardif dyskenisia as a result of taking the drug.
Mr. Defendant stopped taking the Drug in or about 2013, but has
continued to experience deleterious side effects, including, but
not limited to, gynecomastia, delayed onset of puberty, delayed
and/or incomplete sexual development, impaired motor skills,
dyssomnia, enuresis, and other physical health issues and
emotional disturbances.

Risperdal (TM) is an antipsychotic medicine. The drug is used to
treat schizophrenia and symptoms of bipolar disorder (manic
depression).

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a pharmaceutical company of Johnson
& Johnson, provides medicines for an array of health concerns in
several therapeutic areas, including: attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), general medicine (acid reflux
disease, infectious diseases), mental health (bipolar I disorder,
schizophrenia), neurologics (Alzheimer's disease, epilepsy,
migraine prevention and treatment), pain management, and women's
health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy V. Milner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF
          TIMOTHY V. MILNER
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 805
          LosAngeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 382 1195
          Facsimile: (213) 351 1049


KIA: Recalls V8 Elite 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 45
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016166TC
ID number: 2016166
Manufacturer recall number: RC099

On certain V8 Elite model vehicles equipped with LED headlamps,
the use of the auto headlights mode may result in an increased
electrical resistance of the contact points in the multi-function
switch. Over time, this could cause the headlights to flicker
and/or intermittently turn off while driving. An interruption in
headlight function could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace
the multi-function switch with a switch containing redesigned
contacts.

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


KITOV PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Against Class Suit in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company and its directors are defending against a purported class
action lawsuit filed before the Tel Aviv District Court.

The Company said, "On December 3, 2015, we announced that we
received a lawsuit and motion to approve the lawsuit as a class
action lawsuit pursuant to the Class Action Lawsuits Law 5766-2006
(Motion) which was filed against us and our directors at the Tel
Aviv District Court (Economic Division). The Motion is with
respect to asserted claims for damages to the holders of our
securities listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, arising due to
our initial public offering of our securities in the U.S. during
November 2015. In the Motion it was claimed that the class the
petitioners are seeking to represent, namely, anyone holding our
shares at the start of trading on November 22, 2015 exclusive of
the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf and/or any
affiliates thereof and excluding anyone whose rights to our shares
derive from ADS certificates issued in the U.S to such extent as
derived therefrom; and any holders of our Series 2 TASE listed
warrants as of the start of trading on November 22, 2015,
exclusive of the respondents and/or anyone acting on their behalf
and/or any affiliates thereof (Purported Class)."

"The total amount claimed from all defendants, if the Motion is
certified as a class action, as set forth in the motion is
approximately NIS 16.4 million. In addition to this amount, the
petitioners in the motion are seeking remedies in order to redress
discrimination against the Purported Class owing to the dilution
caused by the public offering, including the possibility that the
Purported Class should be awarded from the Company amounts
reflecting the losses of the Purported Class from a possible price
increase in the shares of the Company following the announcement
of the Phase III clinical trial results.

"Under applicable Israeli law, a motion to approve a lawsuit as a
class action initially needs to be approved as such by the court.
Only after such approval is granted by the court, will the court
proceed to the second stage of hearing the underlying claims of
the class action lawsuit.

"We announced that we reject the claims asserted in the Motion and
plan on delivering our response to the court in accordance with
applicable law.

"We have been advised by  our attorneys that  the  likelihood  of
the Company not incurring  any financial  obligation as a result
of  the  class action exceeds the  likelihood  that the Company
will incur a  financial obligation.  At this  preliminary stage
however,  we are unable, with any  degree  of certainty, to make
any other evaluations or any other assessments with respect to the
Motion's probability of success or the scope of potential
exposure, if any."


KLX INC: Securities Class Action Filed in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
KLX Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2016, that a putative class action complaint was
filed on January 6, 2016, against the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The Company said, "The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class
of purchasers of our common stock during the period from March 9,
2015 to November 11, 2015. The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, as well as, in the case of the individual defendants,
the control person provisions of the Exchange Act. The complaint
principally alleges that the defendants knowingly made incorrect
statements regarding the value of the identifiable intangible
assets and goodwill associated with ESG prior to the impairment of
such assets during the third quarter of 2015. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages, interest and attorneys' fees. We believe the
claims are without merit and intend vigorously to defend ourselves
against them, including by promptly seeking dismissal of the
complaint."


MAJOR LEAGUE: Still Face Legal Threat Despite Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Brooks Hodge, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
although a settlement this year between Major League Baseball and
its fans avoided a trial, an antitrust expert for the plaintiffs
says MLB remains vulnerable to future legal challenges.

The two fundamental grievances underlying the class action lawsuit
against MLB, Comcast and a variety of sports clubs were not
resolved by the settlement reached in January, Stanford University
professor Roger Noll told Legal News Line.

"There were two really big issues.  They were the ability to gain
access to a single out-of-market game -- because fans are more
interested in following one particular team, not having access to
30 teams -- and the status of the league's antitrust exemption,"
Mr. Noll said.

Disputes over broadcasting baseball games precede television,
dating back to the birth of radio.  Baseball owners have
historically implemented regional blackout policies, contending
that broadcasting games diminish attendance.

In a 1921 case over labor market rules, not broadcasting
blackouts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled baseball was not
interstate commerce.  Instead, the games were determined to be
exhibitions exempt from antitrust laws.

Since then, various sports clubs have sued their respective
leagues on antitrust grounds.  The New York Rangers sued the
National Hockey League.  The Chicago Bulls sued the National
Basketball Association.  However, those challenges were settled
before reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the 2012 complaint against MLB, the fans' attorneys argued that
the Supreme Court has reaffirmed lower court decisions that sports
leagues are subject to antitrust laws and that league owners must
refrain from agreements that unreasonably restrain trade.

"The hallmark of an unreasonable restraint is one that raises
price, lowers output, or renders output unresponsive to consumer
preference," the complaint said, adding, "The distribution of
video presentations of baseball games is subject to the antitrust
laws."

Nevertheless, MLB and teams in the league assign exclusive
territory to each team and its television partners for the
live-game video market.  In exchange for being granted protections
against competition in its home market, the team and its partners
agree not to compete in the other teams' exclusive territories.

"The only way consumers can watch video presentations of other
teams is through one of two exclusive 'out-of-market' packages:
'MLB.TV,' which is available through the Internet, or 'MLB Extra
Innings,' a product similar to MLB.TV, which the League offers
through cable and satellite providers," the complaint said.

For either package, in-market games are blacked out to protect the
local television partner. Consequently, a New York Mets fan living
in New York is not able to watch the Mets play through either the
Internet or television package.  The fan must subscribe to a cable
package that includes the channels that carry Mets' games.

In May 2015, those challenging the league's policies were granted
class action status for injunctive relief, but not damages.  The
settlement was reached about six months later, on Jan. 18.

"Had they been granted class action status for damages, the case
probably would have been settled in a couple of days.  By not
certifying damages for the class action, the probability of a
settlement went down because the Major League Baseball had much
less to lose," Mr. Noll said.

As part of the settlement, MLB agreed to reduce prices through the
2020 season and provide several new products.  Comcast and DirecTV
also agreed to reduce prices for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.
However the plaintiffs will not be compensated for what they
already have paid.

According to Mr. Noll, the settlement enables MLB to continue
claiming an antitrust exemption.  The emergence of other
distribution channels also creates potential reasons for
litigation. For example only cable subscribers can access MLB.com
on cell phones.

"Some grey areas still remain, and it seems to me more class
actions could arise depending on Major League Baseball's policy on
restricting access," Mr. Noll said.

Mr. Noll, who serves as director of the Program in Regulatory
Policy at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, has
written 14 books on such topics as the economics of the sports and
entertainment industry.  He testified on behalf of the disgruntled
fans during the class action phase of the proceedings.


MATCH GROUP: Defending Against Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Match Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative nationwide
class action was filed on February 26, 2016, in federal court in
Texas against the Company, five of its officers and directors, and
twelve underwriters of the Company's initial public offering in
November 2015.  See David M. Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas).
The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with its initial public
offering were materially false and misleading given their failure
to state that: (i) the Company's Non-dating business would miss
its revenue projection for the quarter ended December 31, 2015,
and (ii) ARPPU would decline substantially in the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.

The complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely
disclose material information caused the Company's stock price to
drop after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015. The complaint pleads claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations. The complaint seeks class certification,
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff. See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

The Company believes that the allegations in these lawsuits are
without merit and will defend vigorously against them.


MDL 1917: Best Buy Received $75-Mil. Settlement Proceeds
--------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 23, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has received
settlement proceeds net of legal expenses and costs in the amount
of $75 million during fiscal 2016 in the Cathode Ray Tube Action.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit
captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing
in violation of antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray
tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995 through November
25, 2007. No trial date has been set.

"In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds
net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $75 million
during fiscal 2016. We will continue to litigate against the
remaining defendants and expect that further settlement
discussions will occur as this matter proceeds."


MICHAEL ANGELO'S: Recalls Vegetable Lasagna Products
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Angelo's Gourmet Foods, Inc., an Austin, Texas
establishment, is recalling approximately 1,575 pounds of
vegetable lasagna products due to misbranding and undeclared
allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product may contain
turkey, as well as eggs, a known allergen, which are not declared
on the product label.

The frozen lasagna items were produced on Feb. 12, 2016. The
following products are subject to recall:

10-oz. boxes containing plastic trays labeled "Michael Angelo's
Vegetable Lasagna" with a packaging date of Feb. 12, 2016.
Due to a packaging error, the 10-oz. cartons are labeled as
"Michael Angelo's Vegetable Lasagna," however, the packages
contain a turkey lasagna product, which contains eggs. The
products subject to recall do not bear the USDA mark of
inspection. These items were shipped to a distributor in Indiana.

The problem was discovered after the firm received complaints from
customers.

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.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the firm's
consumer hotline, at 1 (877) 482-5426. Media with questions about
the recall can contact Richard Price, Vice President of
Operations, at (512) 218-3514.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Background Checks Suits vs. MSI Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends
to defend remaining lawsuits against Michaels Stores, Inc.
("MSI"), related to Fair Credit Reporting Claim.

On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina
Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by a former associate.  The lawsuit
is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual
claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of
applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an
online application, and on whom a background check for employment
was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and
obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks.

Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations.  The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.

All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA.

In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also
alleged violations of California's unfair competition law. The
Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits have been dismissed and an
offer of judgment has been accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will
be dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut
lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to
the District of New Jersey.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Dismissal of Data Breach Suit Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that a Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on January 27, 2016, from the judgment in a class
action lawsuit related to a data security incident.

Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to the
January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs generally alleged that
MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information
including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached
an implied contract, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available.

The cases, are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens
v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy
Maize and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
February 21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was
filed on March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.

On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.

On April 16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the Illinois
actions. On July 14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest,
and other relief as available.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on
December 28, 2015, and judgment was entered in favor of the
Company on January 8, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2016, appealing that judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuit, if any," the Company said.


MINILAND EDUCATIONAL: Recalls Moogy Toys Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2016
Posting date: April 15, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57902

This recall involves the Moogy Fastening Toy. The recalled product
is a plush toy advertised for children from 12 to 36 months. The
toy has zippers, buttons, buckles and laces. The Moogy toy has a
blue and green face, red ears, a blue jacket with a red zipper,
pink/red striped pants and pink and orange shoes with polka dots.
Moogy measures about 18 1/2 inches tall. "Miniland," item number
R.96295 and lot number 0115 1402813 085 are printed on a white tag
sewn into the toy's pants.

The red button located on the Moogy's left pocket may detach,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Miniland Educational Corporation have
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to
Canadians related to the use of this product.

Miniland Educational Corporation has received one report of the
button detaching in the United States, with no reported injuries.

Approximately 100 units of the recalled Moogy Fastening Toy were
sold in Canada, and approximately 2000 were sold in the United
States.

The Moogy Fastening Toy was sold in Canada from November 2015 to
February 2016 at various toy stores and online. In the United
States, the affected product was sold from July 2015 to February
2016.

Manufactured in India.

Distributor: Miniland Educational Corporation
             Miami
             Florida
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled Moogy Fastening Toy
away from children, cut off and throw away the button on the left
pocket and contact Miniland Educational Corporation to arrange for
a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Miniland Educational
Corporation toll free at 1-866-201-9069 from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 pm.
ET Monday through Friday or through the firm's website and click
on "Products", then on "Safety Information" in the dropdown menu.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/x9wHu3


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Players Sue Lawyers Over Concussion Case Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
former professional football players involved in the NFL
concussion litigation have sued their former attorneys in federal
court over liens placed or intended to be placed on the players'
individual cuts of the league's $1 billion settlement.

In their complaint, the seven plaintiffs -- Gale Sayers, Lem
Barney, Thomas Skladany, Thomas Vaughn, Jerry Rush, Kenneth
Callicutt and Eric Hipple -- asked the court to declare that the
law firms formerly representing them in the concussion litigation
are not entitled to liens on the players' recovery.  Messrs.
Sayers and Barney are members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
The firms sued are Hausfeld; Zimmerman Reed; Locks Law Firm;
Bondurant Mixson & Elmore; and Pope McGlamry.

The players allege that they terminated their respective firms'
handling of their individual cases over dissatisfaction with the
representation they received.

"Defendant law firms' efforts on plaintiffs' cases have been
expended exclusively in furtherance of the NFL concussion class
action litigation for which some of defendant law firms will be
richly compensated," the complaint said.  "But, based on
information and belief, defendant law firms have made no
substantive efforts in furtherance of plaintiffs' individual
monetary award claims under the settlement agreement, which is why
plaintiffs terminated the relationships with the defendant firms."

Michael Leh, managing partner of Locks Law Firm, said in a
statement, "Locks Law Firm had not asserted an attorneys' lien
against the former player in this complaint who we represented;
although we did do work on the case we would never assert a claim
for fees that was not justified."

"No law firm represents more individual former players in this
litigation than we do," he continued, "and no other firm has spent
more time, effort and money than Locks Law Firm in order to obtain
the maximum award possible for each of our individual clients both
under the terms of the settlement agreement and through every
other available avenue."

The other firms did not return calls seeking comment.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that Locks, which represented
Mr. Skladany, has not filed a lien, but could; Hausfeld, which
represented Messrs. Barney and Sayers, has threatened liens
against their proceeds; Zimmerman Reed, which represented
Vaughn and Rush, threatened liens against their proceeds;
Bondurant Mixson, which represented Callicutt, filed a lien
against his proceeds; and Pope McGlamry, which represented Hipple,
filed a lien against his proceeds.

The players said in their complaint that the firm Cummings,
McClorey, Davis, & Acho currently represents them in the
concussion litigation, and is entitled to the fee recovery because
of its work in hiring neurologists and experts, reviewing medical
records, and preparing documents.

Arthur Goldman, the Paoli-based attorney who filed the plaintiffs'
case, said the Cummings firm would soon enter its appearance in
the players' suit against their former representation.

Beyond that, he said he preferred to "let the pleadings speak for
themselves and let the process play out."

Recently, objectors to the NFL's $1 billion settlement petitioned
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reconsider its
decision to uphold the settlement by holding en banc argument.

Earlier in April the appeals court -- over the objections of
dozens of former NFL players -- affirmed a lower court holding
that the settlement was adequate compensation for players
suffering from an array of brain injuries, including Alzheimer's
and Parkinson's diseases.


NATERA INC: Faces 2 Class Actions in California State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two purported class
action lawsuits  were filed on February 17, 2016 and March 10,
2016, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo, against Natera, the Company's directors and
certain of its officers and 5% stockholders and their affiliates,
and each of the underwriters of our July 1, 2015 initial public
offering (the "IPO").

The Company said, "The complaints  assert claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for our IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements, and/or omitted material information that
was required to be disclosed, about our business and prospects.
Among other relief, the complaints seek class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, attorneys' fees, and
costs."

"We intend to defend the matter vigorously. We are still in the
preliminary stages of reviewing the allegations made in the
complaints and cannot provide any assurance as to the ultimate
outcome or that an adverse resolution would not have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition and results of
operations. In light of, among other things, the early stage of
the litigations, we are unable to predict the outcome and are
unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of
loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome."


NATURE'S TOUCH: Recalls Organic Berry Cherry Blend
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Nature's Touch
Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10532

Nature's Touch is recalling Nature's Touch brand Organic Berry
Cherry Blend from the marketplace due to possible Hepatitis A
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The following product has been sold exclusively at Costco
warehouse locations in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Food contaminated with Hepatitis A virus may not look or smell
spoiled. Consumption of food contaminated with this virus may
cause hepatitis and produce a self-limited disease that does not
result in chronic infection or chronic liver disease. The illness
is usually mild and starts about 15 to 50 days after the
contaminated food is eaten. It generally goes away by itself in a
week or two, although it can last up to 6 months in some people.
It can cause inflammation of the liver, and symptoms may include
fever, low appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle aches, and
yellowing in the whites of the eyes and the skin (jaundice).

If you suspect you have become ill from eating a recalled product,
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) recommends contacting
your doctor.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of this product.

This recall was triggered by findings of the CFIA during the
investigation into a foodborne illness outbreak. 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        ---
  -----      ------             ----------
  Nature's   Organic  1.5 kg    Best Before    8 73668 00179 1
  Touch      Berry    (3.3 lb)  dates up to
             Cherry             and including
             Blend              2018 MR 15

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/hvUa3b


NEC TOKIN: Settles Antitrust Class Actions for $37.25 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation, a global supplier of electronic components, on
May 3 disclosed that NEC TOKIN Corporation, a joint venture
between KEMET Electronics Corporation and NEC Corporation, reached
a preliminary settlement with plaintiffs in two related U.S.
antitrust class action suits.

"A significant hurdle to our acquisition of NEC TOKIN has been
cleared," stated Per Loof, KEMET's Chief Executive Officer.  "This
settlement helps to open a path for implementation of our plan to
complete the acquisition.  We have been working closely with NEC
Corporation to develop the strategy for the consummation of the
acquisition and hope to be able to communicate to the investment
community in a reasonable time frame the mechanics and timing of
the closing of the acquisition.  This agreement as well as the
governmental fines assessed to NEC TOKIN, to date the most
significant of which permit payments over time, will allow us to
continue to follow our business strategies upon combination. While
we still await some government jurisdictions to complete their
review and assess any potential liability, our target is to
complete a transaction later this calendar year.  We believe that
the transaction will benefit the ongoing businesses of KEMET and
NEC TOKIN, providing increased shareholder value well into the
future," continued Loof.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement that has been reached in
principle, in consideration of its release from the class action
suits, NEC TOKIN will pay an aggregate $37.25 million to a
settlement class of direct purchasers of capacitors and a
settlement class of indirect purchasers of capacitors.  Payments
shall be made in installments, with the initial installment due 15
days after execution of the definitive settlement agreement, and
annual installments extending through December, 2019.  NEC TOKIN
and the plaintiffs are working to finalize the settlement in a
definitive settlement agreement, the terms of which are subject to
court approval.

NEC TOKIN, a Japanese corporation, is a joint venture in which
KEMET's wholly-owned subsidiary, KEMET Electronics Corporation,
owns a 34% equity interest and 51% voting ownership interest, and
NEC Corporation (together with a subsidiary thereof) owns a 66%
equity interest and 49% voting ownership interest.


NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 159
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016164TC
ID number: 2016164
Manufacturer recall number: R16-005

On certain buses, the software for the Electric Transit Operator
(ETO) control module which controls the rear passenger exit door
may contain an error. This could result in a higher than required
output torque from the ETO control module when the door is in a
fully open position, which over time may result in a fracture of
the rear door roller plate. If the roller plate fails there is a
potential for the rear door to open inadvertently while the bus is
in motion, which would increase the risk for injury to vehicle
occupants, and/or result in damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will reprogram the ETO control module, and replace both
rear door roller plates with more robust versions.

  Make        Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----     ----------------------
  NEW FLYER   XD40      2013
  NEW FLYER   XDE60     2015
  NEW FLYER   XN40      2014
  NEW FLYER   XD60      2013


NIKE: Assistant Store Managers' Unpaid OT Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California federal Judge ruled a lawsuit brought on behalf of
Assistant Store Managers working for Nike Retail Services cannot
proceed as a class action.  The Assistant Store Manager overtime
lawsuit against Nike, Case No. 14-cv-04781-RS is currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed by the San Francisco
Employment Law Lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik in
November of 2013, alleging that Nike misclassified their Assistant
Store Managers as exempt from overtime pay and as a result,
allegedly, did not pay these employees overtime wages, failed to
provide the legally mandated meal and rest breaks, and accurate
wage statements as required by California law.

In the original Complaint, the Plaintiff claimed that she spent
the majority of her work shifts engaging in non-exempt tasks.  As
a result, the Complaint claimed that Assistant Store Managers
working at Nike retail stores in California should have been
entitled to overtime pay, among other things.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik dedicates its practice to
contingency fee employment law work for issues involving
misclassification as a salaried worker exempt from overtime,
failure to pay vacation wages, misclassification as an independent
contractor, off-the-clock work, wrongful termination,
discrimination and other California labor laws.


NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 15, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 46492
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016165TC
ID number: 2016165

On certain vehicles, the anti-corrosion treatment of the outer
tube of the rear lift gate stay may be insufficient. Over time,
the outer tube of the rear lift gate stay may corrode and break
off, which could increase the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers
will replace both rear door stays.

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


OPOWER INC: Class Action Mulled Over Oracle Merger Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the proposed acquisition of Opower, Inc. by Oracle
Corporation.  On May 2, 2016, the two companies announced the
signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Oracle
will acquire Opower.  Under the terms of the agreement, Opower
shareholders will receive $10.30 in cash for each share of Opower
common stock.

Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for Opower and Its Shareholders?

Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of
directors at Opower is undertaking a fair process to obtain
maximum value and adequately compensate its shareholders.

As an initial matter, the $10.30 merger consideration represents a
premium of only 30.4% based on Opower's closing price on
April 29, 2016.  This premium is below the average one day premium
of 37.6% for comparable transactions within the past five years.
Further, the $10.30 merger consideration is below the target price
of $11.50 set by an analyst at Cowen on March 1, 2016.  In the
last three years, Opower traded as high as $26.00 on April 4,
2014, and most recently traded above the merger consideration --
at $10.41 -- on January 6, 2016.

On February 29, 2016, Opower reported strong earnings results for
its fourth quarter and full year 2015.  Total revenue for the
fourth quarter of 2015 was $40.5 million, an increase of 16% from
the comparable period in 2014.  Large, long-term contracts signed
in 2015 increased Opower's backlog to $480 million as of the end
of 2015, nearly double what it was at the end of 2014.  Opower
also successfully launched a series of new products including
NextWeb and Bill Advisor; and completed the rollout of its
software platform.  Opower beat consensus analyst estimates for
revenue and adjusted net income in last four quarters.  In
commenting on these results, Opower Chief Executive Officer
Dan Yates remarked, "2015 was a strong year for Opower.  We
renewed and expanded contracts with our three largest clients --
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), National Grid, and Exelon -- and
added significant new clients including Con Edison in New York and
a major European utility, each of which signed in Q4.  We're
seeing great traction with our Customer Care offerings -- Digital
Engagement and Bill Advisor.  We now have an expanded product set
that qualifies us to address an even wider variety of utility
challenges."

In light of these facts, Robbins Arroyo LLP is examining Opower's
board of directors' decision to sell the company now rather than
allow shareholders to continue to participate in the company's
continued success and future growth prospects.

Opower shareholders have the option to file a class action lawsuit
to ensure the board of directors obtains the best possible price
for shareholders and the disclosure of material information.
Opower shareholders interested in information about their rights
and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at
(800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's websiteOP.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a securities litigation and shareholder
rights law firm.  The law firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


ORBITAL SCIENCES: To Pay $165,000 in Fees and Expenses
------------------------------------------------------
Orbital ATK, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, that in the
Orbital Sciences Merger Litigation, the parties have agreed that
Orbital ATK will pay fees and expenses of $165,000 within 40 days
of the entry of an order closing the underlying litigation.

In May 2014, several shareholders of Orbital Sciences Corporation
("Orbital") filed class actions, since consolidated into one class
action, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court of
Chancery") against Orbital's chief executive officer and board
members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Orbital ATK, Inc.
(formerly Alliant Techsystems, Inc.) ("Orbital ATK") and Orbital
were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting
the other defendants. The claimed breach derived from the
execution of that certain Transaction Agreement, dated April 28,
2014, by and among Orbital ATK, Vista Outdoor Inc. (formerly Vista
Spinco Inc.), Vista Merger Sub Inc. and Orbital, which was alleged
to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for shares of Orbital
common stock. The class action, among other things, sought to
enjoin the merger, seek additional disclosure of facts relating to
the merger in connection with the stockholder vote thereupon,
obtain higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages.

On January 16, 2015, as part of a tentative settlement of the
class actions, Orbital filed a supplement to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus to provide supplemental disclosures
addressing the plaintiffs' claims. These supplemental disclosures
pertained to the Orbital board of directors' financial advisor's
fairness opinion and Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, the background
of the merger and alternatives to the merger that were considered
by the Orbital board of directors.

On February 2, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the stockholder actions with prejudice as to all named
plaintiffs, and without prejudice as to any absent members of the
putative class. Pursuant to the order, the Court of Chancery
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining
plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the stockholder actions expressed their
intention to petition the Court of Chancery for fees and
reimbursement of expenses in view of the supplemental disclosures
in the January 16, 2015 Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. On
February 17, 2016, plaintiffs' counsel in the class actions filed
their opening brief in support of an award of $250,000 in fees and
expenses. After negotiations, the parties have agreed that Orbital
ATK will pay fees and expenses of $165,000 within 40 days of the
entry of an order closing the underlying litigation. This fee has
not been in any way approved or ruled upon by the Court of
Chancery.


PULASKI FINANCIAL: Missouri Court Dismissed "Patel" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Pulaski Financial Corp., in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, announced
that the Court dismissed the putative class action lawsuit
captioned Patel v. Douglass, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of
the County of St. Louis, Missouri, Case No. 16SL-CC00406 (the
"Patel Case") against the Company's board of directors, the
Company and First Busey Corporation ("First Busey"), related to
the merger of Pulaski with and into First Busey (the "Merger").

The Court, ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss, held that
the plaintiff's exclusive remedy to challenge the Merger is to
exercise his dissenter's right to obtain a judicial appraisal and
fair value for his shares of Company stock.  In addition, the
Circuit Court found that the Board's decision to approve the
Merger was fully protected by the business judgment rule and that
the plaintiff failed to allege any specific facts showing fraud,
illegality or an irrational business judgment.

The other putative class action lawsuit related to the Merger,
captioned Daub v. Douglass, et al., filed in the Circuit Court,
Case No. 16SL-CC00582 (the "Daub Case") against the same
defendants, has been consolidated with the Patel Case.  However,
the Daub Case remains pending.

The Company currently expects that the defendants will seek
dismissal of the Daub Case on similar grounds.


PIERCE: Recalls Enforcer and Saber 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016173TC
ID number: 2016173

Certain vehicles may have improperly installed heater core hose
clamps which could allow engine coolant to leak into the passenger
compartment and come in contact with electrical components. This
could result in an electrical short, causing the vehicle to lose
power and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Hot coolant could also come in contact with
the occupants of the vehicle and cause burn injuries. Correction:
Dealers will inspect and reinstall the hose clamps properly.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  PIERCE    ENFORCER    2014
  PIERCE    SABER       2014


POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015 Models Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 1386
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016168TC
ID number: 2016168
Manufacturer recall number: Z-16-01-B

On certain side-by-side UTV's, the engine may misfire and cause
unburned fuel to be routed into the exhaust system. This could
result in excessive exhaust heat that may pose a fire hazard which
could cause injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers
will update the ECU with software that includes misfire detection.

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


POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2015, 2016 Models
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 8832
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016170TC
ID number: 2016170
Manufacturer recall number: Z-16-01-D

Certain side-by-side UTVs may have been assembled with heat
shields that do not meet the manufacturer's standards. This could
result in the cab or cargo box overheating which may pose a fire
hazard causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace the heat shields which will provide
additional protection, and improved protection from flammable
liquid spills in the vehicle cargo box that may pose a separate
fire hazard.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  POLARIS               2015, 2015, 2016


POLARIS: Recalls Side-By-Side UTV 2014, 2015, 2016 Models
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: April 19, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 7765
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016167TC
ID number: 2016167
Manufacturer recall number: Z-16-01-A

On certain side-by-side UTVs, the fuel tank vent line could be
kinked or misrouted near hot exhaust components. A kinked fuel
tank vent line can cause the fuel tank to build pressure and
expand. This expansion may cause the fuel tank to come into
contact with the spinning prop shaft, which could lead to a fuel
leak. A fuel leak in the presence of an ignition source could
result in a fire causing injury and/or property damage. A
misrouted fuel vent line may come in contact with hot exhaust
components could result in a fire causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel tank vent line
with a revised part and ensure proper routing and restraint. They
will also inspect the fuel tank to ensure that no damage is
present, and will repair as necessary. Note: This recall
supersedes recall 2015-420. Vehicles repaired under the previous
recall will require re-inspection and repair.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  POLARIS               2015, 2014, 2015, 2016


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that global
accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers is being accused of
violating federal and California age discrimination laws by
focusing on hiring and retaining "millennials."

In a proposed class action filed on April 27 by lawyers at Outten
& Golden, 53-year-old accountant Steve Rabin alleges that PwC
hiring policies effectively bar applicants older than 40 from
landing entry-level positions at the company.

Mr. Rabin interviewed with PwC in San Jose in 2013 but was turned
down, and says the company hired a younger accountant instead.  He
is seeking to overturn PwC's hiring policies, and demanding
compensation, penalties and fees for himself and other similarly
situated individuals.

The proposed class is nationwide and includes individuals above
the age of 40 who applied for and were denied a job at PwC, as
well as people in that age bracket who were deterred from applying
at all, dating back to October 2013.

The complaint makes no estimate of how big that pool might be. But
it notes that at the end of fiscal year 2015, PwC employed more
than 53,000 people in North America and the Caribbean.

"Hundreds or thousands of potential class members have applied,
attempted to apply, or been interested in applying to the covered
positions during the relevant time period," the suit states.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  In addition to Outten & Golden,
the suit is being supported by the AARP Foundation in Washington
and The Liu Law Firm in San Francisco.

Caroline Nolan, a spokeswoman for PwC, said the suit is meritless.
"The claim is false.  PwC's hiring practices offer equal
opportunity to all applicants, and the firm devotes enormous
resources to recruiting a diverse workforce," she said in an
email. "Like most employers, PwC recruits at the nation's colleges
and universities and the firm hires individuals at all experience
levels and across the age spectrum."

The complaint describes the underrepresentation of workers above
age 40 at PwC as "stark."  Citing the firm's own Corporate
Responsibility Summary Report from 2011, it says that the average
age of its workforce is 27, and that by 2016, almost 80 percent of
employees will be millennials -- individuals between the ages of
21 and 36.  It also says that the PwC website touts how young its
workforce is.

"For PwC to advertise the youthfulness of its workforce is
concerning. How would we feel about a company advertising how
male-dominated or white its workforce was?" Outten & Golden
partner Jahan Sagafi said in an email.

The skewed demographics are a direct result of PwC intentionally
implementing policies and practices throughout the U.S. that are
design to maintain a "youthful culture," according to the
complaint.  Part of the way PwC does this is by controlling the
pipeline of applicants, it says. People trying to apply for junior
associate and associate positions with the firm must be active
university students.

Other entry-level, non-management positions are posted online, but
older applicants are also barred from those positions because of
the company's preference for younger hires, the complaint says.
Rabin applied for a "Seasonal Experienced Associate" position in
October 2013 at age 50.

When Mr. Rabin was interviewed, the complaint says, he was asked
by a manager in his mid-30s: "The people in the cubicles are much
younger than you.  How would you fit in? Would you be able to work
for a younger manager or director?"

Mr. Rabin assured the interviewer that he had worked for a younger
manager in the past and enjoyed the experience, the complaint
says.  He was not given a reason for why he was turned down.

The complaint also takes aim at PwC's policy of forced retirement
at age 60, which it says deters older applicants from applying.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP: "Rabin" Sues over Age Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Rabin, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02276-JST. (N.D. Cal. Super. April 27, 2016),
seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, back pay including
interest and benefits for Plaintiff, liquidated, exemplary and
punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further legal and equitable
relief pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967 and California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is global accounting and auditing firm
with offices in 157 countries.

Plaintiff alleges that he was denied employment because of his
age.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
     Katrina L. Eiland, Esq.
     Julia Rabinovich, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 638-8800
     Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
     E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
             keiland@outtengolden.com
             jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

           - and -

     Adam T. Klein, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
     E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com

           - and -

     Daniel Kohrman, Esq.
     Laurie McCann, Esq.
     Dara Smith, Esq. (pro hac vice forthcoming)
     AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
     601 E. Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20049
     Telephone: (202) 434-2060
     Facsimile: (202) 434-2082
     E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org
             lmccann@aarp.org
             dsmith@aarp.org

           - and -

     Jennifer L. Liu, Esq.
     THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1170 Market Street, Suite 700
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Telephone: (415) 896-4260
     Facsimile: (415) 231-0011
     E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com





PROSKAUER ROSE: Faces New Class Suit Over Stanford Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that two
months after a federal appeals court rejected their case,
investors who lost billions in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by R.
Allen Stanford have filed a brand-new class action against the
company's former outside counsel at Proskauer Rose.

The move comes as Chadbourne & Parke, which also once counted
Antigua-based Stanford Group as a client, has agreed to pay $35
million to resolve parallel investor claims. (The settlement was
first reported in February, but the size of the deal was not
known.) If the settlement is approved, the funds, minus a
contingency fee, will be distributed among investors who bought
bogus Stanford CDs.

The new case against Proskauer, meanwhile, landed on April 29 in
federal district court in Dallas, claiming $5 billion in damages.
Once again, the plaintiffs are looking to hold Proskauer
responsible for the actions of its former partner,
Thomas Sjoblom, who allegedly helped Stanford conceal his Ponzi
scheme from regulators.

Mr. Sjoblom, who joined Proskauer from Chadbourne in 2006 and
represented Stanford's company while at both firms, is also named
as a defendant.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
original case against Proskauer on March 10, following six years
of litigation and two trips through the appeals courts.  The panel
found that, under Texas law, an attorney is shielded from
liability if the alleged wrongdoing occurred while he was
defending a client.

But according to the April 29 complaint, the Fifth Circuit's
decision also left open a narrow window for the plaintiffs to sue
again under Texas' Securities Act. Their 99-page complaint, filed
by Edward Snyder of San Antonio-based Castillo Snyder and co-
counsel Strasburger Price on behalf of a putative class of 21,000
Stanford investors, hopes to take advantage of that window.

The suit features two new named plaintiffs, Sandra Dorrell and
Phillip Wilkinson, who lost big on their Stanford investments.
They allege that Mr. Sjoblom, pictured right, and his firm aren't
protected under the Texas law because their alleged wrongdoing
didn't really involve litigation, and was criminal in nature.

"Sjoblom's and Proskauer's conduct was not undertaken in a
litigation context in that (and as noted by the distinction made
in Proskauer's own engagement letter) an SEC investigation does
not constitute litigation," the complaint asserts.

Given that Mr. Sjoblom wasn't then shielded, the plaintiffs
assert, the firm is no longer immune under the crime exception,
but is liable for aiding Stanford in its fraudulent scheme,
obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, mail fraud and
other claims.

Adding possible additional firepower to the complaint is a
decision on March 24 by three SEC commissioners expanding on an
administrative judge's finding of liability against Stanford
Group's chief compliance officer, Bernerd Young.  Mr. Young, who
worked closely with Mr. Sjoblom, was ordered to pay roughly $1
million in disgorgement and other penalties. He was also barred
from working in the securities industry.

According to the plaintiffs, the SEC's decision supports their
position that Mr. Sjoblom participated in and aided Stanford's
fraud by preventing anyone -- ranging from the SEC to Stanford's
own brokers and compliance officers -- from gaining access to the
offshore bank's investment portfolio information.

Davis Polk & Wardwell's James Rouhandeh --
rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- who represented Proskauer in the
earlier case, was not immediately available to comment; Snyder
would not comment publicly.

The Proskauer case is just part of a global effort to recover
assets lost in the Stanford fraud.  Via the court-appointed
Stanford Investors Committee, investors are pursuing claims
against other former Stanford outside counsel, including Greenberg
Traurig and Hunton & Williams.  They have sued a group of banks,
including TD Bank, HSBC, Societe Generale and two Texas banks,
Bank of Houston and Trustmark, that processed billions of dollars
in sham transactions.  They are also pressing claims against
Stanford's onetime clearing broker, Pershing LLC.
Over the past six months, the committee has recovered $219 million
via settlements with other outside advisers.  Chadbourne & Parke
agreed to its $35 million deal just 10 days before the Fifth
Circuit ruled for the firms in March.  The investors also reached
a $40 million approved settlement with former Stanford auditor BDO
Seidman; a $24 million settlement with consultant Kroll LLC
awaiting court approval; and a pending $120 million settlement
with Willis Group Plc, Stanford's insurance broker.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Settlement Liability Reserve Set at $5.9MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's reserve
related to the class action settlement liability is $5.9 million.

On November 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit
against PMI and certain of its executive officers and directors in
the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco,
California (the "Superior Court"). The suit was brought on behalf
of all promissory note purchasers on the platform from January 1,
2006 through October 14, 2008. The lawsuit alleged that PMI
offered and sold unqualified and unregistered securities in
violation of the California and federal securities laws. The
lawsuit sought rescission damages against PMI and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against PMI and the award of
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On July 19, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation pending before the Superior Court, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release
(the "Settlement") setting forth an agreement to settle all claims
related thereto. In connection with the Settlement, PMI agreed to
pay the plaintiffs an aggregate amount of $10 million, payable in
four lump sum payments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015,
$3 million in 2016 and $3 million in 2017.

On April 16, 2014, the Superior Court granted final approval of
the Settlement.  Subject to satisfaction of the conditions set
forth in the Settlement, the defendants will be released by the
plaintiffs from all claims concerning or arising out of the
offering of promissory notes on the platform from January 1, 2006
through October 14, 2008.


ROYAL BANCSHARES: Settlement in NJ Taxpayers Suit Awaits Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
17, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
settlement reached in the consolidated master class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey ("Court") on behalf of a proposed class of taxpayers
remains subject to Court approval after notice and a hearing.

Prior to December 31, 2013, Royal Bank held a 60% equity interest
in each of Crusader Servicing Corporation ("CSC") and Royal Tax
Lien Services, LLC ("RTL").  CSC and RTL acquired, through public
auction, delinquent tax liens in various jurisdictions thereby
assuming a superior lien position to most other lien holders,
including mortgage lien holders.

In 2012, the former President of CSC and RTL, CSC, RTL and the
Company were named defendants, among others, in a Consolidated
Master Class Action Complaint (the "Complaint") filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey ("Court") on behalf
of a proposed class of taxpayers who became delinquent in paying
their municipal tax obligations.  The Complaint alleged a
conspiracy to rig bids in municipal tax lien auctions.

During 2013, the Company, Royal Bank, CSC, and RTL reached a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs to settle the litigation for
$1.65 million and other terms and conditions, including an
opportunity for members of the proposed settlement class whose tax
liens are currently held by CSC or RTL to redeem those liens for a
one-time cash payment equaling 85% of the redemption amount by
making such payment within 35 days of the date of written notice.
The proposed settlement class does not include, and therefore the
offer to redeem does not apply to, tax liens acquired at 0%
interest or at a premium.

The settlement is subject to Court approval after notice and a
hearing.  Members of the proposed settlement class will have an
opportunity to object to the proposed settlement or opt-out.


ROYAL BANK: Still Defends MBS Class Actions
-------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that:

     1. the RBS companies are defendants in a purported MBS class
action entitled New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund v. Novastar
Mortgage Inc. et al., which remains pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

     2. Another MBS class action (Luther v. Countrywide Financial
Corp. et al. and related class action cases) was settled in 2013
without any contribution from RBS, but several members of the
settlement class are appealing the court-approved settlement to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


ROYAL BANK: Deal in ISDAFIX Suit Subject to Final Documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
settlement in the ISDAFIX antitrust litigation remains subject to
final documentation and court approval.

Beginning in September 2014, RBS plc and a number of other
financial institutions were named as defendants in several
purported class action complaints (now consolidated into one
complaint) pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York) alleging manipulation of USD
ISDAFIX rates. RBS has reached an agreement to settle this matter,
subject to final settlement documentation and court approval. The
settlement amount is covered by an existing provision.


ROYAL BANK: Settlement in CDS Action Paid in Escrow
---------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
settlement in the credit default swap antitrust litigation has
been paid into escrow pending final court approval.

Certain members of the Group, as well as a number of other
financial institutions, are defendants in a consolidated antitrust
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging an unlawful restraint of
trade in the market for credit default swaps. The RBS defendants
have reached an agreement to settle this matter for US$33 million,
and that settlement received preliminary approval from the Court
on 29 October 2015. The settlement amount has been paid into
escrow pending final court approval of the settlement.


ROYAL BANK: Paid $255 Million Settlement in Escrow
--------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company has paid $255 million into escrow pending final court
approval of the settlement in the FX antitrust litigation.

Group companies have settled all claims that are or could be
asserted on behalf of the classes in a consolidated action
alleging an antitrust conspiracy in relation to foreign exchange
transactions, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. Following the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement on 15 December 2015, RBS
paid the total settlement amount (US$255 million) into escrow
pending final court approval of the settlement. Other class action
complaints, including a complaint asserting Employee Retirement
Income Security Act claims on behalf of employee benefit plans
that engaged in FX transactions, are pending in the same court and
name certain members of the Group as defendants.


ROYAL BANK: Faces Class Action in Ontario and Quebec
----------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group plc said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company continues to face two class action lawsuits in Ontario and
Quebec, Canada.

In September 2015, certain members of the Group, as well as a
number of other financial institutions, were named as defendants
in two purported class actions filed in Ontario and Quebec on
behalf of persons in Canada who entered into foreign exchange
transactions or who invested in funds that entered into foreign
exchange transactions. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
violated the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to manipulate
the prices of currency trades.


RUBY TUESDAY: June 28 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Ruby Tuesday, Inc. ("Ruby Tuesday" or the "Company")
between July 24, 2015 and April 7, 2016.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been
commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York.  If
you purchased or otherwise acquired Ruby Tuesday securities
between July 24, 2015 and April 7, 2016, your rights may be
affected by this action.  To get more information go to:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra/ruby-tuesday

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) Ruby Tuesday's fiscal year 2016 guidance was unobtainable and
unrealistic; (b) promotional activity by its peers was adversely
impacting the Company's performance; (c) the continuing decline in
casual dining customers and traffic adversely impacted Ruby
Tuesday's performance; and (d) as a result of the aforementioned,
defendants' statements concerning the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Ruby Tuesday you have until June 28,
2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com  or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://www.zlk.com/pslra/ruby-tuesday

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.  The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation involving
financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


SABINE OIL: Stourbridge Case Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------
Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as a result of the
Company's pending bankruptcy, the case, Stourbridge Investments,
LLC v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al.,
Rothenberg v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v.
Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri
v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil
Corporation, et al., is currently stayed.

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed
Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by
Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with
the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New
York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In
re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No.
651418/2014.  On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New
York action filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to
certify a plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil
common stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The
defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest
Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D.
Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I.
Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC).  The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI
Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are
alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination
arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of
directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and
affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire
the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an
alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not
represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of
Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the
proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require
only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve
the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as
would have been required under the original transaction structure.
The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of
Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for
the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest
that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that
the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed
Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices"
that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential
transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the
directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a
cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and
abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law,
and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative,
rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that
the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class
action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That
action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-
MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014. The
Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection with the
proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging
violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements
in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May
29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve
the proposed Combination. The Olinatz Complaint names as
defendants Forest Oil and certain of its affiliates (specifically,
Forest Oil Corporation, New Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger
Sub Inc.), the directors of Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James
H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll,
Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain
of its affiliates (specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine
Investor Holdings LLC, Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine
Oil & Gas Holdings II LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief to enjoin consummation of the proposed
Combination or, in the alternative, rescission in the event the
proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved, as well as imposition of a constructive trust on any
alleged benefits improperly received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the
Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to
reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a
settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date.
The settlement, if consummated, would also resolve the Colorado
action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with
Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form
8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of
the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC
will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at
least one additional independent director, as defined in Section
303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a
Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine
Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining
two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required
to be independent. In connection with the closing of the
Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined
in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual,
was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed
Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of
understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to
replace an independent director who resigned from the board of
directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms
of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to
facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without
first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the
changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes
it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding. In an
attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered to:
(i) appoint an independent director if an additional director was
added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of
directors to eight) in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or
waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision.  Plaintiffs
accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties'
reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are
presently negotiating.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.  In the event the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging
any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement
originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest
Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities
on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters
that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to shareholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.  In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that the parties will
negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of attorney's fees
and expenses that shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel in
connection with the Actions.  There can be no assurances that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the New York Court will approve the settlement even if the
parties were to enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.  The parties are presently
negotiating the stipulation of settlement.  At this time, the
Company is unable to estimate the potential outcome of this
litigation or the ultimate exposure.

On July 15, 2015, the Company filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.  As a result of
the pending bankruptcy, this matter is currently stayed.


SE3 LLC: "Gooden" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------
Nicole Gooden, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SE3, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04688 (N.D. Ill., April 27, 2016), seeks an injunction against the
Defendant, damages for overtime compensation due, liquidated or
penalty damages, costs and expenses including reasonable attorney
fees and expert fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
all such other and further legal and equitable relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

SE3, LLC is a civil engineering contractor for transportation and
municipal engineering. It is a Missouri limited liability company
with operations in Downers Grove, Illinois where Gooden was
employed as a Contract Administrator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC
      10601 Mission Road, Suite 100
      Leawood, KS 66206
      Tel: (913) 766-5585
      Fax: (816) 875-5069
      Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

           - and -

      Kenneth C. Apicella, Esq.
      Drost, Gilbert, Andrew and Apicella LLC
      4811 Emerson Ave., Suite 110
      Palatine, IL 60067
      Tel: (847) 934-6000
      Fax: (847) 934-6040
      Email: KCA@dgaalaw.com



SIBANYE GOLD: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Sibanye Gold Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an application to
certify a class action by mine workers and their dependents
remains pending.

On 21 August 2012, a court application was served on a group of
respondents that included Sibanye (the August Respondents). On 21
December 2012, a further court application was issued and was
formally served on a number of respondents, including Sibanye (the
December Respondents) and, again on 10 January 2013, both the
August Respondents and the December Respondents (together the
Respondents), on behalf of current and former mine workers, and
their dependants, of, amongst others, Sibanye, and who allegedly
contracted silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases (OLD)
(the Class). The court application of 21 August 2012 and 21
December 2012 are together referred to as the Applications.

Sibanye filed a notice of its intention to oppose the Applications
and its attorneys to defend the claims.

These Applications requested that the court,

     1. As a first phase, certify a class action to be instituted
by the applicants on behalf of the Class, as defined.

     2. As a second phase to possibly split the Class, as defined
into smaller classes based on common legal and factual issues. The
Respondents are of the view that the definition of the class in
the first phase and the proposed process involving the second
phase are contrary to South African legal precedent.

     3. In the last phase, bring an action wherein they will
attempt to hold the Respondents liable for silicosis and other OLD
and resultant consequences.

The Applications do not identify the number of claims that may be
instituted against the Respondents or the quantum of damages that
the applicants may seek.

The Applications were heard during the weeks of 12 and 19 October
2015. Judgement is expected to be handed down in the next few
months.

Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields,
Harmony and Sibanye announced in November 2014 that they have
formed a gold mining industry working group to address issues
relating to the compensation and medical care for OLD in the gold
mining industry in South Africa. Essentially, the companies are
seeking a comprehensive and sustainable solution which deals both
with the legacy compensation issues and future legal frameworks
and which, while being fair to employees, also ensures the future
sustainability of companies in the industry.

The companies have engaged all stakeholders on these matters,
including government, organised labour, other mining companies and
legal representatives of claimants who have filed legal suits
against the companies. These legal proceedings are being defended.

At this stage, Sibanye can neither quantify the potential
liability from the action as the Application is currently for
certification of a class (and possibly, subsequent classes) nor
can the length of time until finalisation be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Arbitrator Granted Claimants' Motion for Stay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an Arbitrator issued an
Order granting Claimants' motion for a stay of the Class
Determination Award or for equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations with respect to the putative class of Claimants
alleging disparate treatment.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and
SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification
motion was held in late February 2014.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for
Reconsideration on March 4, 2015.

Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion
was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015.

Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of
Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on
March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015.

Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. Claimants' Motion was
granted and the Arbitrator issued an Equal Pay Act Collective
Action Conditional Certification Award and companion Order
Regarding Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period
on February 29, 2016.

SJI's deadline to move the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York to vacate the Conditional Certification Award
and Order Regarding Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA
Limitations Period was March 30, 2016.

SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March
23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion
was heard on May 4, 2015.

On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the
Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in
part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA
Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Motion was denied on
February 22, 2016.

On December 9, 2015, SJI docketed its Notice of Appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. SJI's Brief
and Appendix of Appellant was filed with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 17, 2016.

In the AAA proceeding, on April 6, 2015, Claimants filed
Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion
for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the
Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its
opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22,
2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015.

On February 24, 2016, the Arbitrator also issued an Order granting
Claimants' motion for a stay of the Class Determination Award or
for equitable tolling of the statute of limitations with respect
to the putative class of Claimants alleging disparate treatment.


SILVER CARE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Medical Records
---------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Hall, individually and as executor for the estate of Mary
Ann Hall, and other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Silver Care Operations, LLC d/b/a Alaris Health at Cherry Hill
(AHCH), Avery Eisenreich, Lnha Shawne Mimna, ABC Companies (l-10),
DEF Partnerships (1-10), John Doe Management Company, (1-10): John
Doe Physicians (1-10), Jane Doe Nurses (1-20), Jane Moe
Technicians (1-10), and CNAs and Paramedical Employees,
(individual and corporate fictitious named defendants), i/j/s/a,
the Defendants, Case No. L-001574-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., April 27,
2016), asserts significant injuries, pain and suffering and other
damages sustained, and seeks statutory attorneys' fees, treble
damages, punitive damages, interest and costs of suit, and other
damages as the Court may deem proper, as a result of Defendants'
negligence to the demands of the Plaintiff including production of
complete certified color copy of medical charts and nursing
records, nurse's aides records, incident reports, production of
policies and procedures and facility surveys, answers to form C
interrogatories, and answers to supplemental interrogatories
affidavit of merit.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff received treatment by
nurses, aides, physicians and other apparent employees of AHCH.
Plaintiff was unable to select or choose any of the professionals
and/or individuals who rendered treatment to her and believes they
were all employees and/or agents of AHCH, and the other legal
entities that own and/or manage AHCH.

Silver Care is a long term skilled care facility (nursing home).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Ringold, Esq.
          DANSKY KATZ RINGOLD YORK
          8000 Sagemore Drive Suite 8304
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 489 1515
          E-mail: www.nursinghome-legalhelp.com


SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA: "Long" Sues Over Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
Frank Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01991-PBT (E.D. Pa., April
27, 2016), seeks statutory damages, actual and punitive damages,
reasonable attorney fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other and further legal and equitable relief in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Pennsylvania
Criminal History Record Information Act.

The complaint says Plaintiff applied as a bus driver but was
denied due to his past criminal record.

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation operates the sixth
largest public transportation system in the U.S.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ossai Miazad, Esq.
      Adam T. Klein, Esq.
      Lewis M. Steel, Esq.
      Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
      Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Ave 29th Fl
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 245-1000
      Email: om@outtengolden.com


STAR BULK: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Star Bulk Carriers Corp. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in a
shareholder class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On October 23, 2014, a purported shareholder
(the "Plaintiff") of Star Bulk Carriers Corp. filed a derivative
and putative class action lawsuit in New York state court against
our Chief Executive Officer, members of our board of directors and
several of our shareholders and related entities. We have been
named as a nominal defendant in the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges
that our acquisition of Oceanbulk and purchase of several Excel
Vessels were the result of self-dealing by various defendants and
that we entered into the respective transactions on unfair terms.
The lawsuit further alleges that, as a result of these
transactions, several defendants' interests in Star Bulk Carriers
Corp. have increased and that the Plaintiff's interest in Star
Bulk Carriers Corp. has been diluted. The lawsuit also alleges
that our management has engaged in other conduct that has resulted
in corporate waste."

"The lawsuit seeks cancellation of all shares issued to the
defendants in connection with our acquisition of Oceanbulk,
unspecified monetary damages, the replacement of some or all
members of our board of directors and of our Chief Executive
Officer, and other relief. We believe the claims are completely
without merit, deny them, and intend to vigorously defend against
them in court."

"On November 24, 2014, we and the other defendants removed the
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. On March 4, 2015, we and the other
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  On February 18, 2016,
the court granted our motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the
matter. On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The appeal is pending."


STEMCELLS INC: "Guardino" Suit Questions Fees By-Laws
-----------------------------------------------------
Sydelle Guardino, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Stemcells, Inc., Eric Bjerkholt,
R. Scott Greer, Ricardo Levy, Ian Massey, John Schwartz, Alan
Trounson and Irving Weissman, Defendants, Case No. 12266 (Del.
Ch., April 27, 2016) seeks to invalidate and rescind the "Fee
Bylaws" invalid and render it void and unenforceable.  The suit
also seeks costs and disbursements of the action including
reasonable attorney and expert fees, costs, and expenses and such
other and further relief under the Delaware General Corporation
Law.

Plaintiff is a beneficial owner of shares of StemCells common
stock. Guardino is questioning the legality of the certificate and
bylaw provision requiring stockholders to pay the attorneys' fees
and costs in certain derivative actions, class actions and other
actions against the corporation.

StemCells is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 7707 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 140, Newark,
California. Eric Bjerkholt, R. Scott Greer, Ricardo Levy, Ian
Massey, John Schwartz, Alan Trounson and Irving Weissman are
members of the board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
      Robin Winchester, Esq.
      Kristen L. Ross, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706

           - and -

      Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
      Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
      Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
      Eric J. Juray, Esq.
      1310 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 888-6500


STRATASYS LTD: Court Has Yet to Rule on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
Stratasys Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Minnesota court has
not rendered a decision on the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in the Securities Law Class Actions.

On February 5, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a class action was
commenced in the United States District Courts for the District of
Minnesota, naming the Company and certain of our officers and
directors as defendants. Similar actions were filed on February 9
and 20, 2015, and on March 25, 2015, in the Southern District of
New York, the Eastern District of New York, and the District of
Minnesota, respectively. The lawsuits allege violations of the
Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements concerning our business and prospects. The plaintiffs
seek damages and awards of reasonable costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

On April 15, 2015, the cases were consolidated for all purposes,
and on April 24, 2015, the court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving their selection of lead counsel for the
putative class.

On July 1, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint. On August 31, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court
heard the motion on December 11, 2015, but has not rendered a
decision.

"We intend to mount vigorous defenses to these lawsuits," the
Company said.


SUNEDISON INC: Glenview Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glenview Capital Partners, L.P., et al., the Plaintiff, v.
SunEdison, TerraForm Global, Inc., and Ahmad Chatila, Brian
Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier,
Alejandro Hernandez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez, Peter
Blackmore, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, Steven
Tesoriere, James Williams, and Randy Zwirn (Individual
Defendants), and Barclays Capital Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital
LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Credit Agricole CIB, Credit
Suisse, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman, Sachs, & Co., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Macquarie Capital (USA), Inc., MCS Capital
Markets LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Santander, SMBC Nikko
Securities America, Inc., and Societe Generale (Underwriter
Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. CIV537971, was transferred
from San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The
Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02264-JCS to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that between June 2015 and August 2015,
SunEdison, TerraForm Global, the Individual Defendants, and the
Underwriter Defendants issued and sold more than $2.5 billion of
securities to Glenview and other investors. The Complaint alleges
that, on or about June 9, 2015, Plaintiffs purchased TerraForm
Global Class D Securities at a price of $1,000 per share. The
Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs purchased bonds in
Terraform Global's July 31, 2015 Bond Offering. Complaint further
alleges that Plaintiffs purchased SunEdison Preferred Stock in
SunEdison's August 2015 offering of 6.75% Series A Perpetual
Convertible Preferred Stock (the SunEdison Preferred Offering).
The Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Securities pursuant to
offering documents that contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state other material facts necessary to make
the statements made in the offering documents not misleading in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

SunEdison is the largest global renewable energy development
company. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power
generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal,
hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based
in Bethesda, Maryland.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brett Hammon, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858 6000
          Facsimile (650) 858 6100
          E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com


SUNEDISON INC: Oklahoma Firefighters' Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, the
Plaintiff, v. SunEdison, Inc., TerraForm Global, Inc., and Ahmad
Chatila, Brian Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong,
Jeremy Avenier, Alejandro Hernandez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio
Alvarez, Peter Blackmore, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor,
Steven Tesoriere, James Williams, and Randy Zwirn (Individual
Defendants), and Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US
Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities
Americas, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra,
Inc. (Underwriter Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. CIV537965,
was removed from San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division. The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
02267-SK to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that between June 2015 and August 2015,
SunEdison, Inc., TerraForm Global, the Individual Defendants, and
the Underwriter Defendants sold more than $2.5 billion of newly
issued securities to Plaintiff and other investors. The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiff purchased TerraForm Global Class A common
stock in TerraForm Global's initial public offering at $15 per
share. The Subject Securities purchased by Plaintiff were sold
using offering documents that contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted to state other material facts necessary
to make the statements made in the offering documents not
misleading in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

SunEdison is the largest global renewable energy development
company. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power
generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal,
hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based
in Bethesda, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
          David William Hall, Esq.
          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          James Ian Jaconette, Esq.
          Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
                  dhall@rgrdlaw.com
                  dennish@rgrdlaw.com
                  jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
                  JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brett Hammon, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858 6000
          Facsimile (650) 858 6100
          E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com


SUNEDISON INC: Omega Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Capital Investors, L.P., et al., the Plaintiff, v.
SunEdison, Inc., TerraForm Global, Inc., and Ahmad Chatila, Brian
Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Martin Truong, Jeremy Avenier,
Alejandro Hernandez, Emmanuel Hernandez, Antonio Alvarez, Peter
Blackmore, Clayton Daley, Jr., Georganne Proctor, Steven
Tesoriere, James Williams, and Randy Zwirn, and Goldman,
Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC, Macquarie Capital
(USA), Inc., and MCS Capital Markets, LLC (Underwriter
Defendants), the Defendants, Case No. CIV537977, was transferred
from San Mateo Superior Court, to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.
The Northern District Court assigned Case 3:16-cv-02268-EDL to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that between June 2015 and August 2015,
SunEdison, TerraForm Global, the Individual Defendants, and the
Underwriter Defendants sold more than $2.5 billion of newly issued
securities to Plaintiffs and other investors. The Complaint
alleges that Plaintiffs purchased, acquired and/or sold SunEdison
and TerraForm Global securities including SunEdison preferred
stock, TerraForm Global Class D securities and TerraForm Global
common stock. The Plaintiffs purchased the Subject Securities
pursuant to offering documents that contained untrue statements of
material fact and omitted to state other material facts necessary
to make the statements made in the offering documents not
misleading in violation of the Securities Act of 1933.

SunEdison is the largest global renewable energy development
company. TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power
generation assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal,
hydroelectric, and hybrid energy solutions. The company is based
in Bethesda, Maryland.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
          David William Hall, Esq.
          Dennis J. Herman, Esq.
          James Ian Jaconette, Esq.
          Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail:e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
                 dhall@rgrdlaw.com
                 dennish@rgrdlaw.com
                 jamesj@rgrdlaw.com
                 JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brett Hammon, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858 6000
          Facsimile (650) 858 6100
          E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com


SUNLAND FOODS: "Bolton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey R. Bolton on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sunland Foods, Inc., The Grillers Club LLC
and Mario A. Di Marco, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00299-JSM-PRL
(M.D. Fla., April 27, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
unpaid wages, damages resulting from fraudulent filing of returns,
breach of contract and unpaid bonuses, expenses, attorney fees and
costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Internal Revenue Code.

Defendants are into the restaurant business and jointly employed
the Plaintiff. Bolton was misclassified as an independent
contractor thus denied the usual benefits due an employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Ave Ste 400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Tel: (727) 822-1111
      Fax: (727) 898-2001
      Email: pleadings@thefllawfirm.com
             lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com
             shelley@thefllawfirm.com


SYNERON MEDICAL: Written Summations Submitted in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Syneron Medical Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 21, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that written summations were
submitted by a class action applicant and the Company in September
2015 and February 2016, respectively.

On December 31, 2013, Syneron Medical Ltd. and its subsidiary,
Syneron Beauty Ltd. (which following a joint venture with Unilever
Ventures is now a subsidiary of Iluminage Beauty), received a copy
of a petition filed with the Central District Court in Israel to
approve the filing of a class action suit against Syneron Medical
Ltd. and Syneron Beauty Ltd. (the "Respondents"). The Petitioner
claims that the Respondents violated article 2 of the Consumer
Protection Act resulting from misleading advertising regarding the
Syneron Beauty me hair removal device. The Petitioner claims to
represent the class of consumers that purchased the me hair
removal device and is seeking damages for the group in the amount
of NIS 27.5 million.

The Company is vigorously defending itself in this matter.
Following evidentiary hearings, written summations were submitted
by the applicant and the Company in September 2015 and February
2016, respectively.


TALMER BANCORP: "Bushansky" Sues over Shady Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Talmer Bancorp, Inc., Gary Torgow, David
T. Provost, Gary S. Collins, Max A. Berlin, Jennifer M. Granholm,
Paul E. Hodges III, Ronald A. Klein, Barbara J. Mahone, Robert H.
Naftaly, Albert W. Papa, Thomas L. Schellenberg, Arthur A. Weiss,
And Chemical Financial Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
11511-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich., April 27, 2016), seeks preliminarily
and permanently enjoining defendants from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a proposed merger; rescissory damages,
reasonable attorney and experts fees and expenses; and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act.

Chemical would acquire all outstanding shares of Talmer for the
equivalent of $1.1 billion in stock and cash valued at $15.64 per
share as of January 25, 2016. Plaintiff claim to be shortchanged
as J.P. Morgan Chase & Co set a $21.00 price target for the
Company, which is $5.36 above the purported merger consideration
while Talmer stock traded as high as $18.48 on December 29, 2015.
Plaintiff alleges that the Board agreed to lock up the deal under
questionable circumstances that did not favor the Talmer
shareholders.

Stephen Bushansky is a shareholder of Talmer.

Talmer is a Michigan corporation with its principal executive
offices located at 2301 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 525, Troy,
Michigan 48084. It is the holding company for Talmer Bank and
Trust, a Michigan state-chartered bank insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation with 81 banking offices in Michigan
and northeastern Ohio.

Chemical is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business at 333 East Main Street, Midland, Michigan 48640.
Chemical Bank is a Michigan state-chartered bank operating 185
banking offices in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Wernette, Esq.
     WERNETTE HEILMAN PLLC
     24725 W. 12 Mile Road, Suite 110
     Southfield, MI 48034
     Tel: (248) 663-5170
     Email: mike@wernetteheilman.com

           - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 682-3025


TD BANK: Faces Class Action Over Penny Arcades Machines
-------------------------------------------------------
News12 New Jersey reports that Penny Arcades, the popular
coin-counting service available at TD Bank, are now the focus of a
nationwide class-action lawsuit.

The suit argues that coins were inaccurately counted and customers
were short-changed when using the machines.  The suit also argues
that TD Bank officials knew or should have known about the
problem.

Bruce Nagel, the attorney who filed the suit, says that he
estimates that thousands of people were affected by this case.  He
estimates that the damages will be tens of millions of dollars
because the Penny Arcades process about 3 billion coins each year.

TD Bank released a statement that said in part, "We have launched
an enhanced testing program and all of our coin counting machines
are in the process of being taken out of service and will be
evaluated and retested."

The Penny Arcades will be brought back into service once bank
officials are satisfied with their performance requirements.

TD Bank would not comment on the class-action lawsuit.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Wertheim" Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------
Ellen S. Wertheim, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., d/b/a
Lexus, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02370-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.,
April 27, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Madeline C. Arleo.

Toyota Motor is the North American Toyota sales, marketing, and
distribution subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann
          COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN,
          HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLC
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddlebrook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845 9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845 9423
          E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com


TRXADE GROUP: Discovery Has Not Commenced in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Trxade Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
filed by Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC is in its preliminary
stages, and discovery has not yet commenced.

On November 19, 2015, Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC filed a class-
action claim against Trxade Group, Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiary Westminster Pharmaceutical, LLC, Inc. (Family Medicine
Pharmacy, LLC v. Trxade Group, Inc. and Westminster, Inc., Case
No.: 1:15-CV-00590-KD-B, United States District Court, Southern
District of Alabama, Mobile Division). Family Medicine has served
Trxade for allegedly utilizing a "junk fax" advertising program.
Family Medicine seeks statutory damages on behalf of a class of
similarly situated entities throughout the United States. The
litigation is in its preliminary stages, and discovery has not yet
commenced.

Although management denies any material liability and the
propriety of class certification in this lawsuit, the litigation
could have a lengthy duration, it is more likely than not that
damages and/or settlement costs will be incurred, and the ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted at this time.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Another Class Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------
Uber's legal crisis continues with a national class action filed
May 1 seeking relief for hundreds of thousands of drivers
nationwide.

The lawsuit alleges Uber doesn't pay drivers the tips auto-
collected from passengers under their rider agreement and also
claims Uber illegally classifies drivers as independent
contractors to avoid employee protections under federal and state
laws.

The case indicates the recent $100 million settlement of a CA and
MA drivers' claims was just the tip of the iceberg for embattled
Uber.

The Lawsuit:

    * Filed on behalf of drivers nationwide by former Uber driver
and outspoken driver advocate Lorri Trosper;

    * Attorney Brian Mahany is the lawyer who tagged Bank of
America for the largest single defendant settlement in history at
$16.65 billion; (not a spelling error)

    * US District (federal) Court for Northern District of
Illinois.

Points:

    * CA and MA $100 million settlement was just CA & MA drivers
and as a settlement didn't resolve any employee v independent
contractor issue;

    * Plaintiff is seeking a final ruling that states Uber drivers
are employees and thus entitled to Fair Labor Standards Act and
other rights and protections; and separately

    * Gratuity theft speaks for itself and Uber's disregard of
drivers' rights.

"The outcome of this case will have a profound effect on Uber and
similar companies"  said attorney Mahany who points out that "Uber
micromanages drivers' activities minute by minute which tells us
they're employees and the company can't avoid employee rights and
protections simply by calling drivers,'independent contractors.'"

                           *     *     *

Megan Rose Dickey, writing for TechCrunch, reports that less than
a month after Uber settled two class-action lawsuits in California
and Massachusetts, another one has popped up.  This time, the suit
pertains to all current and former Uber drivers in the United
States, except for those in California and Massachusetts.

The suit, filed on May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Chicago division, asks the court to
classify Uber divers as employees rather than independent
contractors, "recover unpaid overtime wages and compensation,"
reimburse expenses, and pay the tips that "were earned but stolen
by Uber or were lost" due to Uber's communications and policies.

This nationwide case is very similar in nature to the two Uber
recently settled in California and Massachusetts.  In those two
cases, the settlements determined that Uber drivers in those
states will remain independent contractors.  As TechCrunch
previously noted, Uber had to offer several concessions, with the
biggest being $100 million in payments to the 385,000 drivers
represented across both cases.

This nationwide class-action suit is in its early days, but I
imagine we might see a relatively similar outcome as the ones in
California and Massachusetts.  It's worth noting that it took over
three years for the California case to reach a settlement, but the
fact that a precedent has recently been set, this case probably
won't take nearly as long.

"Nearly 90 percent of drivers say the main reason they use Uber is
because they love being their own boss," Uber said in a statement
to TechCrunch about the lawsuit.  "As employees, drivers would
have set shifts, earn a fixed hourly wage, and lose the ability to
drive with other ridesharing apps -- as well as the personal
flexibility they most value."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bill That Would Set Fares Fails to Get Support
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that state
legislation that would have pushed regulators to set rates on Uber
and Lyft rides died in a Senate committee late on April 19 amid
opposition from the ride-hailing companies and their trade
associations.

Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, could not find enough support from
fellow Democrats for SB 1035, which also would have asked the
Public Utilities Commission to scrutinize the industry's insurance
practices, its driver background checks and its efforts to serve
handicapped passengers.

"On the rate regulation piece, we're going in the wrong
direction," said Santa Monica Sen. Ben Allen, one of four
Democrats who declined to cast a vote on the bill, effectively
dooming it.  "We've realized in the context of all the market
changes that have happened that, if anything, we need to be
loosening up rate regulation rather than the other way around."

The bill's fate was in doubt from the time it was introduced
earlier in April, although it seemed more likely to fail in the
Assembly, where there are more so-called business-friendly
Democrats than the Senate.  SB 1035's early demise eliminates one
of the tech industry's biggest legislative targets of the year.
"I understand how much support there is for the industry by this
Legislature," Sen. Hueso told the committee on April 19.  "That's
why I brought a bill that I thought nobody could oppose and nobody
should oppose."

Sen. Hueso's brothers own a taxi company in Southern California,
although he said SB 1035 would do "nothing" to level the playing
field between ride-hailing companies and the more highly regulated
taxi industry.

Lobbyists for Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. had argued that
any attempt to direct the PUC to set rates would threaten their
surge-pricing practices and therefore their business models.

"It would be bad policy for the state of California in 2016 to
explicitly tell the PUC that they can fix rates in a dynamic,
competitive industry," said Robert Callahan, executive director of
the Internet Association's Sacramento office.


UBS GROUP: $141MM Settlement Awaits Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the $141 million
settlement related to the foreign exchange-related civil
litigation remains subject to final court approval.

Putative class actions have been filed since November 2013 in US
federal courts and in other jurisdictions against UBS and other
banks on behalf of putative classes of persons who engaged in
foreign currency transactions with any of the defendant banks.
They allege collusion by the defendants and assert claims under
the antitrust laws and for unjust enrichment.

In 2015, additional putative class actions were filed in federal
court in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of a
putative class of persons who entered into or held any foreign
exchange futures contracts and options on foreign exchange futures
contracts since 1 January 2003.

The complaints assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act
(CEA) and the US antitrust laws. In July 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed on behalf of both putative classes of persons
covered by the US federal court class actions.

UBS has entered into a settlement agreement that would resolve all
of these US federal court class actions. The agreement, which has
been preliminarily approved by the court and is subject to final
court approval, requires, among other things, that UBS pay an
aggregate of USD 141 million and provide cooperation to the
settlement classes.

In June 2015, a putative class action was filed in federal court
in New York against UBS and other banks on behalf of participants,
beneficiaries, and named fiduciaries of plans qualified under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) for whom a
defendant bank provided foreign currency exchange transactional
services, exercised discretionary authority or discretionary
control over management of such ERISA plan, or authorized or
permitted the execution of any foreign currency exchange
transactional services involving such plan's assets. The complaint
asserts claims under ERISA.

In 2015, UBS was added to putative class actions pending against
other banks in federal court in New York and other jurisdictions
on behalf of putative classes of persons who bought or sold
physical precious metals and various precious metal products and
derivatives. The complaints in these lawsuits assert claims under
the antitrust laws and the CEA, and other claims.


UBS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss LIBOR Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
UBS Group AG and UBS AG said in their Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion of UBS and
other defendants to dismiss LIBOR and other benchmark-related
civil litigation remains pending.

A number of putative class actions and other actions are pending
in, or expected to be transferred to, the federal courts in New
York against UBS and numerous other banks on behalf of parties who
transacted in certain interest rate benchmark-based derivatives.
Also pending are actions asserting losses related to various
products whose interest rate was linked to USD LIBOR, including
adjustable rate mortgages, preferred and debt securities, bonds
pledged as collateral, loans, depository accounts, investments and
other interest-bearing instruments.

All of the complaints allege manipulation, through various means,
of various benchmark interest rates, including USD LIBOR, Euroyen
TIBOR, Yen LIBOR, EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR, GBP LIBOR or USD ISDAFIX
rates and seek unspecified compensatory and other damages under
varying legal theories.

In 2013, the court in the USD action dismissed the federal
antitrust and racketeering claims of certain USD LIBOR plaintiffs
and a portion of their claims brought under the CEA and state
common law. Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal, and the appeal
remains pending.

In 2014, the court in one of the Euroyen TIBOR lawsuits dismissed
certain of the plaintiff's claims, including federal antitrust
claims.

In 2015, the same court dismissed plaintiff's federal racketeering
claims and affirmed its previous dismissal of plaintiff's
antitrust claims. UBS and other defendants in other lawsuits
including those related to EURIBOR, CHF LIBOR and GBP LIBOR have
filed motions to dismiss.

Since September 2014, putative class actions have been filed in
federal court in New York and New Jersey against UBS and other
financial institutions, among others, on behalf of parties who
entered into interest rate derivative transactions linked to
ISDAFIX. The complaints, which have since been consolidated into
an amended complaint, allege that the defendants conspired to
manipulate ISDAFIX rates from 1 January 2006 through January 2014,
in violation of US antitrust laws and the CEA, among other
theories, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, including
treble damages. UBS and other defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss, which remains pending.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Settlement Key Aspects Not Yet Disclosed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that key aspects of
Volkswagen A.G.'s diesel emissions settlement announced on April
21 have still not been disclosed. And if a federal judge gets his
way, they won't be for at least a couple months.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer seemed less than amused that
some figures had been leaked indicating how much affected car
owners would be paid.

"I find it a disservice to have information about where people are
in terms of negotiations sort of floated out there, which these
consumers believe are probably the terms of any final agreement,"
Judge Breyer said, addressing a packed courtroom.

Breyer, a senior judge in the Northern District of California,
noted that people who have bought affected cars are worried about
how the litigation will affect their finances and their vehicle.
While consumers' peace of mind is one concern, Judge Breyer may
also fear the complaints sure to rain on his chambers once the
terms are released.  Having information dribbled out before a deal
is finalized, he said, "gives them some suggestion that perhaps
maybe their particular concerns won't be addressed."

Judge Breyer said he would formally order the parties to keep the
contents of any tentative agreement confidential until it is filed
with the court.  He set a June 21 deadline for a proposed
settlement to be submitted, after which he said he would encourage
public scrutiny of the deal.

"But until then, there is truly nothing for them to comment on,"
he said.

In a case that has drawn worldwide media attention, his remarks
did little to deter a gaggle of reporters in the courtroom from
pressing lawyers for more details.  Robert Giuffra Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell, who represents
Volkswagen, and plaintiff steering committee chair Elizabeth
Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein declined to go
beyond their statements in court.

Judge Breyer did lift the curtain a bit on the agreement in
principle among Volkwagen, U.S. government officials and lawyers
representing car owners.  For the approximately 480,000 affected
two-liter-engine cars on the road, VW owners will have the option
of Volkswagen buying back their vehicles or having them repaired
to address excess emissions.  Meanwhile, people who leased their
cars will be able to cancel the lease, Judge  Breyer said.

VW will have to pay "substantial compensation" in connection with
the car buyback, Breyer said, and create a fund to remediate the
environmental damage caused by the excess emissions of nitrogen
oxide.

Mr. Giuffra, Ms. Cabraser and Joshua Van Eaton of the U.S.
Department of Justice confirmed the deal's outlines during the
hearing.  The deal was reached among VW, lawyers for the
plaintiffs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Air Resources Board in conjunction with the California
attorney general's office, Judge Breyer said.

Also appearing in court on April 21 was Jonathan Cohen of the
Federal Trade Commission.  Judge Breyer said he understands the
FTC supports the deal, pending final approval by the full
commission.

The FTC filed a consumer-deception complaint in March alleging
that VW sold or leased more than 550,000 diesel cars based on
false claims that they were low-emission, environmentally
friendly, met emissions standards and would maintain a high resale
value.

Judge Breyer is overseeing hundreds of lawsuits against Volkswagen
related to disclosures that its VW-, Audi- and Porsche-branded
vehicles were installed with software to cheat emissions tests
and, according to the EPA, release as much as 40 times the
standard for nitrogen oxide.


WEN: Faces Another Suit Over Shampoo Adverse Effects
----------------------------------------------------
Jess Swanson, writing for Broward Palm Beach New Times, reports
that in 2009, Los Angeles-based celebrity hair stylist Chaz Dean
released Wen, a line of hair-care products that purportedly cleans
and conditions without harsh sulfates to create a healthy, natural
look.  Actresses Alyssa Milano and Christina Applegate have touted
the products on infomercials.  So has Brooke Shields, who in one
commercial flips her hair, looks into the camera, and says, "Wen
is the only thing that can change everything for your hair."

Waverly Robinson of Davie didn't get the softer, shinier, bouncier
locks that Shields or the other A-list celebrities have raved
about, but she agrees that Wen's cleansing condition definitely
"change[d] everything" for her hair.  According to a lawsuit filed
in Broward County in April, Ms. Robinson says Wen products caused
balding, dryness, thinning, and an itchy scalp. Her claims mirror
hundreds of others in an ongoing class-action suit.

"The products are the cause of widespread hair loss suffered by
the Plaintiff," the complaint states.  "Simply put, no reasonable
consumer would purchase a hair product, like the ones at issue, if
they knew at the time of purchase that it would cause their hair
to fall out."

On Consumer Affairs' site, a woman from Brandon, Florida, wrote in
January: "I used this product, and I lost half of my hair and have
huge bald spots."  A few weeks later, a woman in Loxahatchee
wrote, "In less than a month, my hair was coming out in patches .
. . I was bald for about 1.5 years before it grew in."  In
February, a woman from Orlando reported, "Each time [I used Wen],
I had clumps of hair falling out in my shower, all over my comb
and brush . . . I had so much hair falling out that I got scared
and started crying."

In 2014, more than 200 people joined a California class-action
lawsuit against Wen by Chaz Dean.  They alleged that the cleansing
conditioner, which costs as much as $32 for 16 ounces, leads to
balding and rashes. The litigation is ongoing.

Robinson purchased the Wen cleansing conditioner from QVC and paid
more than $100 for the hair-care package.  Ms. Robinson's suit --
unlike the other class action against Wen -- also goes after QVC,
the billion-dollar TV infomercial channel that sells Wen and other
products.  The complaint accuses QVC of not disclosing the adverse
effects.

A QVC spokesperson was unable to comment on the litigation.  Wen
spokesperson Joe Hixson tells New Times that Ms. Robinson's suit
is similar to the other.  "It does not present solid evidence.
It's speculation is what it is.  There's nothing to show that the
people having issues are not for the hundreds of other issues like
alopecia (a condition causing hair loss), stress, or allergy," he
says.  "It's concerning that millions of bottles have been sold
and the universe of people having problems is so small."

Ms. Robinson's attorney, Josh Eggnatz, explains that the
litigation is in its initial stages.  His firm represents Ms.
Robinson and other buyers in Florida.  "Chaz Dean and QVC
represent themselves as reputable companies, and consumers rely on
the reputation and purchase from them. It's the same reason people
purchase the name brand and not the store brand,"
Mr. Eggnatz tells New Times. "Certainly if our client had known
that this product would cause her hair to thin and fall out, if it
was disclosed on the label, then she would not have purchased it
and wouldn't have paid the price that she did."


WOODBURY CHILD: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Work Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sakina Davis, and all other individuals similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Woodbury Child Development Center, Inc. (WCDC), and
John Does 1-5 and 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L-001572-16 (N.J.
Super. Ct., April 27, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages under Conscientious Employee Protection Act
(CEPA), as a result of the Defendant's actions, including
terminating Plaintiff or for intentional, purposeful, willful and
egregious retaliation, performed by members of upper management.

On August 26, 2015, Plaintiff received a "notice of written
warning" stating that she was being issued a written warning
because of issues related to her performance. On August 27, 2015,
plaintiff wrote an e-mail correspondence to the board stating that
she believed the notice of written warning was a result of her
bringing to WCDC's attention "unlawful financial transactions"
that were "prohibited for non-profit organizations." Plaintiff
also indicated in that correspondence that she had contacted her
attorneys regarding the written warning, and her report of
potential fraudulent transactions by the WCDC are protected by the
Whistleblower Act. Four days after this e-mail was sent, on August
31, 2015, Plaintiff received a letter from the WCDC stating that
she was being suspended immediately from her role as Director of
the WCDC. On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff received a letter from
WCDC stating that she was being terminated immediately.

WCDC is a child care center serving community and families since
its opening in 1969 at Woodbury, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
          18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 727 9700


ZANIMO INC: Recalls Vermi Liquid Products
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: April 14, 2016
Posting date: April 26, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Veterinary Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58096

The product does not have marketing authorisation (DIN)

Depth of distribution: Retailers - Quebec and Ontario
Affected products
Vermi
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
Not applicable
Dosage form: Liquid
Strength: Not applicable
Lot or serial number: 4CR04
                      4F034
                      4I159
                      4L019
                      4LR19
                      5E047
                      5K053

Recalling Firm: Zanimo Inc.
                231 chemin du Marais
                St-Adolphe-d'Howard
                J0T 2B0
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization: Holder Not Applicable


* Class Actions Over Parmesan Cheese Mislabeling Pile Up
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that nearly 45 lawsuits have been filed alleging that four brands
labeled "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" including Kraft and Wal-
Mart's private brand fail to tell consumers that they actually
contain fillers made from wood pulp.

The lawsuits, all class actions, allege that the products are
mislabeled because they contain additives such as cellulose, which
is an anti-clumping agent made from wood pulp.  The suits bring
claims under several state consumer laws, common laws and the
federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

"In a nutshell, a number of retailers are selling parmesan cheese
with the misrepresentation that it's 100 percent parmesan cheese
when in fact it is not," said John Driscoll of The Driscoll Firm
in St. Louis, who filed a Feb. 29 motion before the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all the cases to the
Eastern District of Missouri.  Plaintiffs attorneys Todd Garber --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- and Greg Blankinship --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- partners at Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson & Garber in White Plains, New York, have filed
competing motions on March 4 to transfer the litigation to the
Southern District of New York.

The MDL panel has scheduled the matter for its May 26 hearing in
Chicago.

In response, the defendant companies have denied the mislabeling
accusations and attributed the litigation to a Feb. 16 article on
Bloomberg.com that cited independent laboratory studies finding
that 7.8 percent of Wal-Mart's 100% parmesan cheese contained
cellulose and Kraft's had 3.8 percent.

The article cited a senior executive of a defunct cheese
manufacturer and onetime supplier to Target Corp. who pleaded
guilty on Feb. 26 to one count of selling a "misbranded and
adulterated food" following an investigation from the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Prosecutors alleged that Parmesan and Romano made by her company,
Castle Cheese Inc., were falsely labeled as containing 100 percent
real cheese.

Erika Winkels, a spokeswoman for Target, which sells parmesan
cheese under the "Market Pantry" private label, wrote in an email
on April 26 that Castle Cheese has "never been an authorized
Target vendor.  There are no Castle Cheese-produced or -packed
Market Pantry parmesan cheese products on Target's shelves."
The lawsuits were all filed after the Bloomberg article was
published.

Most of the suits were filed against The Kraft Heinz Co., whose
lawyer, Dean Panos of Jenner & Block, wrote in a March 21 court
filing that the suits should be coordinated in Northern District
of Illinois, where one of Kraft's headquarters locations is based,
in Chicago.  Many other plaintiffs attorneys also supported that
district.  Mr. Panos declined to comment.
Target, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Supervalu Inc. also were sued
over their private label cheese.  Ms. Winkels, for Target, when
asked about the lawsuits filed, said Target declined to comment. A
lawyer and spokesman for Supervalu did not respond to requests for
comment about the litigation.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said, "We take this matter
seriously. As this moves through the court system, we'll respond
appropriately."

In April 5 filings, Wal-Mart lawyer David Sellinger --
sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig supported the Eastern
District of Missouri, close to its headquarters in Bentonville,
Arkansas, and Joshua Glikin, a partner at Bowie & Jensen in
Towson, Maryland, a lawyer for Minneapolis-based Target, wanted
them transferred to Maryland. Glikin also represents ICCO-Cheese
Co. Inc., an Orangeburg, New York-based manufacturer named in one
of the suits that provides private-label cheese to Target and Wal-
Mart.

Supervalu attorney Sarah Brew -- sarah.brew@FaegreBD.com -- a
partner at Faegre Baker Daniels, pushed for Minnesota, where she
and her client are based in the Minneapolis area. Brew also
represents Albertson's LLC, which was named in one of the cases.
Minnesota also was a favorite among some plaintiffs attorneys, as
were districts in Pennsylvania and Florida.


* Law Firms Take Steps to Avert Additional Data Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------
Zach Olsen, writing for Legaltech News, reports that recent news
about large scale data breaches at two major law firms in
New York, and a newly public list of others being targeted in
Chicago, confirmed what many in the U.S. legal industry have long
known but have been reluctant to accept: Law firms are the newest
and softest target of cyber-criminal syndicates that are set on
stealing and monetizing confidential information, from market-
moving M&A intel to sensitive patent filings.

The news has signaled an important turning point for the legal
community as law firms struggle to come to terms with the
real-life repercussions of a breach and the effect on their
reputations and bottom lines. Whether a sophisticated cyber attack
or a rudimentary phishing scheme, any breach that exposes
confidential client information, or worse, can irreparably harm a
firm's reputation and the client relationships it holds dear. Many
firms are now taking the necessary steps to protect and insure
themselves for the inevitable attack, but far too many still fall
short and are leaving themselves and their clients open to abuse
at the hands of those who rule the dark web.

The Truth is in the Numbers

Crisis communications firm Infinite Spada recently partnered with
ALM Legal Intelligence to survey law firms around the U.S. in an
effort to gauge firm preparedness for cyber attacks.

The good news: About two-thirds of the law firms surveyed were
comfortable with their firms' abilities to withstand a cyber
attack.  The bad news: Once interviewers started digging deeper,
they found many firms (even those that thought they could
withstand an attack) were not following the commonly accepted best
practices for preventing cyber attacks.  For example:
While 87 percent of firms said employees were trained on policies
and procedures for preventing a cyber attack, only 28 percent of
firms hold cyber security "fire drills" quarterly or semi-
annually.  Training is considered critical to thwarting cyber
attacks, and experts recommend holding drills at least twice a
year.

Nearly 30 percent of law firms haven't yet performed a formal
information, privacy and security assessment.  These audits help
identify the most sensitive and valuable data, allowing the firm
to create additional layers of security to protect that
information.

87 percent of law firms also said they require their vendors to
carry cyber-liability insurance, yet nearly one-third of firms
don't carry such insurance themselves.  While cyber-liability
insurance won't help prevent an attack, it can assist in the
aftermath, and many corporations now require their vendors --
including law firms -- to carry such coverage.

Getting Ahead of the Game: Forming an External Data Breach Team

At the most basic level, two factors put all law firms at risk of
cyber attacks: people and technology.

Any business that relies on devices connected to the internet --
servers, computers, phones or tablets -- has a potential cyber
exposure. But hackers don't just gain access to systems by brute
force.  Instead, most exploit an organization's biggest
vulnerability: its employees.  Often, all it takes to gain access
to a server is one employee, carelessly clicking a malicious link
or sharing a password via email, and the attackers are in.
But while people can undermine a firm's cyber security, they can
also do a lot to enhance it. By building a strong data breach team
before an attack occurs, a firm can not only strengthen its
fortresses, but be ready to respond at a moment's notice.

"Law firms can do themselves a huge favor by investing time up
front to interviewing and hiring members of their breach response
team," said Jennifer Rothstein, a director in Kroll's Cyber
Security practice.  "Assembling a team of legal, forensics, and
communications experts before a crisis hits, ensures firms will
have at the ready a group of people they trust and want to work
with when a breach hits and the pressure is on.  Tabletop
exercises and other practice sessions that test firms' Incident
Response Plans serve to strengthen the team and identify gaps with
enough time to remediate."

A well-prepared firm will have a strong internal team -- including
a firm leader, chief information security officer, security
architect, and IT staff -- that has met with and trusts the
external response team and is able to assemble without hesitation
and quickly identify and respond to attacks in progress.

For those firms with internal IT, security and risk-management
personnel identified, focusing on finding four key external
partners should be priority:

A reputable insurance carrier, with a demonstrated history of
providing cyber insurance policies for law firms. Many carriers
claim to provide the right kind of policies to protect and
remediate in the event of a cyber intrusion, but are heavy on
exclusions which negate coverage.

A computer forensics firm, which is responsible for testing your
firm's security upfront and subsequently identifying how attackers
gained access to your servers, whether attackers are still on the
network, and what information or systems were compromised.  An
effective forensics firm will have the technical know-how to
analyze the attack, but also the communications skills to clearly
explain the scope and magnitude of the breach in a non-technical
manner to firm leadership.

If your firm doesn't have a data privacy and cybersecurity
practice, then outside privacy counsel is critical.  Often
referred to as the "breach coach," privacy counsel has a holistic
understanding of cyber attacks and data breach response.  Privacy
counsel can manage the investigation and act as liaison between
members of the data breach team, ensure appropriate evidence is
preserved, advise the firm on relevant privacy and notification
laws triggered by the breach, work with law enforcement, and
interact with regulators if the attack prompts a government
investigation.

A public relations firm with a crisis communications team that
understands the life cycle of a data breach, and knows how to work
hand-in-hand with privacy counsel.  A data breach can seriously
damage your firm's reputation and prompt clients to take their
business elsewhere, especially if they feel like the firm could
have done more to protect them and their information. A good
crisis communications team with experience liaising with legal
counsel will understand the reputational impact of an attack; how
to prepare upfront; the state-by-state disclosure requirements;
and the communications nuances that can help or hurt a law firm's
credibility and the confidence of its clients.

A Rapidly Evolving Disclosure Landscape

Today, 47 states plus the District of Columbia have laws that
require businesses to notify customers if breaches involving
"personally identifiable information" is compromised.  Although
some laws, such as the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA) and Health Information Technology for
Economic and Clinical Health Act include penalties for data
breaches, many do not.  But the tide may be changing.

In February, for example, the California Attorney General released
a report on data breaches, and recommended 20 security controls
that businesses should implement to reduce the risk of cyber
attacks.  California data security lawyers predict that the AG may
look at if a company implemented these controls when trying to
determine whether to take enforcement action in the wake of a data
breach.

"We can infer from the Report -- although it does not state
directly -- that the Attorney General will look to the Controls as
enforcement guidelines in the absence of any particular statute,
case, or regulation providing a definitive interpretation," said
Batya Forsyth, a partner at Hanson Bridgett, in a recent client
alert.  "On another level, the interest in providing enforcement
guidelines also may signal that the Attorney General intends to
step up enforcement against companies that fail to implement what
are deemed reasonable security procedures and practices."

Not the Last Word

Whether the industry is ready to admit it or not, law firms are
clear in the sights of hackers around the world.  And if recent
data is believed, most firms still need to ramp up their cyber
security efforts, lock in their cyber insurance policies, and have
a plan in place to deal with the breaches that are clearly on the
horizon.  Though the forecast may be bleak, the damage can be
minimized if the decision makers in the legal industry band
together, accept there is a real and credible threat, and take
preemptive measures to curb and swiftly respond to those threats.


* Gig Economy Sector to Face More Legal Battles After Uber Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the war may be
over for Uber Technologies Inc. but by cutting a check for tens of
millions of dollars to settle a slew of threatening labor class
actions, it may have just bought the gig economy a whole new set
of legal battles.

Lawyers say the $84 million settlement that Uber reached -- which
can rise to as much as $100 million if the company goes public or
is acquired and increases in value -- is like a flashing neon
invitation for the plaintiffs bar to keep waging the fight.

And by failing to resolve the core issue of whether on-demand
workers are independent contractors or employees, the Uber
settlement leaves plenty of grist for the mill.

"I don't think this does anything to alleviate any of the
litigation," said Todd Scherwin, a partner in the Los Angeles
office of Fisher & Phillips who represents employers.  "I think
other smaller companies that are part of the sharing economy were
hoping for a definite result here."

Mr. Scherwin said that he anticipates that the large settlement
will entice other plaintiff lawyers to "take a crack" at
enterprises with business models similar to Uber's.  "Those are
big dollar signs," he said.

Daniel Hutchinson, a partner at plaintiffs firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, agreed.  "Certainly to the extent that this
leaves a lack of clarity on these issues, I certainly think there
will be people who look to resolve" them in other cases,
Hutchinson said.

Daniel Handman -- dhandman@HKemploymentlaw.com -- of employer firm
Hirschfeld Kraemer was even more blunt.  "I really think that this
case was just the tip of the iceberg," he said.

There are at least a dozen other cases pending in California
courts against a cast of app-enabled, on-demand companies.
Instacart, GrubHub and DoorDash have all come in the crosshairs.
Steven Davidoff Solomon, co-director of the Berkeley Center for
Law, Business and the Economy, was less convinced that the Uber
settlement will stoke more litigation in the "share economy"
space.

"It does leave a lot unsettled," Davidoff Solomon said.  "But
given the rise of arbitration agreements . . .  most of this will
be funneled out of the court."  Companies eyeing the Uber battle,
and a similar suit against Lyft Inc., have retooled their
agreements to make sure they are air-tight, he said.

The end result is that the fight will ultimately have to be
addressed by the Legislature, Davidoff Solomon said, positing that
this may be better anyway.  "The courts are not well-equipped to
deal with this issue."

In obvious ways, the Uber settlement is a big win for the gig
economy's chief antagonist: Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-
Riordan of Lichten & Liss Riordan.  She founded her firm just
seven years ago, and before launching the cases in 2013 was
unknown in the Northern California legal scene.

But by allowing Uber to continue classifying its drivers as
independent contractors, the litigation also clearly falls short
of Ms. Liss-Riordan's original goal.  In an April 2015 interview,
she professed a conviction that the companies had both an
obligation and a clear ability to provide workers with basic
benefits.



                            *********

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  * * *