CAR_Public/160614.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 118




                            Headlines


2001 INC: "Reagan" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Under FLSA
ACE PARKING: Faces "Byles" Suit in W.D. Wash.
AFFILIATED FOODS: Court Junks Bid for Reconsideration in "Morgan"
ALASKO FOODS: Recalls Mixed Vegetable Products Due to Listeria
ALIBABA GROUP: Lundin Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

ALISO VIEJO, CA: Denial of Bid for Atty Fees in "Hillis" Affirmed
ALLERGAN PLC: Providence Files Drug Price-Fixing Class Action
ALLIANCE ONE: Lisiecki Seeks Certification of Classes in Wisc.
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Sued in N.D. Fla. Over Insurance Program
ASB ENTERPRISE: "Turzak" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA

AUSTRALIA: Decision in Cattle Export Ban Class Action Imminent
AUSTRALIA: NFF Calls for Cattle Ban Class Action Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Baltimore Council Suit in S.D.N.Y.
BC 126833300: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products Due to Listeria
BELL MOBILITY: Consumers to Appeal Class Action Dismissal

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Wisecarver" Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
BP EXPLORATION: Sanction Order in Lake Eugenie Suit Affirmed
BP PLC: Fraudulent Claims Identified in Oil Spill Class Action
BRIDGECARE INC: Class Certification Bid in Able Suit Withdrawn
CANADA: Sued Over Metro Stations' Lack of Wheelchairs

CARRINGTON TEA: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for July 5
CBS RADIO: Bonin Seeks Certification of Class in Wisconsin
CELLULAR SALES: 8th Cir. Enforces NLRB Arbitration Ruling
CHATOUS INC: Court Deferred Class Certification in "Morgan" Suit
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Seeks Transfer of Lease Case to Fed. Court

CHEVROLET: Recalls Malibu 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge Journey 2009 Models Due to Crash Risk
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Violated ERISA Litigation Final Judgment
CONTEMPORARY SERVICES: Faces "Merino" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
COOKIN' GREENS: Recalls Kale, Sweet Corn & Pea Products

CORDIS CORPORATION: Recalls Precise Pro Stent System Products
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Chicken with Japanese-Style Fried Rice
DECISIVE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Waring" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
DIANE DUNCAN KOERNER: Faces "Verde" Suit in S.D. Tex.
DRILTECH LLC: Conditional Certification Sought "Baker" Suit

EMPORIO 50: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: Cox Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
EXPLORE TALENT: Aspiring Actors File Class Action
FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT: "Harger" Suit Wins Class Certification
FLEETWOOD: Recalls Discovery & Rambler Motorhomes 2016 Models

GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Sought in "Tolmasoff" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Chevrolet Malibu 2016 Models
GOLDEN STATE: "Esquer" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
GOOGLE INC: Carney Bates Files Data Breach Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Allows Adwords Class Action to Proceed

HEARTWARE INC: Recalls Ventricular Assist System Products
HMG PARK: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Abeldano" Suit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks Court to Approve Class Notice
HONG KONG: Whistleblower to Spearhead Tainted Water Legal Battle
HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Green Bean Products Due to Listeria

IHEARTMEDIA: Settles Class Action; July 8 Approval Hearing Set
ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Bid in "Riffey" Suit Denied
ITC SERVICE: Bid for Conditional Certification of Class Denied
JC CHRISTENSEN: Certification of Class Sought in "Dawes" Suit
JOHN CRANE: Files RICO Action Against Asbestos Plaintiffs Counsel

KANKAKEE COUNTY, IL: Class Definitions Must Be Revisited
KNCMINER: Class Action to Proceed Despite Bankruptcy Filing
KRAFT: Panel Transfers 50+ Parmesan Cheese Cases to Chicago
LIFEWATCH INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Donaca" Suit
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh(R) Boys Swimsuits

LTD FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Baez" Suit Partly Granted
MARCOAH GROUP: Hearing on Certification Bid Cont'd to July 25
MDL 2067: Court Won't Certify Class in Painters Fund Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Williams" Suit
MODESTO, CA: Class Actions Seek Refund of MID Overcharges

MONTGOMERY: Board of Elections Faces "Yi" Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Study Set to Start Amid Controversy
NEOVASC INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhomes Models Due to Crash Risk
PAPP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Search & Smile Board Book Series

PETROBRAS: Class Action Trial Scheduled for September 19
PIRELLI: Recalls 2016 Vehicle Models Due to Noncompliance
PROGRESS INC: Jean-Charles Moves for Class Certification
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Folate III Kit Products

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Trigl Cobas C701 Analyzer Products
SAKS & COMPANY: "Crawford" Suit Dismissed
SAVANNA ENERGY: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Burlew" Suit
SINGING RIVER: Court Approves $149MM Class Action Settlement
SMITHS MEDICAL: Recalls CADD Administration Sets With Flow Stop

SOUTH CAROLINA: Settles Inmates' Mental Health Care Class Action
STAND-BY PERSONNEL: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
T. ROWE PRICE: To Pay Out $194 Million Over Botched Dell Deal
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want Fraud Class Action Tossed
THAI UNITED: Recalls Curry Dipping & Dressing Products

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Senate Republicans Balk at Judge Attacks
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Top Prosecutor Vows to Continue Litigation
UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit
UNITED STATES: IRS Reveals List of Scrutinized Tea Party Groups
UNITED STATES: BCBS Files Suit for Promised ACA Payments

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Fines Execs for Deceptive Practices
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liss-Riordan Defends Class Action Settlement
WAFFLE HOUSE: Certification of 5 Classes Sought in "Jones" Suit
WALGREENS: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Challenged
WAYNE, MI: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Sumpter" Class Suit

WEBBERSFOOD LTD: Updates Salami Products Recall
YOUR BEST: Recalls Pest Protection Products
ZIMMER INC: Recalls Compression Screw Products

* Companies Facing TCPA Class Actions Need Insurance Coverage
* Cos. Face TCCWNA Class Action Risk Over Websites' Terms of Use
* Neuwirth Gives Insight Into Antitrust Class Action Landscape
* SA Gold Mining Companies Appeal Silicosis Class Action Ruling


                            *********


2001 INC: "Reagan" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Marissa Reagan, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, 2001, Inc., a Florida
Corporation d/b/a 2001 Odyssey, and Todd Krause, and individual,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01421-JDW-JSS (M.D. Fla., June 3,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wage and overtime rate pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants required and/or
permitted the Plaintiff to work as exotic "entertainer" and/or
dancer at their adult entertainment club in excess of 40 hours per
week, but refused to compensate at the applicable minimum wage and
overtime rate.

2001 Odyssey is an adult entertainment club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam B. Kenner, Esq.
          KENNER, CUMMMINGS & IMPARATO, PLLC
          175 SW 7th Street, Suite 2410
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 384 7370
          Facsimile: (305) 384 7371
          E-mail: adam@kennercummings.com


ACE PARKING: Faces "Byles" Suit in W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ace Parking Management, Inc. The
case is captioned Bruce Byles, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ace Parking
Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00834-JCC (W.D.
Wash., June 3, 2016). The assigned District Judge is John C.
Coughenour.

Ace Parking manages every conceivable type of parking application
including: Office, Retail, Hotel and Valet Services, Airport
Parking, Stadium, and Hospitals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Darrell L Cochran, Esq.
          PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC (TACOMA)
          911 Pacific Ave, Ste 200
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 777 0799
          E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.co


AFFILIATED FOODS: Court Junks Bid for Reconsideration in "Morgan"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Leon Holmes of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, denied the motion
for reconsideration filed by the defendant in the case captioned
BRENDA MORGAN, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated; and DONNA KELLETT, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AFFILIATED FOODS SOUTHWEST, INC., Defendant, No.
4:15CV00296 JLH (E.D. Ark.).

The action began as an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy on July
10, 2009. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, alleging
that Affiliated Foods violated the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by failing to give
employees at least sixty days advance notice of termination.
Affiliated Foods filed a motion to withdraw the reference. The
plaintiffs did not object to withdrawing the reference and the
motion was granted. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for class
certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The
Court granted the motion on April 26, 2016.  Now, Affiliated Foods
has filed a motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated June 2, 2016 is
available at https://is.gd/R1xRVg from Leagle.com

Brenda Morgan, Plaintiff, is represented by Cade L. Cox, Cox,
Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC, David Wayne Sterling, Arkansas
Department of Human Services, M. Vance McCrary, The Gardner Firm,
Mary E. Olsen, The Gardner Firm, Melanie J. McClure, Cox,
Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC & Stuart J. Miller, Lankenau &
Miller, LLP.

Donna Kellett, Plaintiff, is represented by Cade L. Cox, Cox,
Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC, David Wayne Sterling, Arkansas
Department of Human Services, M. Vance McCrary, The Gardner Firm,
Mary E. Olsen, The Gardner Firm, Melanie J. McClure, Cox,
Sterling, McClure & Vandiver, PLLC & Stuart J. Miller, Lankenau &
Miller, LLP.

Affiliated Foods Southwest Inc, Defendant, is represented by Greta
Brouphy, Esq. -- gbrouphy@hellerdraper.com -- Heller Draper Hayden
Patrick & Horn, LLC, Kerrilee Elizabeth Kobbeman, Esq. --
kkobbeman@cwlaw.com -- Conner & Winters, LLP, Richard L. Cox, Esq.
-- & Todd Patrick Lewis, Esq. -- tlewis@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, LLP.

Richard L Cox, Trustee, is represented by Todd Patrick Lewis,
Conner & Winters, LLP.

            About Affiliated Foods Southwest

Little Rock, Arkansas-based Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc., and
its affiliates, including Shur-Valu Stamps, Inc., filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. E.D. Ark. Case No. 09-13178) on
May 5, 2009.  W. Michael Reif, Esq., at Dover Dixon Horne,
represented the Debtors in their restructuring efforts.  The
Debtors estimated assets between $10 million and $50 million and
debts between $100 million and $500 million.

Rather than proceed with a disclosure statement and plan of
reorganization, both Affiliated Foods and ShurValu engaged in
an orderly liquidation followed by conversion to Chapter 7 on
August 13, 2009.  M. Randy Rice became the Chapter 7 trustee in
the ShurValu matter.  Mr. Rice, as the trustee in the ShurValu
case, later chose to put the wholly owned subsidiary --
Supermarket Investors, Inc. -- into a separate Chapter 7 on
October 13, 2009.  The court thereafter appointed Mr. Rice as the
trustee in the SII proceeding.

Richard Cox was named the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for
Affiliated Foods Southwest Inc.


ALASKO FOODS: Recalls Mixed Vegetable Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Alasko Foods Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10594

Brand    Common name   Size    Code(s) on    UPC
name     -----------   ----    product       ----
-----                          ----------
Alasko   IQF Regular   6 x 2   All Product   1 06 95058 17331 7
          Mixed         kg      manufactured
          Vegetables A          after May 1,
          Grade                 2014 or Best
                                Before May 1,
                                2016 to May 1,
                                2018.
Alasko  IQF Regular    6 x 2   All Product1   06 95058 17341 6
         Mixed          kg      manufactured
         Vegetables B           after May 1,
         Grade                  2014 or Best
                                Before May 1,
                                2016 to May 1,
                                2018.


ALIBABA GROUP: Lundin Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC on June 6 disclosed that it is investigating claims
against Alibaba Group Holdings Limited ("Alibaba Group" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BABA) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws.  The investigation is related to allegations that
certain statements issued by Alibaba Group were false and
misleading and/or failed to disclose material information
regarding the Company's financial performance.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, please contact Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via email
at brian@lundinlawpc.com

The investigation concerns whether the Company violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the investigation will focus on the Company's May
24, 2016, SEC Form 20-F, which announced that the SEC had
requested information relating to "consolidation policies and
practices (including [the Company's] accounting for Cainiao
Network as an equity method investee)" and "policies and practices
applicable to related party transactions in general, and [the
Company's] reporting of operating data from Singles Day" (a
popular online shopping holiday in China).

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


ALISO VIEJO, CA: Denial of Bid for Atty Fees in "Hillis" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KYLE HILLIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CITY OF ALISO VIEJO, Defendant and Respondent, No. G051900 (Cal.
Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
Division Three affirmed the trial court's order denying Kyle
Hillis and award of attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure
section 1021.5.

Hillis filed a putative class action against the City and the
County of Orange on behalf of himself and any other drivers who
had been cited for violating a sign posted at an intersection
within the City's limits, stating "RIGHT TURN ON GREEN [green
light symbol] OR [green right arrow symbol] ONLY."  Hillis alleged
causes of action for violation of the Vehicle Code and the
California Constitution (deprivation of property without due
process and excess fines), conversion, and unjust enrichment.  He
sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as damages.
Hillis also prayed for attorney fees under section 1021.5.  The
City removed the sign during the pendency of the action.  The
trial court subsequently granted the City's motion for judgment on
the pleadings and entered judgment in its favor.

Thereafter, Hillis filed a motion for attorney fees pursuant to
section 1021.5, seeking just under $70,000.  The trial court
denied the motion.

Hillis appealed from the trial court's postjudgment order, arguing
he was entitled to recover attorney fees because his action was
the "catalyst" that forced the defendant and respondent City to
remove a nonconforming traffic sign.

The appellate court agreed with the trial court's ruling that
attorney fees were not warranted because the general public did
not receive a significant benefit from the action.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's June 2, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/9OobX4 from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Waller Jr.; Feerick & Associates and Thomas F. Feerick
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Best Best & Krieger and Thomas J. Eastmond --
thomas.eastmond@bbklaw.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


ALLERGAN PLC: Providence Files Drug Price-Fixing Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Helenthal, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Rhode
Island city's decision to file a class action lawsuit against
several pharmaceutical manufacturers over allegations that they
conspired to fix the prices of certain generic drugs is unusual,
legal experts say.

The city of Providence Island filed the lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island on May 12.  As in several
other lawsuits filed by the City in recent years, Providence is
represented by the law firm Motley Rice.

"I'm not saying it's never happened, but I've not seen anything
like that before," said Chris Bonneau, an associate professor of
political science at the University of Pittsburgh.

Mr. Bonneau said most such lawsuits are filed by an injured
consumer, with the "class" being anyone who has suffered similar
alleged injury and damages.

"That's a new one," said Timothy Daniels, a trial attorney who has
led class action suits and specializes in product liability and
pharmaceutical and medical devices law.

"I've never heard of that before."

Mr. Bonneau said proving conspiracy demands a very high burden of
proof.

"The biggest question is, 'How can the town show standing or
harm?'" Mr. Bonneau said.  "I'm just not sure how a city would be
able to have a cause of action.  This is something that usually
directly involves consumers."

The companies being sued are Allergan PLC, Actavis PLC, Lannett
Company Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies Inc., Impax
Laboratories Inc., Mylan Inc. and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp.

The suit alleges the defendants entered into an unlawful agreement
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of generic
Doxycycline, a common antibiotic used to treat a wide variety of
infections, and Digoxin, a widely prescribed medication used to
treat atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or heart failure.

According to the lawsuit, Doxycycline went from an average market
price of $20 in October 2013 to $1,849 in April 2014.  Similarly,
Digoxin prices increased more than 800 percent in some instances
from 2012 to the present.  The suit alleges that the conspiracy
related to these generic drugs may have been accomplished, in
part, through trade organizations.

The suit claims violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the
Clayton Antitrust Act, unjust enrichment and violations of state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiff and others in the class seek a jury trial, treble
damages, injunctive relief, interests, attorney fees and other
costs of the suit.  They are represented by attorneys Robert J.
McConnell and Vincent L. Greene of Motley Rice in Providence.


ALLIANCE ONE: Lisiecki Seeks Certification of Classes in Wisc.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the classes described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled MICHELLE LISIECKI, NANCY
SCIFO, DENNIS RUMPEL and CHRISTINE VERETTE, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLIANCE ONE
RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00675-CNC (E.D.
Wisc.).

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RfXkbEHY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Sued in N.D. Fla. Over Insurance Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case Pet Food Express Ltd., a California
corporation and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Applied Underwriters Inc. (AU), Applied Underwriters Captive Risk
Assurance, Inc. (AUCRA), and California Insurance Company, Inc.,
and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01211-
MCE-CKD (N.D. Fla., June 3, 2016), seeks, for itself and on behalf
of the respective proposed class: (i) determination that a certain
Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) is illegal and void;
(ii) rescission of all workers' compensation policies and RPA's;
(iii) restitution in an amount equal to the total amount of money
paid to Defendants for the Product minus the price of a guaranteed
policy for the same policy period all for the four year period
previous to the filing of the Class Action Complaint; (iv)
attorneys' fees under California Code of Civil Procedure; (v)
punitive damages on the cause of action for fraud in the amount of
$100 million; (vi )permanent injunction restraining Defendants
from marketing or selling the EquityComp Program (TM) in
California; and (vii) costs of suit.

According to the complaint, AU allegedly marketed and sold
workers' compensation insurance program, the EquityComp Program
(TM), under which Plaintiff was issued workers' compensation
policies by California Insurance Company, Inc. and entered into a
separate RPA with AUCRA.

Applied Underwriters designs financial services and workers'
compensation solutions.

The Defendants are represented by:

          J. Russell Stedman, Esq.
          Travis R. Wall, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          One California Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362 6000
          Facsimile: (415) 834 9070
          E-mail: jstedman@mail.hinshawlaw.com
                  twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com

               - and -

          Spencer Y. Kook, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          633 West 5th Street, 47th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680 2800
          Facsimile: (213) 614 7399
          E-mail: skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com


ASB ENTERPRISE: "Turzak" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura J. Turzak, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASB Enterprise Inc., DBA Spring House,
Family Restaurant and Anna Halaris, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01810-DCN (D. S. Car., June 3, 2016), seeks
judgment against the Defendants, specifically: (a) an amount equal
to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees' wages at the
applicable hourly rate of $7.25; (b) amount of unlawfully retained
portions of tips they received from Plaintiffs; (c) award of
compensatory damages in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime
compensation and minimum wages; (d) award of liquidated damages in
an amount equal to the award of compensatory damages; (e) award of
treble damages pursuant to the South Carolina Payment of Wages
Act; (f) reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred; (g)
restitution of wages and gratuities improperly retained by
Defendant; and (h) relief as the Court deems just and equitable,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff brought this action,
individually and as an opt-in collective action, on behalf of a
class of all similarly situated servers who worked in excess of 40
hours during certain workweeks without receiving overtime
compensation, and who were not paid the federal minimum wage, and
who had improper deductions from their wages and tips while
working for Defendants.

The Defendants operate Spring House Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
          MULLANEY LAW
          1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd Suite 104
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (800) 385 8160
          E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


AUSTRALIA: Decision in Cattle Export Ban Class Action Imminent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristy O'Brien, writing for ABC, reports that a class action
against the Federal Government alleging the suspension to live
export of cattle in 2011 was invalid, rushed and done without
appropriate consultation is reaching a critical phase.

A decision is imminent as to whether the class action will be
settled for hundreds of millions of dollars or if it will proceed
to hearing.

The Farmers Future Fighting Fund is funding the action, and
chairman Hugh Nivison said so far it had spent $3 million.

Mr. Nivison said they had pursued the case on the basis they
believed the second control order issued by former agriculture
minister Joe Ludwig was invalid.

"We've always hoped the Government would see sense and settle,"
Mr. Nivison said.

"The whole idea of the case is to get the affected producers and
rest of the people compensation money.

"Unfortunately we're going to have to pursue it right through to
the courts which is a place we didn't want to go."

Mr. Ludwig has declined to comment.

If the class action does proceed to court, a start date is likely
to be set for the end of 2016.

High price for life on the land

The Brett Cattle Company are lead claimants in the class action.

Just a few months after launching the case, Dougal Brett, who
headed up the company, was killed in a helicopter accident and his
wife Emily Brett was left to continue alone in the case.

Ms. Brett said the financial and emotional stress had taken a
toll.

As a result, Ms. Brett said she decided to walk away from Waterloo
Station, where she and her late husband had worked so hard.

But she said she would continue to work with lawyers and the
Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association to see the class action
through to a conclusion.

Ms. Brett said she believed the class action would be successful
for the claimants.

"I think when we win this class action that it will certainly make
the Government think before they make any more kneejerk decision
like they did," she said.

"It was made so quickly and without really considering the
implications."

Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association chief executive Tracey
Hayes said the legal process had collected more than 40,000
documents as part of the research process.

Ms. Hayes said the sheer amount of evidence was "unfathomable",
and even the actual number of claimants was not yet known
definitively because it was on an opt-out basis.

"I can tell you that the level of enquiry has been high and right
across the north of Australia and just not simply beef
businesses," Ms. Hayes said.


AUSTRALIA: NFF Calls for Cattle Ban Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colin Bettles, writing for Katherine Times, reports that the
National Farmers Federation has urged the federal government to
move forward and settle the lingering class action compensation
claim, as a matter of priority, to give closure to those impacted
by the 2011 Indonesian live cattle exports crisis.

Trade to the northern export market was suspended suddenly five
years ago, to implement a new supply chain assurance system, to
address community concerns about animal welfare outcomes, at the
point of slaughter.

In October 2014, a class action claim was filed in the Federal
Court alleging an Export Control Order made by then Agriculture
Minister Joe Ludwig on June 7, 2011 -- restricting exports to
Indonesia for six months -- was "invalid".

In calling on the government to act, NFF President Brent Finlay
said animal welfare had always been a high priority for industry
and cattle producers but feelings still remained about the
government's sudden suspension decision.

"It has left a huge scar and really shook the trust of some good,
decent hard working people, in their government," he said.

Mr Finlay said hundreds of families, whose livelihoods were
stripped from them through no fault of their own, continued to be
overwhelmed by debt and were struggling to rebuild their
businesses as a consequence of the "rash and unsophisticated"
decision made by the former Labor government.

"The naive manner in which the month-long suspension was executed
has inflicted wide-reaching and long-lasting damage," he said.

Mr Finlay said the suspension had an immediate impact on industry,
including a sharp and unexpected halt to income, a compromise of
Australia's reputation as a reliable trade partner and perverse
animal welfare outcomes for stock stranded in holding yards.

He said five years on, families were still wearing the financial
and emotional scars of this misguided intervention.

"Poor government decisions cost jobs and lives and there remains
an obligation on our politicians to right this wrong," he said.

Mr Finlay said the legal action seeking compensation from affected
parties continued to drag through the courts to the ongoing
detriment of families and business.

"Those affected by this sorry saga need closure," he said.

"Each day that passes just reminds them of a time when government
did not care about them, their families or livelihoods."

Mr. Finlay said both major political parties had said, on the
public record, the ban was a poor decision.

He said Labor has labelled its actions "regrettable" while the
Coalition continued to attack Labor for imposing the ban.

"Despite this, neither side has taken any steps towards resolution
of the legal case that followed," he said.

"It's time for those affected to be compensated for the social and
economic consequences that followed June 7, 2011.

"Five years is long enough -- this needs to happen as a matter of
priority."

The claim was listed in this year's federal budget under
unquantifiable contingent liabilities.

While the total amount has been speculated at about $1 billion,
the budget papers said the final quantum of any damages sought
cannot be predicted.

"The Department of Finance, which has responsibility for Comcover
(the Australian Government's general insurance fund), has assumed
responsibility for the potential claims under its insurance
arrangements with the Department of Agriculture and Water
Resources," it said.

"The Commonwealth has denied liability."

Andrew Gill, partner of Minter Ellison's Canberra office, is
running the matter and said the lead applicant had completed its
evidence, including a modelling report and evidence on loss.

Mr Gill said the industry's case was therefore almost complete and
the Commonwealth can now extrapolate the total loss suffered
across the Northern Australian pastoral industry which was
"significant".

He said the Commonwealth's evidence was due at the end of August
and they may wish to mediate.

"Losses continue to accumulate for all involved in the beef cattle
industry across the Northern Australian land mass while they wait
for the Commonwealth to complete its evidence," he said.

"The caretaker period does not assist the delay.

"The loss from this decision together with the resulting long-term
damage, still impacts upon the long term plans for the development
of Northern Australia.

"Without a recovery there may not be the certainty required for
Northern Australia to reach its full potential."

Mr Gill said the loss and damage extended further than the losses
resulting from the legal claim.

He said it also extended to indigenous land tenure and job losses
and the lives and livelihoods "that have been devastated", whilst
waiting for a proper response from the government.

"The butterfly effect has also been devastating, going beyond
financial impacts for instance impacting upon the life of Dougal
Brett from Waterloo Station," he said.

The class action claim is being strongly backed by the Australian
Farmers Fighting Fund with the Brett Cattle Company being the lead
applicant.

It includes cattle producers and exporters exposed to the
Indonesian market at the time of the suspension and related
businesses that provided transport and mustering services, feed,
agistment and other services that suffered financial harm.

Mr Brett, of Waterloo Station, Timber Creek, NT died after a
helicopter accident last year while working on the family cattle
station, leaving behind his wife Emily and three young children.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Baltimore Council Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit, re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, has been
filed against Bank of America Corporation. The case is captioned
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and Public School Teachers'
Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., BNP Paribas Securities Corp.,
Citigroup, Inc., Citibank N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit
Suisse AG, Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, and Deutsche Bank AG, Case No. 1:16-md-02704-PAE
(S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Paul A.
Engelmayer.

Bank of America operates as full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. The bank serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States.

The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore are represented by:

          Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Esq.
          Cory Spencer Buland, Esq.
          Elisha Brandis Barron, Esq.
          Seth D. Ard, Esq.
          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP (NYC)
          560 Lexington Avenue 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336 8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336 8340
          E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
                  cbuland@susmangodfrey.com
                  ebarron@susmangodfrey.com
                  sard@susmangodfrey.com
                  bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Daniel Lawrence Brockett, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 872 9800
          Facsimile: (212) 849 7100
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (DC)
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

The Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago
are represented by:

          Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
          Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Esq.
          John Douglas Richards, Esq.
          Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Sharon Kunjumon Robertson, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (IL)
          190 North LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 357 0370
          Facsimile: (312) 357 0369
          E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdubner@cohenmilstein.com
                  drichards@cohenmilstein.com
                  meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                  srobertson@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Daniel Lawrence Brockett, Esq.
          David Leray, Esq.
          Miles Hampson Plant, Esq.
          Sascha Nicholas Rand, Esq.
          Steig Olson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN (NYC)
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7630
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  davidleray@quinnemanuel.com
                  milesplant@quinnemanuel.com
                  sascharand@quinnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Burns, Esq.
          William Walter Leathem, Esq.
          JACOBS, BURNS, ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ
          150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60603-2002
          Telephone: (312) 327 3431
          Facsimile: (312) 580 7175
          E-mail: jburns@jbosh.com
                  wleathem@jbosh.com

               - and -

          Steven Jeffrey Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (DC)
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated are represented by:

          Adam Selim Hakki, Esq.
          Richard Franklin Schwed, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP (NY)
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848 4924
          Facsimile: (646) 848 4924
          E-mail: ahakki@shearman.com
                  rschwed@shearman.com

Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and Barclays Capital Inc. are
represented by:

          Christopher J. Clark, Esq.
          James Ellis Brandt, Esq.
          Lawrence Edward Buterman, Esq.
          M. Theodore Takougang, Esq.
          Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq.
          William H Rawson, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP (NY)
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 906 1350
          Facsimile: (212) 751 4864
          E-mail: christopher.clark2@lw.com
                  james.brandt@lw.com
                  lawrence.buterman@lw.com
                  theodore.takougang@lw.com
                  margaret.zwisler@lw.com
                  william.h.rawson@lw.com

BNP Paribas, S.A. and BNP Paribas Securities Corp. are represented
by:

          Leah Friedman, Esq.
          Marshall Howard Fishman, Esq.
          Michael Lacovara, Esq.
          FRIEDFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 277 4000
          Facsimile: (212) 277 4001
          E-mail: leah.friedman@freshfields.com
                  marshall.fishman@freshfields.com
                  michael.lacovara@freshfields.com


Citigroup, Inc., Citibank N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and
Citigroup Global Markets Limited are represented by:

          Brad Scott Karp, Esq.
          Julia Tarver-Mason Wood, Esq.
          Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Esq.
          Ravi Sharma, Esq.
          William Clareman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
          & GARRISON LLP (NY)
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373 2384
          Facsimile: (212) 373 2384
          E-mail: bkarp@paulweiss.com
                  jwood@paulweiss.com
                  kgallo@paulweiss.com
                  rsharma@paulweiss.com
                  wclareman@paulweiss.com

Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
International, and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC are
represented by:

          David George Januszewski, Esq.
          Elai E. Katz, Esq.
          Herbert Scott Washer, Esq.
          Jason Michael Hall, Esq.
          Sheila Chithran Ramesh, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 701 3000
          Facsimile: (212) 269 5420
          E-mail: djanuszewski@cahill.com
                  ekatz@cahill.com
                  hwasher@cahill.com
                  jhall@cahill.com
                  sramesh@cahill.com


Deutsche Bank AG is represented by

          Eric Peter Stephens, Esq.
          Paula W. Render, Esq.
          Rebekah E Blake, Esq.
          Tracy V. Schaffer, Esq.
          JONES DAY (NYC)
          250 Vesey Street 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10381
          Telephone: (212) 326 3939
          Facsimile: (212) 755 7306
          E-mail: epstephens@jonesday.com
                  prender@jonesday.com
                  reblake@jonesday.com
                  tschaffer@jonesday.com


BC 126833300: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 7, 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: BC 126833300
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly
National, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10583

BC 126833300 is recalling Harmonie brand, IGA brand, Co-op brand,
Western Family brand and unbranded frozen vegetable products from
the marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

If you think you became sick from eating a recalled product, call
your doctor.

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.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products, however, there have been
reported illnesses in the United States linked to consuming
products manufactured or processed by CRF Frozen Foods, the
manufacturer of one of the ingredients.

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 products
from the marketplace.

  Brand      Common        Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name          ----    product       ----
  -----      ------                ----------
  Harmonie   Frozen        2 kg    023-15        0 57316 09470 4
             Mixed                 030-15
             Vegetables            043-15
                                   049-15
                                   069-15
                                   073-15
                                   078-15
                                   083-15
                                   086-15
                                   092-15
                                   097-15
                                   098-15
                                   101-15
                                   104-15
                                   119-15
  IGA         Mixed
              Vegetables   750 g   030-15        6 29328 03038
                                   059-15
                                   113-15
  Co-op       Frozen Cut   1 kg    038-15        0 57316 02882 2
              Green Beans          051-15
                                   063-15
                                   083-15
                                   089-15
                                   106-15
  Co-op       Frozen Mixed 750 g   006-15        0 57316 14933 6
              Vegetables           007-15
                                   021-15
                                   042-15
                                   057-15
                                   063-15
                                   070-15
                                   072-15
                                   078-15
                                   082-15
                                   087-15
                                   090-15
                                   091-15
                                   097-15
                                   107-15
                                   111-15
                                   119-15
  Co-Op      Stir-Fry      1 kg    007-15        0 57316 08862 8
  Gold       Blend                 015-15
                                   022-15
                                   046-15
                                   057-15
                                   073-15
                                   077-15
                                   097-15
                                   105-15
                                   112-15
                                   115-15
                                   118-15
  Western    Mixed         750 g   016-15        0 62639 33169 6
  Family     Vegetables            026-15
                                   028-15
                                   029-15
                                   037-15
                                   044-15
                                   050-15
                                   057-15
                                   059-15
                                   063-15
                                   065-15
                                   075-15
                                   078-15
                                   082-15
                                   085-15
                                   093-15
                                   100-15
                                   104-15
                                   112-15
                                   118-15
                                   120-15
  Western    Mixed         2 kg    006-15        0 62639 18893 1
  Family     Vegetables            013-15
                                   015-15
                                   016-15
                                   022-15
                                   028-15
                                   042-15
                                   044-15
                                   049-15
                                   058-15
                                   064-15
                                   070-15
                                   083-15
                                   085-15
                                   098-15
                                   101-15
                                   105-15
                                   114-15
                                   120-15        0 62639 17617 4
  Western    Cut Green     1 kg    014-15
  Family     Beans                 028-15
                                   037-15
                                   066-15
                                   072-15
                                   082-15
                                   090-15
                                   100-15
                                   106-15
                                   113-15
  None       Frozen Mixed  2 kg    005-15        00620112659151
             Vegetables            009-15
                                   057-15
                                   084-15
                                   086-15
                                   096-15
  None       Frozen 1"     2 kg    009-15        0620112811451
             Cut Green             030-15
             Beans                 062-15
                                   084-15
                                   096-15
                                   104-15

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/NsXl1s


BELL MOBILITY: Consumers to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael McKiernan, writing for Law Times, reports that consumers
who lost millions in unused prepaid phone card credits are
considering a trip to the nation's top court in their class action
fight over funds seized by Bell Mobility Inc.

The $200-million class action, certified back in 2013, centers on
when Bell was entitled to claim the unused balance of users who
failed to top up their account during the active period of their
prepaid accounts.

In April, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a superior court
judge's decision to dismiss the action after granting Bell's
motion for summary judgment.  Louis Sokolov --
lsokolov@sotosllp.com -- a partner in the litigation department at
Sotos LLP in Toronto, acted for the class, and tells Law Times the
group has yet to decide whether to seek leave to appeal the appeal
court decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"It was obviously very disappointing for our client and for us.
There were more than a million class members affected, many of
whom lost money as a result of Bell's forfeiture practices, which
we believe were unfair and contrary to the contract," Mr. Sokolov
says.

"We were hoping for a better result for them, but unfortunately
the court of appeal disagreed with our submissions."

Lead plaintiff Celia Sankar, an author and speaker from Elliot
Lake, Ont., lost around $58 when Bell seized her credits the day
after the end of her card's active period.

"I must say this is a huge disappointment," Ms. Sankar said in a
statement following the dismissal of the appeal.

Bell's prepaid top-ups were offered to customers under their
Virgin Mobile, Solo Mobile, and Bell Mobility brand names, with
active periods lasting for between 30 and 365 days and costing
between $15 and $200.

When customers failed to top up again before the end of the active
period, the telecommunications giant would claim any unused funds
still in the account the day after it ended.

For example, if the final day of a particular top-up period fell
on Sept. 30, Bell would claim the funds on Oct. 1.

However, Ms. Sankar and others claimed they should have waited an
extra day before absorbing the unused money, since in this
example, reminder texts to customers and subscriber account
information would list Oct. 1 as the "expiry date."

However, the appeal court sided with Bell, ruling that the lower
court judge got it right when he found that there was no breach of
the contract between Bell and its customers, because it provided
for the prepaid card to expire at the end of the last day of the
active period, not the day after.

"Bell was therefore entitled to collect the unused balance after
the last day of the active period," wrote Ontario's Chief Justice
George Strathy on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel of the
province's appeal court.

The reminder text messages did not have to be taken into
consideration as part of the analysis because they had nothing to
do with the formation of the contract, the appeal court ruled.

"As the motion judge noted, the appellant's real complaint, and
the real complaint in this class action, is that Bell's subsequent
communications to its customers -- made after they had purchased
their top-ups and as the top-up was about to expire -- were
misleading.  That is because they may have created the impression
that subscribers had an additional day after the end of the active
period to 'top up' before their funds expired," Justice Strathy
wrote.

"I agree with the motion judge that this was essentially a claim
for misrepresentation or promissory estoppel, neither of which was
before him, because neither was held to be amenable to resolution
as a common issue in the class proceeding."

Wendy Sun -- wsun@agmlawyers.com -- a lawyer with Affleck Greene
McMurtry LLP in Toronto, says the decision leaves individual
members of the class with legal options, even with the class
action's dismissal.

"There may be some individual customers who can prove negligent
misrepresentation; that door is still left open," she says.

Despite Bell's victory, Ms. Sun says the decision serves as a
warning to phone companies to tighten up their post-contractual
communications with customers.

"They will want to make sure that communications from the company
and its employees are correct and consistent with written
agreements," she says.  "It can be frustrating when you call in to
representatives and are told different information."

The appeal court panel also rejected Ms. Sankar's argument that
the phone cards should be subject to provincial regulations that
ban the expiry of gift cards, since there were no time limits on
when the prepaid card could be activated.

The prohibition only applies to the gift card itself, "and not on
the goods or services purchased with that gift card," Justice
Strathy noted.

"To hold otherwise would mean that Bell was required to keep the
wireless service and number available to the customer
indefinitely, a patently unreasonable outcome," the judge wrote.

The appeal court decision empathized with the situation the ruling
could put consumers in, acknowledging they may end up "on a merry-
go-round they cannot get off, because they must constantly top up
an account with a credit balance," to avoid losing unused credits.

"Depending on one's perspective, that may be unfair or it may be
part of the price paid for the flexibility of a prepaid phone
card," Justice Strathy added.

Since November 2013, Bell has updated its agreement to include a
seven-day grace period following the end of an active period,
giving customers extra time to refill their prepaid accounts
before losing their balance.

The change was mandated industry-wide by the Canadian Radio-
television and Telecommunications Commission's Wireless Code
following a raft of complaints to the regulator over the issue.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Wisecarver" Suit in Conn. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case is captioned Norma Wisecarver, and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim International
GMBH, the Defendants, Consolidated Pradaxa Docket, Conn. Super.
Ct., June 5, 2016.

The lawsuit seeks compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages, as a result of Defendants' reckless disregard for safety
of patients, to whom Pradaxa (TM) was promoted and sold for use,
and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' reckless
disregard for patient safety, in violations of the Connecticut
Products Liability Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants negligently designed
and formulated Pradaxa (TM) and its packaging, labeling,
prescribing information and patient medication guide which
rendered Pradaxa (TM) defective.

The Defendants were engaged in the business of designing,
licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling, marketing, and/or
introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or
indirectly through third parties or related entities, the
prescription anticoagulant drug sold under the name Pradaxa (TM),
throughout the State of Connecticut. Pradaxa (TM) helps to prevent
platelets in blood from sticking together and forming a blood
clot.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
          URY & MOSKOW, LLC
          833 Black Rock Turnpike
          Fairfield, CT 06825
          Telephone (203) 610 6393
          Facsimile (203) 610 6399
          E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

               - and -

          Russell T. Abney, Esq.
          FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER
          DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
          2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 521 4492
          Facsimile: (214) 526 6026
          E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BP EXPLORATION: Sanction Order in Lake Eugenie Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's sanction order in the case captioned IN RE:
DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
Defendants. GLEN J. LERNER; JONATHAN BEAUREGARD ANDRY; ANDRY
LERNER, L.L.C., Movants-Appellants, v. LOUIS J. FREEH, Special
Master, Appellee, No. 15-30265 (5th Circuit).

Glen Lerner and Jonathan Andry appealed the district court's
sanction order disqualifying them from further participation in
the Court-Supervised Settlement Program related to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, and Andry Lerner, L.L.C. appealed the denial of
its motion to alter or amend the restrictions imposed on related
attorneys' fees that were escrowed in connection with the
sanction.

The Fifth Circuit found that the district court acted within its
inherent authority to supervise the settlement program and did not
abuse its discretion in imposing the sanction.

In light of Louis J. Freeh's representation that the parties
intend to agree to appropriate amendments to the restrictions on
the escrowed fees, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Andry Lerner, L.L.C.'s
motion to alter or amend.  The Fifth Circuit left open to the
district court the possibility of amending its orders upon
submission of a properly supported motion.

A full-text copy of the 5th Circuit's June 2, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/UXrbIW from Leagle.com.


BP PLC: Fraudulent Claims Identified in Oil Spill Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Helenthal, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that that so
many fraudulent claims were identified in a Texas lawsuit stemming
from the 2010 BP Deep Horizon oil spill is an indicator the mass
torts system is working as intended, Richard Alderman, director of
the University of Houston Consumer Law Center, recently told the
SE Texas Record.

The retired law professor declined to discuss specifics of the
case, in which Texas attorney Mikal Watts and others will face a
federal indictment in July for fabricating most of the names on a
40,000-person list of seafood workers allegedly affected by the
spill.

He did say, however, that the court goes to great lengths to
ensure that anyone making a claim of damages not only deserves it,
but isn't a dog -- as one claimant was discovered to be in the
Watts case.

"It's really not that difficult to validate someone making a
claim," Mr. Alderman said.  "There is a court-appointed committee
that gathers the information and goes through each one. If there's
a claim of damage, it's as easy as asking for their tax returns
and other documents to prove it."

He said technological advances allowing more-efficient information
sharing has made the mass tort process more reliable.

"Technology is almost always helpful," he said.  "It definitely
helped the process. At some point, all the bad claims will be
caught."

Mr. Alderman said mass torts are increasingly being used as the
vehicle for multiple plaintiff suits, as laws restricting
class-action filings have been adopted around the country.  He
said there has been a decline in class action filings, and that
most of them end up in arbitration, not court.

He said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau currently is
considering rules that would void the practice of companies making
consumer class-action restrictions contractual.

"Especially in response to large disaster claims, the mass tort
procedure is the most efficient way to deal with it," he said.
"There are benefits to having a lot of clients, and you try to
find a way to consolidate them.  Otherwise you'd end up with
thousands of individual lawsuits, which is expensive and a strain
on the court's resources."

Past being an efficient legal vehicle, mass torts with a potential
big payoff are also increasingly being looked at as financial
investments by outside parties.

In a related case, two Texas plaintiffs' attorneys, Robert
Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales and John Cracken of the
Cracken Law Firm, are being tried for fraud and conspiracy for
funding Watts' discredited mass tort case.

A Houston judged issued a stay in that case on May 23 after the
two attorneys asked for a change of venue.

Mr. Alderman said a national example of outside funding is the
recent lawsuit of former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, whose
successful privacy suit against the Gawker website was bankrolled
by a private backer.

He said funding legal action, especially for large-scale cases, is
expensive, and that it's not unusual for legal firms to take on
investors or team up with other firms to share costs and
resources.

He said doing so doesn't necessarily suggest a bad outcome or that
a scam is being perpetrated.

"The vast majority of lawyers are very ethical and their clients
are very pleased," he said.

In fact, he said, groups of claimants with scant resources but
legitimate damages might never have their cases heard if not for
some solidifying benefactor.

"Litigation has become very expensive and a lot of people can't
afford to make an investment with the possibility of a loss, even
if they have a good claim," he said.


BRIDGECARE INC: Class Certification Bid in Able Suit Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a stipulation, the Plaintiff's motion to certify class
is withdrawn during the Motion hearing held before the Hon. Sharon
Johnson Coleman on June 7, 2016, in the lawsuit styled Able Home
Health, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Bridgecare, Inc., et al.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05568 (N.D. Ill.).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue its
motion to certify class is moot. Status hearing in the case is
scheduled for July 14, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.  Parties shall submit a
joint status report by the next date.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8T4wt6qp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather A. Kolbus, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: info@edcombs.com


CANADA: Sued Over Metro Stations' Lack of Wheelchairs
-----------------------------------------------------
Stephen Smith and Melissa Fundira, writing for CBC News, report
that only eight of Montreal's 68 Metro stations are wheelchair
accessible, which lawyers argued on June 7 is evidence that the
city's transit agencies are violating the rights of people with
reduced mobility.

The argument was presented as part of an effort by Le Regroupement
des activistes pour l'inclusion au Quebec (RAPLIQ) to get
authorization to launch a request for a class-action lawsuit
against the STM and the AMT, Montreal's transit agencies.

The suit also names the City of Montreal and the Quebec Ministry
of Transport.

"The Quebec Charter [of Human Rights and Freedoms] dates from '75,
the Canadian Charter [of Rights and Freedoms] from '82, " Aymar
Missakila, a lawyer for RAPLIQ, told Radio-Canada.

"In 30, 40 years, the people responsible for the transport network
have not thought it necessary to render public transit accessible,
which is an important element for the autonomy of people with
disabilities."

The suit involves around 20,000 plaintiffs and is seeking up to
$75,000 in damages per person, for a total of $1.5 billion.

Linda Gauthier, president of RAPLIQ, said the request for a class-
action suit was initiated out of frustration with complaints that
she said have gone nowhere.

"We were sick and fed up with filing complaints at Quebec's human
rights commission against STM and AMT because their stations are
not accessible to people with disabilities, especially those using
wheelchairs," she said.

"It didn't do anything."

The group's ultimate goal is to see all STM and AMT commuter train
lines made accessible.

Ms. Gauthier said RAPLIQ would accept a 20-year time frame for
seeing that happen.  She is hoping the judge in the hearing will
agree to tour Montreal's Metro system with RAPLIQ, so they can
point out its obstacles to people with disabilities.

The June 7 hearing marked one of the initial steps in seeking
authorization for the lawsuit.  Ms. Gauthier will be deposed later
this month at a lawyer's office.

A decision on whether the lawsuit can go ahead is not likely
before October or November, she said.


CARRINGTON TEA: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Set for July 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Boulton seeks an order certifying the class in the lawsuit
titled AMY BOULTON, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. CARRINGTON TEA COMPANY, LLC,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01740-R-AS (C.D. Cal.).

A hearing will be held on July 5, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to consider
the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q6KvTV8v

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 206
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


CBS RADIO: Bonin Seeks Certification of Class in Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Bonin moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled ELAINE BONIN, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CBS RADIO, INC., Case
No. 2:16-cv-00674-CNC (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff also asks the Court both to stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DAB0O0Fc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


CELLULAR SALES: 8th Cir. Enforces NLRB Arbitration Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC, Petitioner,
v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent. Labor Law Scholars,
Amicus on Behalf of Respondent. Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC,
Respondent, v. National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner. Labor
Law Scholars, Amicus on Behalf of Petitioner. National Labor
Relations Board, Nos. 15-1620, 15-1860 (8th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, enforced the order of the
National Labor Relations Board in part and declined to enforce the
order in part.

The Board found that Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC had violated
sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29
U.S.C. sections 157, 158(a)(1), by maintaining and enforcing a
mandatory arbitration agreement under which employees waived their
rights to pursue class or collective action to redress employment-
related disputes in any forum.  The Board also found that
employees of Cellular Sales would reasonably understand the
arbitration agreement to waive or impede their rights to file
unfair labor practice charges with the Board.  Cellular Sales
petitioned for review, arguing that the Board's order should not
be enforced, and the Board cross-applied for enforcement.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's June 2, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/2gfnr0 from Leagle.com.


CHATOUS INC: Court Deferred Class Certification in "Morgan" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger entered an order deferring
Plaintiff's motion for Class Certification and Concurrent Request
for Extension to Certify Class in the class action lawsuit styled
BRITTANY MORGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Chatous, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-143-J-20JRK (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff acknowledges that she has filed the motion to comply
with the Local Rules, but she requests the Court postpone ruling
on her motion until completion of discovery on class-wide issues.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cyWTAXSQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edmund A. Normand. Esq.
          236 S. Lucerne Circle East
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 843 7060


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Seeks Transfer of Lease Case to Fed. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports
that a lawsuit filed by the state Office of Attorney General that
accuses natural gas producer Chesapeake Appalachia of violating
consumer protection laws should be heard in federal court, not
state court, an attorney for the company says in court papers.

Scranton attorney Daniel Brier, who represents Chesapeake,
contends issues raised by the attorney general's office involve
alleged violations of federal anti-trust laws, therefore the case
cannot be heard in Bradford County, where it was filed initially.

The lawsuit, filed Dec. 9 by Senior Deputy Attorney General Joseph
Betsko, alleges Chesapeake used high pressure sales tactics and
misled property owners who signed leases allowing the firm to
drill for natural gas on their properties.  The leases
shortchanged the owners, allowing Chesapeake to profit unfairly.

Mr. Betsko later amended the complaint to allege Chesapeake and a
competitor, Anadarko Petroleum Corp., engaged in anti-competitive
behavior in the way they divided areas they sought to acquire
leases.

Mr. Brier recently filed a court action that transferred the case
from Bradford County court to the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania.

In court papers, Mr. Brier contends the transfer is proper because
the anti-trust allegations against Chesapeake and Anadarko means
the case must be heard in federal court because Pennsylvania law
does not allow for anti-trust claims.

The attorney general's office maintains the case should remain in
Bradford County court and intends to file court papers seeking to
return it there, said Jeffrey A. Johnson, assistant press
secretary for the office.

The development could complicate efforts to finalize a proposed
$11 million settlement of a 2013 class action lawsuit natural gas
leaseholders filed against Chesapeake that alleged the company
wrongly deducted post production costs from their royalty
payments.

A final settlement hearing on the case filed by lead plaintiffs
Joseph and Billie Demchak was set for February, but it was
cancelled after the attorney general's office filed an objection
to the settlement, arguing it could impact its ability to
prosecute the state court action it filed. The settlement hearing
remains on hold until attorneys resolve a dispute over whether the
attorney general's office is a party to that matter.


CHEVROLET: Recalls Malibu 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 56
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016199TC
ID number: 2016199
Manufacturer recall number: 39440

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 126 - Electronic Stability
Control Systems. The memory chip in the electronic brake control
module (EBCM) may fail and cause the loss of electronically
controlled brake systems, including anti-lock brakes (ABS) and
electronic stability control (ESC). As a result, the vehicle could
be more difficult to control in situations where these brake
systems would normally be engaged, which could increase the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will install a replacement EBCM. Note: This condition does
not affect the primary braking system; the service brakes will
operate normally.

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


CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge Journey 2009 Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Steering
Units affected: 187436
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016202TC
ID number: 2016202
Manufacturer recall number: S08

On certain vehicles, the power steering return hose could rupture
at engine start up if the vehicle is exposed to extended cold
weather conditions. A power steering hose leak could result in the
loss of power steering assist and increased steering effort, which
depending on the driver's reactions and traffic conditions, could
increase the risk of a crash resulting in injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will replace the return side power
steering lines with new parts that are validated for extreme cold
weather performance.

  Make         Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----      ----------------------
  DODGE        JOURNEY    2009


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Violated ERISA Litigation Final Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Caufield and Rebecca M. Staley, on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Colgate-Palmolive Co., Colgate-Palmolive Co. Employees' Ret.
Income Plan, Laura Flavin, Daniel Marsili, and Employee Relations
Committee of Colgate-Palmolive Co., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04170 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to hold Defendants in
contempt of court for violating the terms of the Court's July 8,
2014 Final Order and Judgment in re: Colgate-Palmolive Co. ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. 07-cv-9515 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y).

The Colgate-Palmolive Company is an American multinational
consumer products company focused on the production, distribution
and provision of household, healthcare and personal products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
          Steven D. Cohen, Esq.
          GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          498 7th Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11215
          Telephone: (718) 788 1500
          Facsimile: (718) 788 1650
          E-mail: eli@gottesdienerlaw.com
                  steve@gottesdienerlaw.com


CONTEMPORARY SERVICES: Faces "Merino" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Contemporary Services Corporation
(CSC). The case is captioned Edwin Merino and Johnson, Angela, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100, inclusive, and Contemporary Services
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 552354 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 3, 2016).

CSC provides world-class event security and crowd management
services across the U.S.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas E. Hill, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          355 South Grand Ave Ste 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Telephone: (213) 457 8000
          E-mail: thill@email.unc.edu.


COOKIN' GREENS: Recalls Kale, Sweet Corn & Pea Products
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 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: Cookin' Greens
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10584

Cookin' Greens is recalling Cookin' Greens Organic brand A Blend
of Kale, Sweet Corn & Peas from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled product described below.

If you think you became sick from eating a recalled product, call
your doctor.

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.

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.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of this product, however, there have been reported
illnesses in the United States linked to consuming products
manufactured or processed by CRF Frozen Foods, the manufacturer of
one of the ingredients.

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         ----
  -----                          ----------
  Cookin'  A Blend of    300 g   BB: 2017 08 11  8 11138 00038 7
  Greens   Kale, Sweet           BB: 2017 AU 11
  Organic  Corn & Peas           BB: 2017 DE 03
                                 BB: 2017 DE 10
                                 BB: 2018 JA 11
                                 BB: 2018 FE 11

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/AiUvEf


CORDIS CORPORATION: Recalls Precise Pro Stent System Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Posting date: May 24, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58508

Based on recent complaints and subsequent investigation, Cordis
has determined that products made between April 27, 2015 and
November 22, 2015 have been associated with an increased frequency
of incidents of deployment difficulty and in some instances outer
member shaft separation resulting in inability to deploy the stent
or partial stent deployment. Product manufactured after November
22, 2015, including product currently manufactured and supplied
are not affected. There have been no patient injuries reported to
us related to this issue. However, considering the products risk
analysis the potential impact of inability to deploy the stent or
partial stent deployment include an intra-procedural delay while a
replacement device is prepared, vessel damage requiring unplanned
percutaneous or surgical intervention to prevent permanent injury
or impairment, or in most severe cases, transient ischemic attack
or stroke.

Affected products
A. PRECISE PRO RX NITINOL STENT SYSTEM - 20MM
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: PC0720XCE
                         PC0820XCE

Manufacturer: Cordis Corporation
              14201 NW 60TH AVE.
              MIAMI LAKES
              33014
              Florida
              UNITED STATES

B. PRECISE PRO RX NITINOL STENT SYSTEM - 30MM
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: PC0630XCE
                         PC0730XCE
                         PC0830XCE
                         PC0930XCE
                         PC1030XCE

Manufacturer: Cordis Corporation
              14201 NW 60TH AVE.
              MIAMI LAKES
              33014
              Florida
              UNITED STATES

C. PRECISE PRO RX NITINOL STENT SYSTEM -40MM
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: PC0540XCE
                         PC0640XCE
                         PC0740XCE
                         PC0840XCE
                         PC0940XCE
                         PC1040XCE

Manufacturer: Cordis Corporation
              14201 NW 60TH AVE.
              MIAMI LAKES
              33014
              Florida
              UNITED STATES


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Chicken with Japanese-Style Fried Rice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 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: 10587

Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. is recalling Ajinomoto brand Yakitori
Chicken with Japanese-Style Fried Rice from the marketplace due to
possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should
not consume the recalled product described below.

In addition, Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. has indicated that some
Costco warehouse locations did provide free food samples of the
recalled product in recent months.

If you think you became sick from eating a recalled product, call
your doctor.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was
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.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of this product, however, there have been reported
illnesses in the United States linked to consuming products
manufactured or processed by CRF Frozen Foods, the manufacturer of
one of the ingredients.

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        Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name          ----     product       ----
  -----      ------                 ----------
  Ajinomoto  Yakitori      1.53 kg  BB/MA 16      0 71757 05642 8
             Chicken                JL 01 to
             with                   17 MA 07
             Japanese-              inclusive
             Style Fried
             Rice

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/F6bQTm


DECISIVE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Waring" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Decisive Communications Inc. The
case is captioned Nathaniel G. Waring, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Palintiff, v. Decisive
Communications Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1679CV00416 (Mass.
Super. Ct., June 3, 2016).

Decisive Communications is a turn-key, solution based organization
providing a full suite of services in the Telecommunications
Industry.

Raymond Dinsmore, Esq. and Hayber, Richard Esq. represent the
Plaintiff.


DIANE DUNCAN KOERNER: Faces "Verde" Suit in S.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Diane Duncan Koerner. The case is
captioned Verde Minerals, LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Diane Duncan
Koerner, Kimberly K. Sheridan, Stacey E. Koerner, Charles D.
Duncan, Jo Ann Crawford Floyd, Robyn L. Wolin Trust, Virginia K.
Pittman Rothermel, Charles T. Rothermel, III, Elizabeth Pittman
Clark, and Ansel P. Clark, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00199
(S.D. Tex., June 3, 2016).

Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos presides over the case.


DRILTECH LLC: Conditional Certification Sought "Baker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for Conditional Certification in the lawsuit
titled KELLY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Driltech, L.L.C., the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00309-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to allow his coworkers, who
received similar pay, to receive notice about their right to
participate in this collective action and stop the statute of
limitations from running on their valuable back wage claims.

Dril Tech, the suit claims, failed to pay its Measurement While
Drilling (MWD) Operators overtime wages required under federal
law.  Dril Tech maintained a uniform practice of paying its MWD
Operators a salary and job bonus without any overtime
compensation.  This pay practice flagrantly violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the suit says.

Baker requests that the Court grant this Motion and (1)
conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and
discovery; (2) order that judicial notice be sent to all Putative
Class Members; (3) approve a notice and consent form substantially
similar to the ones attached hereto; (4) order the
mailing and e-mailing of notice, along with a reminder notice; (5)
permit Class Counsel to contact by telephone those Putative Class
Members who are former employees of EPS or whose contact
information is not valid; (6) order EPS to post the Notice and
Consent forms in EPS's jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in
period; (7) order EPS to produce to Class Counsel the contact
information for each Putative Class Member within 10 days of the
Court's order; and (8) authorize a 60 day notice period for
Putative Class Members to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nv2sF0Xi

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          417 W. University Ave. (70506)
          Post Office Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235 5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235 1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


EMPORIO 50: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Emporio 50 LLC,
d/b/a Bar CYRC NYC, and Eric Schlagman, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04163-GBD (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees
and equitable relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants knew of, and/or showed
reckless disregard for, the practices by which the Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees of Defendants were not paid
minimum wages for all hours worked.

The Defendants operate a bar/restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
          2747 Coney Island Ave.
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          E-mail: naydensiylaw@gmail.com


EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: Cox Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cox asks the Court to conditionally certify the action
entitled THOMAS COX, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION SERVICES COMPANY,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00454-PJH (W.D. La.), for purposes of notice and
discovery.

Expeditors and Production Services Company and EPS Flowback
Services, LLC failed to pay its Oilfield Employees overtime wages
required under federal law, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff
adds that EPS maintained a uniform practice of paying its Oilfield
Employees a salary and a job bonus without any overtime
compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff also seeks authority allowing judicial notice to be
sent to all Putative Class Members in the proposed form and
procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rndBEkY2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave. (70506)
          Post Office Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Telecopier: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  ADunlap@fibichlaw.com


EXPLORE TALENT: Aspiring Actors File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Ryan Stabile, writing for Examiner.com, reports that for many
aspiring actors, moving out to Hollywood and making it in show
business is a lifelong dream that they will give anything to
fulfill.

For talent listing agencies, that sounds like easy money.

Explore Talent bills themselves as the "world's largest talent
resource" on their website, where they promise access to casting
calls and audition opportunities in exchange for as little as $20
a month.  To the talented actors and actresses out there desperate
for a chance to show the world what they got, that sounds like a
break come true.

Unfortunately for them, there would never be any casting calls or
auditions.

Explore Talent is just one of many faux talent agencies lurking in
the muddled broken dreams of Hollywood, waiting to pray on young
and naive actors with big aspirations.  Listing services may have
a great pitch, but there is no follow through.  They provide a
database of audition and employment opportunities while offering
to promote their clients on a Web page with a photograph, resume,
reel and portfolio.

The only problem is that no one in Hollywood takes these services
seriously.  Most working actors and their agents find out about
auditions and casting calls through their own contacts or long-
established casting services.

These talent listing firms often require an initial payment of as
much as $600 and monthly fees in the range of $20 to $40.  Right
now, there are 10 such companies doing business out of Los Angeles
County, according to the Better Business Bureau, and many more
that are based elsewhere and reach clients in Los Angeles through
their website.  Of the existing firms, Explore Talent is the only
one to have racked up hundreds of complaints from unsatisfied
customers.  A search of the claims made against the firm revealed
that both former and current employees working for Explore Talent
say that the business is a scam.

If you spend enough time in Hollywood, you learn to avoid talent
listing companies like Explore Talent.  But for anyone viewing
their website, it's clear that they have had themselves out to be
the industry standard.

The owner of Explore Talent, Ami Shafrir, said his Las Vegas-based
company's research department works with casting directors to get
information about job opportunities, but according to the LA
Times, neither of his references returned any calls.  Although
Shafrir pointed out that there is a disclaimer on Explore Talent's
website that says that they are not a talent agency, everything
else about the way they present themselves would lead customers to
think otherwise.

Attorney Jeffery Wilens thinks so.  He filed a lawsuit against
Explore Talent and One Source Talent, alleging that both listing
agencies have blatantly violated the Krekorian Talent Scam
Prevention Act of 2010, which states that it's illegal for listing
services to charge clients for auditions and requires them to have
a disclaimer saying that they are, in fact, not a talent agency.
Explore Talent and One Source Talent not only denied these
allegations, they are seeking monetary restitution for damages as
members of the prospective class.

Explore Talent owner Shafrir says that the Krekorian Act does not
apply to his company because it is not base in California.  To
this day, Explore Talent continues to operate without a license or
bond -- a violation of California State law.

This isn't the first time Mr. Shafrir has been sued.  A Hollywood
firm called Breakdown Services has provided a role similar to
talent listing services since 1971.  The company maintains a
database of more than 800,000 performers that agents, casting
directors and others use for hiring actors.  Owner Gary Marsh has
sued several talent listing services for copyright infringement or
other claims stemming from the unauthorized use of the company's
breakdowns, including Explore Talent in 2011, alleging that the
company copied at least one of Breakdown's proprietary script
analyses without permission.  The two settled out of court and to
this day Mr. Shafrir says that he did no wrong.

Meanwhile, Mr. Wilens is seeking a class-action suit that goes
into trial next year which could help some of those aspiring
actors get a portion of their money back.

If you have been a victim of Explore Talent or One Source Talent,
contact attorney Jeffery Wilens at 714-854-7205 or
Jeff@Lakeshorelaw.org


FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT: "Harger" Suit Wins Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order granting Suzanna
Harger's motion for conditional class certification, and approving
a plan for notice for the class action lawsuit captioned, Suzanna
Harger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fairway Management, Inc.; FWM Payroll
Clearing, Inc.; and Bear Holdings, Inc. d/b/a JES Holdings, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04232-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

Accordingly, the Court concludes Harger has only demonstrated a
need to be provided putative class members' names, mailing
addresses, and email addresses, in ten days and in electronic and
hard copy format, at this time. Limiting Harger to this
information in lieu of everything she has requested strikes an
appropriate balance between notification, and undue intrusion into
the privacy of putative class members. In the event of returned
notices or other logistical issues Harger encounters in notifying
putative class members, Defense counsel is to work with Harger's
counsel to ensure a comprehensive distribution of the notice
materials in a timely fashion.

A copy of the Court's order dated June 8, 2016 is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d9Plc6hx


FLEETWOOD: Recalls Discovery & Rambler Motorhomes 2016 Models
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016204TC
ID number: 2016204

On certain motorhomes, the front sway bar mounting bracket may not
fit on the axle mounting surface correctly. This could cause the
mounting bolts to bend or become loose, which could result in the
sway bar possibly detaching, which could affect vehicle handling
and increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Daimler Trucks of North America Dealers will
modify the sway bar mounting surface.

  Make             Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----             -----        ----------------------
  FLEETWOOD RV     DISCOVERY    2016, 2016
  HOLIDAY          RAMBLER      2016


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Sought in "Tolmasoff" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Tolmasoff files with the Court his motion for provisional
class certification in the lawsuit titled SEAN TOLMASOFF, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. General
Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-11747-MOB-APP (E.D. Mich.).  He also
asks the Court to appoint himself as Class Representative and to
appoint The Miller Law Firm, P.C. and McCuneWright, LLP as Class
Counsel.

Mr. Tolmasoff filed the Case on behalf of himself and a class of
all other similarly situated purchasers or lessees of General
Motors 2016 Chevrolet Traverses, Buick Enclaves and GMC Acadias
sold with false and overstated fuel-economy ratings.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2BaVNRLu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          Miller Building, Suite 300
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com
                  mds@mccunewright.com
                  jbk@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Richard D. McCune, Esq.
          David C. Wright, Esq.
          McCUNE WRIGHT LLP
          2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
          Redlands, CA 92374
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
                  dcw@mccunewright.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Chevrolet Malibu 2016 Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 56
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016199TC
ID number: 2016199
Manufacturer recall number: 39440

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 126 - Electronic Stability
Control Systems. The memory chip in the electronic brake control
module (EBCM) may fail and cause the loss of electronically
controlled brake systems, including anti-lock brakes (ABS) and
electronic stability control (ESC). As a result, the vehicle could
be more difficult to control in situations where these brake
systems would normally be engaged, which could increase the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will install a replacement EBCM. Note: This condition does
not affect the primary braking system; the service brakes will
operate normally.

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


GOLDEN STATE: "Esquer" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Esquer, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Golden State Foods Corp., a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No.
BC622679 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other related relief under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Order.

According to the complaint, the Defendants deduced wages from
Plaintiff and the class for 30-minute lunch periods while only
providing them 25 minutes or less. By doing so, Defendants
deducted earned wages from Plaintiff and class.

Golden State is a diversified supplier to the food service
industry, servicing approximately 125,000 restaurants in more than
60 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Spivak, Esq.
          Sehyung "Logan" Park, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303
          Beverley Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 499 4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499 4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
                  logan@spivaklaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Carney Bates Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hank Bates, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that whispers
recently shared the news that Blue Hog Report blogger Matt
Campell's lawsuit against Facebook over privacy concerns had been
granted class-action status.

Well, the Little Rock law firm representing Campbell, Carney Bates
& Pulliam PLLC, also is handling a potential class-action privacy
lawsuit against Google and is involved in several other high-
profile data breach cases.

It has, in fact, developed something of a specialty in the area of
data privacy, said law firm partner Hank Bates.

"We do a lot in the data privacy setting.  We see three categories
of cases we've done: data breach cases; what I call data privacy;
and then data security insurance companies."  As for data breach
cases, "We're involved in the Home Depot data breach, the Target
data breach and then the Sony data breach," Mr. Bates said.

"The Target and the Home Depot, they were cases brought by
consumers but also cases brought by banks.  And we're on the
class-action side representing the banks."

As for the highly publicized 2014 Sony data breach, Carney Bates
is among the law firms representing plaintiffs who allege Sony
failed to prevent hackers from obtaining and posting online
personal information on thousands of former and current Sony
employees.

The hackers, calling themselves the "Guardians of Peace," locked
Sony employees out of the Sony computer network and released
embarrassing emails from the likes of producer Scott Rudin (he
bashed Angelina Jolie) and Amy Pascal, the Sony Pictures
Entertainment co-chairman who later apologized, saying that emails
she exchanged with Mr. Rudin were "insensitive and inappropriate."
(Ms. Pascal is no longer with Sony, alleging she was fired.)

The Guardians demanded that Sony pull from theaters the movie "The
Interview," a comedy about a plot to assassinate North Korean
leader Kim Jong-un.  The FBI blamed the cyberattack on North
Korea.

In its lawsuit against Google, Carney Bates & Pulliam, on behalf
of plaintiff Daniel Matera of California, alleges that the company
scans private emails sent to and from Gmail accounts. Google
analyzes the emails to create data profiles of the email senders
and receivers and to target advertising to them based on those
profiles, the lawsuit says.

Two California firms, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and
Gallo LLP, are also representing the plaintiffs in the Google
suit.

Mr. Bates says his firm has been involved in data privacy cases
for about four years.  "It basically was an area of the law that I
think we were drawn to initially by an interest in the data
privacy area, and then after doing several cases, we slowly
started building some familiarity with it."


GOOGLE INC: Supreme Court Allows Adwords Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on June 6 let stand a lower court's decision to
allow a class action lawsuit against Google Inc to proceed
regarding claims that the company deceived California advertisers
about the placement of Internet ads through its Adwords service.

The court decided not to hear Google's appeal of a ruling by the
San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last
September that the litigation could move forward as a class action
representing advertisers who used the service between 2004 and
2008.  Google is part of Alphabet Inc.

A Google spokesman said the company does not comment on pending
litigation.

The 2008 lawsuit accused Google of violating California fair
advertising laws because it misled advertisers about where the ads
would be placed.

The Adwords service was primarily aimed at placing ads next to
relevant Google Internet search results.  But the plaintiffs said
Google should have disclosed that ads would also appear in
undesirable places such as error pages and undeveloped websites
known as parked domains.

A federal district court judge in 2012 ruled that the case could
not move forward as a class action in part because each advertiser
would receive different damages.  Each advertiser would have paid
a different sum for the ads in question, the judge said.  The
appeals court reversed the district court, prompting Google to ask
the Supreme Court to intervene.

Under a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court precedent involving claims brought
by employees against Wal-Mart Stores Inc, class actions can move
forward only if each plaintiff has a similar claim and that claim
can be resolved on a class-wide basis.

The Supreme Court has shied away from taking new class action
cases since the death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia, who
had authored the 2011 Wal-Mart ruling.  Justice Scalia had been a
leader of the court's moves in recent years to curb class action
litigation, although that trend was not borne out in three class
action cases decided during its current term.


HEARTWARE INC: Recalls Ventricular Assist System Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 2016
Posting date: May 10, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58282

HeartWare has opened an increased number of complaints for loose
connector ports within the controller body. In parallel, there has
been an increasing trend of customer reports of loose connectors.

Affected products:
HEARTWARE VENTRICULAR ASSIST SYSTEM - HVAD IMPLANT KIT
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 470CA

Manufacturer: Heartware Inc.
              14400 NW 60th Avenue
              Miami Lakes
              33014
              Florida
              UNITED STATES


HMG PARK: Certification of FLSA Class Sought in "Abeldano" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MARIA ABELDANO and JEANINE
POLLION, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. HMG PARK MANOR OF WESTCHASE, LLC D/B/A PARK MANOR OF
WESTCHASE, Case No. 4:16-cv-01044 (S.D. Tex.), file with the Court
their opposed motion for conditional certification and notice to
potential class members.

The Case is a collective action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and putative class members, who are or were employed by
HMG and are or were denied minimum wage and overtime pay required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify
the Case as a collective action to include Licensed Vocational
Nurses employed by Defendant from April 20, 2013, through present.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b4eIWXii

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David G. Langenfeld, Esq.
          LEICHTER LAW FIRM, PC
          1602 East 7th Street
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: (512) 495-9995
          Facsimile: (512) 482-0164
          E-mail: david@leichterlaw.com


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks Court to Approve Class Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International moves for approval of its proposed class
notice and for an order governing the distribution of the notice
in the lawsuit titled INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); and
THOMAS BODE, BRUCE EATON, WILLIAM BURNS, PETER ANTONELLIS, and
LARRY PRESTON, for themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:11-cv-14036-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs agree with the proposed method of distribution of
the notice. However, the Plaintiffs disagree that notice should be
distributed to a group of Honeywell retirees and surviving spouses
from a closed facility in Cleveland, Tennessee.

Honeywell contends those individuals are part of the class.
Indeed, the parties have litigated this case for years on the
understanding that the Cleveland retirees and spouses are class
members.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s9HrXGJd

The Defendant is represented by:

          Craig S. Primis, Esq.
          K. Winn Allen, Esq.
          Katherine R. Katz, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879 5000

               - and -

          Eugene Driker, Esq.
          Daniel M. Share, Esq.
          BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, PLLC
          211 W. Fort St. 15th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965 9725
          E-mail: edriker@bsdd.com
                  dshare@bsdd.com


HONG KONG: Whistleblower to Spearhead Tainted Water Legal Battle
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cannix Yau, writing for South China Morning Post reports that as
an investigation panel blamed "a collective failure" involving the
government and contractors for last year's tainted water scandal,
the Democratic Party is gearing up for a legal battle on behalf of
affected residents to be spearheaded by the whistle-blower in the
case, Helena Wong Pik-wan.

Ms. Wong, the party lawmaker who first exposed the presence of
excess lead in drinking water at an estate in Kowloon City last
July after conducting her own tests, will team up with veteran
barrister Martin Lee Chu-ming SC as her adviser in claiming
damages for "water-gate" victims.

Since there is not any procedure in Hong Kong for bringing class
action suits allowing an individual to act on behalf of a group of
victims, the party intends to find some leading cases in a bid to
hold relevant government departments and contractors responsible
for the tainted water in 11 public housing estates.

A total of 29,000 households were affected by tainted water, which
was found to contain a lead content of over 10 -- micrograms per
litre -- the standard recommended by the World Health
Organisation.

Ms. Wong said the strongest cases would involve children with
excessive amounts of lead in their blood and who were assessed by
the government to be suffering a developmental disorder.

The number of such cases is estimated to be around 10 and their
success could pave the way for smaller claims by thousands of
other affected residents.

"[Chief Secretary] Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor said nobody needed
to be held accountable for this blunder because it is a systemic
failure. It's really outrageous," Ms. Wong said.

"The government can sue the contractors, but who can pursue
responsibility against the Water Supplies Department and the
Housing Department? We need to act on behalf of the victims to
fight for their interests," she said, calling for victims to come
forward to safeguard their rights.

Hong Kong tainted water probe calls for action

The independent panel issued a damning report blaming the scandal
on a "classic case of buck-passing" and "a collective failure on
the part of all stakeholders" to guard against the use of leaded
solder in the plumbing system, the direct cause of the tainted
water.

Eric Cheung Tat-ming, principal lecturer in the University of Hong
Kong's law faculty, said children could easily apply for legal aid
as long as they could show a link between the leaded water they
consumed and the developmental problems they suffered.

"As the city's water provider, the Water Supplies Department bears
a strict liability for ensuring that drinking water is fit for
consumption.  Those who can prove that their problems were caused
by the consumption of leaded water will have a stronger case for
personal injuries," he said.

Wong is also pushing for the introduction of legislation
safeguarding water quality, the creation of an independent body to
set water quality standards and a proper regulatory regime.


HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Green Bean Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 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: Canadian Choice Wholesalers Ltd., Cooperative
d'Alentour Inc., Horizon Distributors, Koyo Foods Inc., Ontario
Natural Food Co-Op, PSC Natural Foods Ltd., UNFI Canada Central
Region, UNFI Canada Grocery West
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest
Territories, Yukon
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10582

Ottawa, May 6, 2016 - Horizon Distributors is recalling Stahlbush
Island Farms brand Cut Green Beans from the marketplace due to
possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should
not consume the recalled product described below.

If you think you became sick from eating a recalled product, call
your doctor.

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.

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.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of this product, however, there have been reported
illnesses in the United States linked to consuming products
manufactured or processed by the same supplier, CRF Frozen Foods.

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 name    Common name   Size   Code(s) on    UPC
----------    -----------   ----   product       ----
                                   ----------
Stahlbush     Cut Green     283 g  16034001,     6 38882 00053 7
Island Farms  Beans                Best By
                                   02/03/2018
                                   15097001,
                                   Best By
                                   04/07/2017
                                   14328001,
                                   Best By
                                   11/24/2014
                                   15362001,
                                   Best By
                                   12/28/2017
                                   14310002,
                                   Best By
                                   11/06/2016

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/ABtwEI


IHEARTMEDIA: Settles Class Action; July 8 Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
All Access Music Group reports that a class action suit against
iHeartmedia, Inc., in Cook County, Illinois court over
unauthorized text message advertisements has been settled, and the
broadcaster has established an $8.5 million settlement fund that
will be divvied up, after attorney's fees and costs have been
deducted, among consumers who received the unsolicited texts
between October 16, 2013 and April 19, 2016 and who do not opt out
of the settlement.

The case was filed by Nicholas Willis and Beth Shvarts as lead
plaintiffs last June 3rd in New York court, and as part of a
settlement agreement in November, the parties agreed that to make
the settlement effective, the case would have to be refiled in the
CHICAGO court.  The case was refiled there on February 19th and
the settlement finalized.  The complaint alleged that when
consumers texted iHeart's standard song request and contest text
number, they were sent links to third party vendors, like ZYNGA
for the "Words With Friends" app, then were sent ad texts from
clients like Specs Howard School of Media Arts and Circle K
without prior express written consent in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The claims filing deadline is
September 8th, and requests for exclusion from the class,
objections, and notices of intent to appear at an August 11th
final approval hearing are due by July 8th.


ILLINOIS, USA: Class Certification Bid in "Riffey" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Manish S. Shah denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned THERESA RIFFEY, SUSAN
WATTS, and STEPHANIE YENCER-PRICE v. GOVERNOR BRUCE RAUNER and
SEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA, Case No. 1:10-cv-02477 (N.D.
Ill.).

"The proposed class definition is too broad because it contains a
great number of people who could not have been injured by
defendants' conduct," Judge Shah opined.  "But even if injury can
be presumed, plaintiffs' pursuit of refunds on behalf of a class
requires individualized determinations that predominate over the
remaining common questions," he added.

Judge Shah explained that the denial is without prejudice to the
Plaintiffs revising their proposed class definition or seeking
class certification on non-damages issues.

The Plaintiffs are personal assistants, who provide in-home care
for individuals through the Illinois Department of Human Services
Home Services Program.  The State of Illinois pays the Plaintiffs,
and they are represented by Defendant SEIU Healthcare Illinois &
Indiana for purposes of collective bargaining with the state.  The
Plaintiffs are not members of the union (nor are they public
employees), but until recently, they were compelled to pay to the
union a "fair-share" fee in order to support its collective
bargaining efforts.  The Plaintiffs filed suit to object to the
deduction of those fees as a violation of their First Amendment
rights.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1nV2ajrV


ITC SERVICE: Bid for Conditional Certification of Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Greg Kays denied, without prejudice to the re-filing
thereof upon completion of the arbitration proceedings, the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the lawsuit
captioned MICHAEL HART, et al. v. ITC SERVICE GROUP, INC., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00599-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

The Case has been stayed for arbitration proceedings.

A copy of the xxx is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kazALw36


JC CHRISTENSEN: Certification of Class Sought in "Dawes" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Dawes moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned CHRISTOPHER DAWES,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JC
CHRISTENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. and CAVALRY SPV I LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00680 (E.D. Wisc.)

Mr. Dawes also asks the Court both to stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, Mr. Dawes asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jumtmFYf

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


JOHN CRANE: Files RICO Action Against Asbestos Plaintiffs Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that John Crane Inc.
has fired a new salvo in the legal war between industrial parts
manufacturers and the asbestos plaintiffs bar by filing suits
against Dallas-based Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Shein
Law Center Ltd. of Philadelphia.

In two suits filed June 6 in federal court in Illinois,
John Crane alleged that both firms have withheld evidence in cases
brought by mesothelioma victims over their exposure to asbestos in
violation of the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.  Simon Greenstone and Shein Law faced similar
allegations from gasket maker Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC,
which sued them in 2014 after a judge overseeing its bankruptcy
found that plaintiffs lawyers had shown a "startling pattern of
misrepresentation" in mesothelioma lawsuits against it.

A representative of John Crane, a Morton Grove, Illinois-based
subsidiary of Smiths Group plc in London, declined to comment.

Responding to the case against Simon Greenstone, which also named
founding shareholders Jeffrey Simon and David Greenstone, attorney
Michael W. Magner -- mmagner@joneswalker.com -- of Jones Walker
called the lawsuit a "cynical and deceitful legal tactic."

"These claims brought by John Crane are an attempt to circumvent
the legal process by intimidating lawyers who represent those
harmed by this company's dangerous products and reprehensible
behavior," Mr. Magner said in an emailed statement.

Dan Brier -- dbrier@mbklaw.com -- a partner at Myers Brier & Kelly
in Scranton, Pennsylvania, who represents Benjamin Shein and Shein
Law, both named as defendants in the John Crane case, said: "This
suit has absolutely no merit.  It's filed more than six years
after John Crane lost jury trials and paid verdicts in cases filed
and tried in Pennsylvania, and John Crane is disingenuously and
unreasonably seeking do-overs in the Northern District of Illinois
based on contrived venue and jurisdictional allegations. Shein
will aggressively defend."

The suits come after John Crane attempted to intervene in
Garlock's cases against Simon Greenstone and Shein Law in January.
Senior Judge Graham Mullen in the Western District of North
Carolina had refused to dismiss the cases on Sept. 2 after finding
that the alleged actions of the plaintiffs firms go "well past the
kind of routine litigation activities" that would survive a RICO
claim.  Simon Greenstone filed counterclaims alleging Garlock had
committed its own RICO violations in falsely claiming its products
were safe.

But in March, Garlock settled those cases, along with two others
against Dallas plaintiffs firms Waters Kraus & Paul and Stanley-
Iola, which is defunct, and New York's Belluck & Fox.

In February, Simon Greenstone, citing the damage that John Crane's
allegations have had on its business, filed a declaratory judgment
action in federal court in California for a court order finding
that their conduct had not violated the RICO Act.  John Crane's
response was due on June 9.

The new lawsuits, filed by John Crane attorney Mark Ferguson --
mark.ferguson@bartlit-beck.com -- a partner at Chicago's Bartlit
Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott, allege that Simon Greenstone and
Shein Law failed to disclose through sworn discovery responses and
depositions that their clients had been exposed to products made
by other companies -- then deliberately delayed filing claims
against those companies in bankruptcy trusts.  Had John Crane been
aware of the claims, it could have avoided "substantial defense
costs" and jury verdicts, according to the suits.

Mr. Ferguson referred a request for comment to the corporate press
office for John Crane.

Mr. Magner said in his statement: "John Crane's allegation that
dying mesothelioma claimants, most of whom were Navy veterans,
lied under oath, is false and offensive, and is the ultimate
insult upon injury to the many people juries have found John Crane
fatally poisoned."


KANKAKEE COUNTY, IL: Class Definitions Must Be Revisited
--------------------------------------------------------
Max S. Meckstroth, Esq., of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, reports that class actions, and Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, have long been rife with
controversy.  It's safe to assume that the Seventh Circuit's
decision in Fonder v. Sheriff of Kankakee Cnty., No. 15-2905 (7th
Cir. May 26, 2016), will likely garner mixed reviews from the bar.

Fonder is a reminder that class certifications are not set in
stone.  Judge Easterbrook -- who wrote for the court, joined by
Judge Sykes and Judge Adelman from the E.D. Wis., who sat by
designation -- held that class definitions must be revisited when
"evidence calls into question the propriety" of such definitions.

The substantive issue confronted in Fonder stemmed from a class
action filed by three arrestees who objected to the
constitutionality of a jail's written policy to "strip search"
every arrestee before that person entered the general population.
The plaintiffs objected to the policy because it applied to all
arrested persons, even those who had not yet been brought before a
judge for a probable-cause determination.

The district court certified the class with the following
definition: "All persons held in the custody of the Sheriff of
Kankakee County from April 20, 2010 to the date of entry of
judgment who, following a warrantless arrest, were strip searched
in advance of a judicial determination of probable cause." Relying
upon the United States Supreme Court's holding in Florence v. Bd.
of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (2012), the district court
ultimately held that the written policy was constitutional as
applied to the defined class.

On appeal the Seventh Circuit criticized two aspects of the
district court's holding.

First, the Court underscored the "mismatch" between the Supreme
Court's rationale in Florence, which depended upon the arrested
person's placement in the general population, and the class
definition certified by the district court, which included all
arrestees regardless of whether they entered the jail's general
population.  The Court explained that the subset of arrestees
subjected to a strip search, but never placed in general
population, may have "good claims that their rights have been
violated."  However, because those arrestees were included in the
class definition, they would be precluded from filing their own
lawsuits.

Second, discovery revealed that the jail's written policy of
strip-searching every arrestee before placing them in general
population was not consistently applied.  Nevertheless, the
district court held that "the power to conduct a strip search of
every arrestee implie[d] the lesser power to inspect a subset of
all arrestees." The Seventh Circuit disagreed.

Before the Seventh Circuit could effectively remedy the district
court's errors, however, it needed to address the district court's
implied holding that the class waived its opportunity to contest
how the written policy actually worked in practice by having
proposed a class definition that broadly included all newly
arrested persons.

The Court explained that, although Rule 23 requires class
certification early in a suit, certifications are nevertheless
"tentative."  And, whenever evidence casts doubt upon the
propriety of a particular class definition, "the definition must
be modified or subclasses certified."  Moreover, just because Rule
23 defines a class early in a lawsuit, it does not justify
"adjudicating hypothetical issues rather than determining the
legality" of what actually transpired.

As Judge Easterbrook succinctly stated, "[t]he class definition
must yield to the facts, rather than the other way 'round."


KNCMINER: Class Action to Proceed Despite Bankruptcy Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pete Rizzo, writing for CoinDesk, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed against troubled bitcoin startup KnCMiner is
proceeding despite a recent legal setback and a bankruptcy filing
by the firm.

According to emails provided to CoinDesk, lawyers representing the
most prominent of several class action lawsuits filed against KnC
have entered a claim against its bankruptcy estate in Sweden.
Further, they indicated the group has provided information to
local law enforcement in an attempt to ensure the firm can provide
customer reparations.

An email to class action participants reads:

"We have handed over all claims with the verifications to the
criminal authorities for them to initiate the process of freezing
KnC assets to cover your claim."

The legal move comes amid what appear to be continued efforts by
claimants after a verdict was rendered that KnC customers were
businesses, not consumers, a finding that prohibited class action
participants from obtaining consumer protections and
reimbursement.

At the time of KnCMiner's filing, management claimed that it would
no longer be able to compete in the race for bitcoin rewards
following an upcoming network rule change. Notably, the firm is
not insolvent and it remains unclear if the bankruptcy will mark
the end of the company's operations or if it will restructure.

Called a 'halving' event, the upcoming change will find the amount
of rewards paid to new miners dropping from 25 BTC to 12.5 BTC, a
50% decrease in potential profitability should the price not rise
to offset the loss.

Once one of the larger bitcoin mining firms, KnC raised $32
million in venture funding for its mining hardware products.

However, the company faced continued customer criticism for
allegedly defective products and shipping issues that eventually
forced it out of the business-to-consumer hardware market.

Representatives from KnCMiner did not respond to requests for
further details.


KRAFT: Panel Transfers 50+ Parmesan Cheese Cases to Chicago
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judicial panel has transferred more than 50 class
actions to Chicago alleging that four brands including Kraft and
Target have mislabeled their "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" because
they contain fillers made from wood pulp.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on June 2
ordered that the cases be coordinated for pretrial purposes and
sent to U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman of the Northern
District of Illinois.  The suits follow a Feb. 16 article on
Bloomberg.com that cited independent laboratory studies finding
that 7.8 percent of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s private-label 100%
parmesan cheese contained cellulose and The Kraft Heinz Co.'s 3.8
percent.

In its ruling, the panel sided with Kraft, which faces the bulk of
the litigation, on where to send the cases but rejected its
attempt to separate its cases from those against other defendants,
which also include Target Corp., Supervalu Inc., Albertson's LLC
and ICCO-Cheese Co. Inc., an Orangeburg, New York-based
manufacturer that provides cheese to Target and
Wal-Mart.  Kraft attorney Dean Panos of Jenner & Block declined to
comment on the order.

"In many situations, we are hesitant to bring together actions
involving separate defendants and products, but when, as here,
there is significant overlap in the central factual issues,
parties, and claims, we find that creation of a single MDL is
warranted," wrote MDL Panel chairwoman Sarah Vance.  "A single MDL
is the most appropriate vehicle for resolving defendants'
challenges to the validity of the laboratory testing at issue, the
anticipated common third-party discovery, discovery of any common
suppliers, and management of the competing putative classes."

The panel rejected arguments to send the cases to districts in
California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New York or
Pennsylvania.

Many plaintiffs attorneys had supported the Illinois district but
were split on whether to separate the actions.  Carol Gilden --
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- a Chicago partner at Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll whose co-counsel in a case they filed against Kraft
and Target argued for Chicago, noted that the district was
"centrally located for all the parties involved."

She said the panel was "extremely engaged" in the arguments, which
lasted more than half an hour.

The suits allege that products are mislabeled in violation of
several state consumer laws, common laws and the federal Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, because they contain additives such as
cellulose, which is an anti-clumping agent made from wood pulp.
The defendants have denied the allegations.

In addition to the lab studies, the Bloomberg.com article
referenced a senior executive of a defunct cheese manufacturer and
onetime supplier to Target who pleaded guilty on Feb. 26 to one
count of selling a "misbranded and adulterated food."  A Target
spokeswoman has said the manufacturer has "never been an
authorized Target vendor."


LIFEWATCH INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Donaca" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW DONACA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIFEWATCH, INC,
Case No. 5:13-cv-02064-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an
order certifying this class:

     "All individuals in the United States whose identity can be
     ascertained through Lifewatch's records and who received one
     or more phone calls directed to a telephone number assigned
     to a residential landline service using an artificial or
     prerecorded message made by, on behalf of, or for the
     benefit of Lifewatch from October 16, 2013 through the
     present."

In the Renewed Motion, the Plaintiff also asks the Court to
appoint him as Class Representative, and Katrina Carroll, Esq., of
Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC and Peter Lubin, Esq., as Co-Lead
Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Renewed Motion.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qUpGk6w9

Copies of declarations of Stephen Simoni, Esq., filed in support
of the Renewed Motion are available for free at:

   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gb9MaPAm
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oytLTplY
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=usXcru2z
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oBj7PkPk
   * http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dUQWG8oS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN
          17W200 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Simoni, Esq.
          SIMONI CONSUMERS CLASS ACTION LAW OFFICES
          12131 Turnberry Drive, Suite 100
          Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-1500
          Telephone: (917) 621-5795
          E-mail: StephenSimoniLAW@gmail.com

               - and -

          Chad C. Austin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHAD C. AUSTIN
          4632 Berwick Drive
          San Diego, CA 92117
          Telephone: (619) 992-7100
          E-mail: ChadCAustin@gmail.com


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh(R) Boys Swimsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 2016
Posting date: May 9, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-58254

This recall involves Joe Fresh(R) Boys Swimsuits sold since
November 2013.

The affected swimsuits were sold in various colours and styles,
and have a mesh liner.

  2014 Styles       2015 Styles       2016 Styles
  -----------       -----------       -----------
  BBS4SM4806        BBS5SM4804        BBS6SM4801
  BBS4SM4807        BBS5SM4806        BBS6SM4805
  BBS4SM4808        BBS5SM4809        BBS6SM4808
  BBS4SM4816        BBT5SM4801        BBS6SM4809
  BBT4SM4801        BBU5SM4811        BBT6SM4800
  BBT4SM4802        BBU5SM4813        BBU6SM4803
  BBU4SM4813        KBS5SM6006        BBU6SM4810
  BBU4SM4817        KBS5SM6011        KBS5SM6005
  KBS4SM6006        KBT5SM6001        KBS6SM6004
  KBS4SM6008        KBU5SM6013        KBS6SM6008
  KBS4SM6009        KBU5SM6014        KBS6SM6009
  KBT4SM6000        TBS5SM3804        KBS6SM6010
  KBT4SM6001        TBS5SM3807        KBT6SM6001
  KBU4SM6010        TBS5SM3809        KBU6SM6011
  KBU4SM6011        TBT5SM3801        KBU6SM6013
  TBS4SM3802        TBU5SM3816        TBS6SM3803
  TBS4SM3805        TBU5SM3817        TBS6SM3805
  TBS4SM3807        TBS6SM3807        TBU6SM3815
  TBT4SM3801        TBT6SM3801        TBU6SM3816
  TBU4SM3851        TBU6SM3809        TBU6SM3817
  TBU4SM3852        TBU6SM3811        TBU6SM3818

Skin can get caught in the mesh lining of the swimsuits posing a
pinching and injury hazard.

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

Loblaw Companies Limited has received five reports in Canada of
skin being caught in the mesh lining of the swimsuits, resulting
in three minor injuries.

Approximately 385,000 units of the recalled swimsuits were sold at
Loblaw Companies Limited banner stores across Canada.

The recalled swimsuits were sold from November 2013 to April 2016.

Manufactured in China and Bangladesh.

Distributor: Loblaw Companies Limited
             Brampton
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Joe Fresh(R)
swimsuits and return the product to any Loblaw banner store where
Joe Fresh(R) apparel is sold for a full refund (a receipt is not
required).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/FKh6pX


LTD FINANCIAL: Class Certification in "Baez" Suit Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul G. Byron entered an order and judgment, granting in
part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification in the class action lawsuit styled LIZNELIA BAEZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. LTD FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P., the Defendant, Case
No: 6:15-cv-1043-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff's motion to certify the subclass is denied, while
the following class is certified:

     "All persons in the state of Florida who were sent a
     collection letter from LTD containing an out of statute
     statement substantially similar to the Settlement Offer
     Letter."

A copy of the Order dated June 8 is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=weaGNimd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons Jr., Esq.
          VARNELL & WARWICK, PA.
          Complex Consumer Litigation
          P.O. Box 1870,
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: 352-753-8600
          Facsimile: 352-504-3301
          E-mail: info@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          Michael Tierney,
          Michael Tierney, PA
          Winter Park
          918 Beard Avenue
          Winter Park, FL 32789
          Telephone: (855) 740 3328

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin W. Raslavich, Esq.
          Dale Thomas Golden, Esq.
          Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.
          201 North Armenia Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 251 5500
          Facsimile: (813) 251-3675
          E-mail: dgolden@gsgfirm.com


MARCOAH GROUP: Hearing on Certification Bid Cont'd to July 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 7, 2016, in the case entitled
Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd. v. Marcoah Group USA LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05318 (N.D. Ill.) , relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's "Damasco" motion for
class certification is entered and continued to July 25, 2016, at
9:00 a.m.  Presentation of the Motion on June 8 is stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8EC0wNkv


MDL 2067: Court Won't Certify Class in Painters Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied the plaintiff's motion to certify
certain classes in the case captioned In re: CELEXA AND LEXAPRO
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION. PAINTERS AND ALLIED
TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 82 HEALTH CARE FUND, Plaintiff, v. FOREST
LABORATORIES, INC. and FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants,
MDL No. 09-02067-NMG, Civil Action No. 13-13113-NMG (D. Mass.).

A full-text copy of Judge Gorton's June 2, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/AqJvmO from Leagle.com.

The case arose out of the marketing and sales of the related anti-
depressant drugs Celexa and Lexapro by the defendants Forest
Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively,
"Forest").  The plaintiff, Painters and Allied Trades District
Council 82 Health Care Fund, is a health and benefit fund
providing benefits to covered members and their families.  It acts
as a third-party payor that reimburses the medical expenses of
plan members.

Painters alleged that the defendants violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Minnesota Consumer Fraud
Act, Minnesota Unfair Trade Practices Act and Minnesota Deceptive
Trade Practices Act by misrepresenting and concealing material
information about the efficacy of Celexa and Lexapro in treating
major depressive disorder in pediatric patients.

In Re: Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, represented by Christopher L. Coffin --
ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP.

Martha Palumbo, Peter Palumbo, Consolidated Plaintiffs,
represented by Harris L. Pogust -- hpogust@pbmattorneys.com --
Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP, Nicholas R. Rockforte --
nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro
hac vice, Patrick W. Pendley -- pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com --
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Michael L. Baum -- mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
-- Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner
-- rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman
PC.

Jayne Ehrlich, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Harris L.
Pogust, Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP.

Anna Murret, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Harris L.
Pogust, Cuneo, Pogust & Mason LLP, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, LLP &Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP.

Universal Care, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas R. Sprong, KOREIN TILLERY, LLC, Roger D. Drake, Baum,
Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C. & Michael L. Baum, Baum, Hedlund,
Aristei & Goldman, P.C., pro hac vice.

Angela Jaeckel, Melvin M. Fullmer, Consolidated Plaintiffs,
represented by Douglas R. Sprong -- dsprong@koreintillery.com --
KOREIN TILLERY, LLC, Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin
& Coffin, LLP, Michael L. Baum, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman,
P.C. & Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC.

New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employer's Health and Welfare Trust
Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by David R. Buchanan --
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, James R. Dugan, II, The
Dugan Law Firm, Justin Bloom -- bloomesq1@gmail.com -- Justin
Bloom, Esq., Shane Youtz, Youtz and Valdez, P.C., Adam M. Stewart
-- astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, David B.
Franco, The Dugan Law Firm, APLC & Thomas G. Shapiro --
tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by David R. Buchanan, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice,
Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, James R. Dugan, II, The
Dugan Law Firm, Adam M. Stewart, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, David
B. Franco, The Dugan Law Firm, APLC & Thomas G. Shapiro, Shapiro
Haber & Urmy LLP.

Municipal Reinsurance Health Insurance Fund, Consolidated
Plaintiff, represented by Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Ruth Dunham, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP.

Tanya Shippy, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP & Robert Brent Wisner,
Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC.

Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Heath Care Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Hedlund Aristei and Goldman
PC & Sam Griffin, Law Offices of S. Samuel Griffin.

Delana S. Kiossovski, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, Robert Brent Wisner, Baum
Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC & Sam Griffin, Law Offices of S.
Samuel Griffin.

Rene Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Brent Wisner, Baum
Hedlund Aristei and Goldman PC.

Forest Laboratories Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Cicely I. Lubben, Stinson, Morrison et al., Danielle E. Thorne,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Edwin G. Schallert,
Debevoise & Plimpton, J. Robert Abraham, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP,
Kristin D. Kiehn, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, pro hac vice, Sandra
J. Wunderlich, Stinson, Morrison et al.,Joshua D. Nadreau,
Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C. & Noelle E. Lyle,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Consolidated Defendant, represented
by Cicely I. Lubben, Stinson, Morrison et al., Danielle E. Thorne,
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Edwin G. Schallert,
Debevoise & Plimpton, J. Robert Abraham, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP,
Kristin D. Kiehn, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter
Simpson Ross, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, Sandra J.
Wunderlich, Stinson, Morrison et al., Joshua D. Nadreau, Sugarman,
Rogers, Barshak & Cohen, P.C. & Noelle E. Lyle, Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP.

Warner Lambert Company, Consolidated Defendant, represented by
Barbara Wrubel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Mark S.
Cheffo, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice.

Forest Laboratories, LLC, Defendant, represented by Edwin G.
Schallert, Debevoise & Plimpton, Peter Simpson Ross, Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, pro hac vice, J. Robert Abraham, Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP, Joshua D. Nadreau, Sugarman, Rogers, Barshak &
Cohen, P.C. & Kristin D. Kiehn, Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP.

Natalie Luster, Interested Party, represented by Alex Lumaghi,
Dowd & Dowd, P.C., pro hac vice, Christopher J. Quinn, The
Driscoll Firm, P.C, pro hac vice, Douglas P. Dowd, Dowd & Dowd,
P.C., pro hac vice, William T. Dowd, DOWD AND DOWD, pro hac vice,
John J. Driscoll, The Driscoll Firm, P.C. & Ryan P. McManus,
Hemenway & Barnes.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Williams" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Williams moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled JAMES WILLIAMS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC. AND MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00678-
CNC (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff also asks the Court both to stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence.  Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff argues.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EzY9aiB2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


MODESTO, CA: Class Actions Seek Refund of MID Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for The Modesto Bee, reports that a new
Modesto Bee analysis finds that Modesto Irrigation District is
making more money off residential customers than neighboring
utilities and others throughout California, including Pacific Gas
and Electric Co.

Regular folks in MID's area also shoulder a higher burden than
elsewhere to benefit local wineries, canneries and other industry,
the analysis shows -- in addition to subsidizing farmers' water.

"They have the money and the lawyers, and you're just the little
person," said Modesto's Raymond Ortiz, an MID customer living on a
fixed income.  "You don't have a recourse."

A pair of unrelated class-action lawsuits aims to change that,
both demanding refunds for those unfairly paying more so that big
companies and farms can pay less.

Payouts, if any, could be two years or more away, depending on
whether the lawsuits succeed, experts say.

MID did not dispute The Bee's findings or methodology, based on 19
years of revenue and energy-production data that the utility
reported to a federal agency.  But MID, preferring to use another
measuring stick, insists that its average customer pays 28 percent
less than those buying power from PG&E and insists MID complies
with state law.

The Bee found:

   * MID's average revenue from residential customers inched above
PG&E's in 2008 and remains higher (18 cents per kilowatt-hour
generated vs. 16.7 cents) despite no MID rate increases since
2011.

   * MID's residential income also is higher than the Turlock
(15.7 cents) and Merced (16.2 cents) irrigation districts and much
higher than the average for other California public utilities
(14.5 cents).

   * At the same time, MID's average income from industrial
customers (10.4 cents per kilowatt-hour) is rock-bottom when
stacked next to its neighbors, other public utilities and PG&E.
Unsurprisingly, the gap between MID's high take from residential
customers and low revenue from industry is much larger than for
other utilities.

"All I can say is it's too high," said Carolyn Merritt of MID's
power prices.  The disabled 74-year-old's Modesto household shares
monthly expense duties; she pays the MID bill, her son-in-law
takes care of rent and gas and her granddaughter covers the water
bill.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration, which supplied data
used in The Bee's analysis, does not compile prices, which can be
tricky to present in apples-to-apples comparisons among utilities
with widely varying circumstances.  The agency instead collects
sales and energy volume numbers, with breakdowns among
residential, commercial and industrial classes, making simple
revenue-per-kilowatt-hour computations "a proxy for retail rates
and prices," the agency says.

Prices still a bargain, MID says

MID historically has preferred to present a narrower picture based
on prices charged to average customers.

For example, March 2015 numbers released by the district suggested
a $152 bill for customers using 850 kilowatt-hours per month,
compared with $187 charged by PG&E and $130 paid by TID customers.

"MID's cost of service study uses a standard methodology widely
employed in the utility industry," district spokeswoman
Melissa Williams said.

The Sacramento Municipal Utility District publishes a similar
comparison, but based on an assumption that the average customer
uses 750 kilowatt-hours a month for a $103 bill, compared with
$133 in MID's area and $166 charged by PG&E.

Prices charged by investor-owned utilities like PG&E are regulated
by the California Public Utilities Commission, while nonprofit
utilities such as SMUD, MID and TID are governed by locally
elected boards with power to set rates.

SMUD's board in 2003 adopted a policy mandating as a "core value
of the district" that prices be competitive.  The policy states
that SMUD's rates will stay at least 10 percent below PG&E's;
they're 61 percent less, according to SMUD's posted comparison.

According to The Bee's revenue-based analysis, SMUD makes 29
percent less average profit from its residential customers than
PG&E.

MID, which has no such policy, makes nearly 8 percent more average
profit from its residential customers than PG&E, and 40 percent
more than SMUD -- also a public utility in a similar climate.

Why such a difference?

MID: Country strong

Modesto's Steve Mohasci, who retired from a utility in Iowa,
thinks it might have to do with representation. MID and SMUD board
members represent geographic districts, but SMUD focuses on
electricity while MID's dual mission includes providing water for
farmers.  And the MID board historically has been controlled by
farmers; currently, its grower-board members are Larry Byrd,
Nick Blom and Jake Wenger.

"Residential customers are the cash cow for irrigation welfare,"
Mr. Mohasci said.


MONTGOMERY: Board of Elections Faces "Yi" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the Board of Elections of
Montgomery County of Maryland. The case is captioned Chong Su Yi
and people of similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Board of
Elections of Montgomery County of Maryland and Maryland Board of
Elections, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01850-RWT (D. Md.,
June 3, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Roger W Titus.

Montgomery County, officially the County of Montgomery, is a
county in the U.S. state of Maryland. As of the 2010 census, the
population was 971,777. The Board of Elections provides all
eligible citizens of the State convenient access to voter
registration.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Study Set to Start Amid Controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Armour, writing for USA Today, reports that something was
lost in the furor over who made what phone calls when and why the
NFL went back on its word.

The day is coming when former NFL players won't have to wait for
an autopsy to explain the mood swings, the memory loss, the
depression and, in the very worst of cases, the urge to kill
themselves.

That breakthrough will lead to others.  An explanation for why
some people exposed to repetitive head trauma get chronic
traumatic encephalopathy and others do not, and a test to indicate
which group someone falls into.  Treatments that can slow the
progression of the disease that has reduced dozens of former
football players -- and soccer players and hockey players and
members of the military -- to shadows of themselves.

Maybe even stop CTE completely.

"If we succeed in our goals, then it's a game changer,"
Robert Stern, the Clinical Core Director of Boston University's
Alzheimer's Disease and CTE Center, said after announcing the
start of the seven-year study the NFL is accused of trying to
quash.

The NFL has much to answer for when it comes to the concussion
crisis.  But if the DIAGNOSE CTE study that Stern is leading
delivers on its promise, the attempts to derail it will be the
league's worst failing.

Building on other research, the new study is intended to identify
a diagnostic test for CTE.  A group of 240 males -- half of whom
played in the NFL, 60 who played in college and 60 who had no
exposure to repetitive head trauma -- will be put through a three-
day battery of tests, including brain imaging, spinal taps and
samples of both blood and saliva.

The NFL players and the control group will be re-tested after
three years.

The tests, which begin in July, will be done at four sites around
the country.  Experts in every aspect related to repetitive head
trauma are involved.

"I think we're going to really learn a lot and discover a
tremendous amount of information that will give us some of the
answers of what is CTE in lifetime and yes, we can diagnose it,"
said Martha Shenton, director of the Psychiatry Neuroimaging
Laboratory at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and another
of the study's lead researchers.

"The pathophysiology is another question," Ms. Shenton added,
referring to the progression of a disease.  "But you can't look at
the pathophysiology until you have an entity that you can
identify."

The $16 million study was supposed to be funded as part of the
NFL's $30 million grant to the National Institutes of Health.  But
the league balked at it, reportedly because it is being led by Mr.
Stern, a critic of the NFL who submitted an affidavit in support
of the former players in the class-action lawsuit over
concussions.

But in a sign of the study's importance and potential impact, the
NIH funded it anyway, using taxpayer dollars.

"I'm really just thrilled that it's funded.  That's really it,"
Mr. Stern said, declining to further the fray with the NFL.
"Controversies are not the focus of what I'm doing.  I'm trying to
get those answers as quickly as possible."

That, after all, is what it's all about.

The damage to former players has already been done, and the time
for trying to dodge the fallout is long over.  What matters now is
finding treatment so the suffering can be lessened and,
ultimately, eliminated. Researchers are getting close, with the
timeline already shrinking from decades to years.

What the NFL fails to realize is answers -- transparency -- only
helps its cause. The sooner doctors can tell someone he will -- or
won't -- be at risk for CTE, the better it is for the long-term
future of the NFL.  But that's not possible without first being
able to diagnose the disease while someone's alive, and
researchers are confident this new study will allow them to do
that.


NEOVASC INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on June 6 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Neovasc,
Inc. ("Neovasc" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company
during the period between January 26, 2015, and May 19, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Neovasc is a specialty medical company that develops, manufactures
and markets cardiovascular products.  The Company's main product
is the Tiara, a transcatheter mitral valve device used to treat
mitral valve disease.  The Tiara, which the Company started
developing in the second quarter of 2011, can be implanted through
minimally invasive surgery to individuals who experience mitral
regurgitation as a result of mitral heart valve disease.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (i) that the Company's Tiara device was developed
through unlawful business practices, including the
misappropriation of trade secrets from another company; (ii) that
a related lawsuit against Neovasc regarding the misappropriation
of trades secrets had merit; and (iii) that, as a result of the
above, Defendants' statements about Neovasc's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and join the class action
at www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased Neovasc stock between January 26, 2015, and
May 19, 2016, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker
-- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Neovasc common stock during the Class Period of
January 26, 2015 through May 19, 2016, and wish to apply to be the
lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than August 5, 2016.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action. Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Located in Boca Raton, Florida, Saxena White P.A. --
http://www.saxenawhite.com-- concentrates its practice on
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel
in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured
investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States.


NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhomes Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 100
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016205TC
ID number: 2016205

On certain motorhomes equipped with a heavier weight adjustable
foot pedal, the brake activation signal to certain towed devices
may not deactivate when the motorhome service brakes are released.
If the brakes of a towed vehicle were to remained engaged, it
could result in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Daimler Trucks North America authorized service facilities will
replace the torsion spring of the pedal assembly with an improved
spring.

  Make         Model                       Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----                       ----------------------
  NEWMAR      DUTCH STAR LASS A MOTORHOME      2014
  NEWMAR      LONDON AIRE CLASS A MOTORHOME    2015
  NEWMAR      ESSEX CLASS A MOTORHOME          2014


PAPP INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Search & Smile Board Book Series
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 9, 2016
Posting date: May 9, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-58252

This recall involves the Search & Smile Board Book Series by
Beaver Books Publishing. The books are hardcover, 21 cm x 28 cm in
size and feature a mirror at the back. The series includes four
book titles:

  Title        ISBN            UPC              Tracking Number
  -----        ----            ---              ---------------
  On the Go    978177066-5033  69928410-3851    PO10266-01-
                                                AUG2013 and
                                                PO10324-01-052014
  Outdoor      978177066-5040  69928410-3868
  play
  At Home      978177066-5057  69928410-3875
  Animals      978177066-5064  69928410-3882

The mirror at the back of the book is covered by a protective
plastic sheet that can easily be removed. The plastic sheet is a
small part and poses a choking hazard to young children.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product.

Papp International Inc. has received one report in Canada of the
plastic sheet detaching and being found in a child's mouth. No
injuries were reported.

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

Approximately 55,002 units of the recalled Search & Smile books
were sold in Canada, and approximately 43,447 were sold in the
United States.

The recalled Search & Smile books were sold from October 2013 to
April 2016 at various retail locations across Canada.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Papp International Inc. dba Beaver Books Publishing
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Zhejiang Guanghua Creative Printing Co. Ltd
              (formerly Jinhua GH)
              Jinhua, Zhejiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately take the recalled books away from
children, remove the plastic film covering the mirror at the back
of the book and discard it safely in regular household garbage.

For more information, consumers can contact PAPP International
Inc. by telephone at 514-725-1515, by email or visit the firm'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:
https://is.gd/Hum2oW


PETROBRAS: Class Action Trial Scheduled for September 19
--------------------------------------------------------
Lise Alves, writing for The Rio Times, reports that a class action
suit filed in the United States on behalf of stock investors at
the New York Stock Exchange may yield "tens of billions of
dollars" for the plaintiffs, a bigger settlement than that awarded
to Enron plaintiffs, of US$7.2 billion, say economic analysts.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on September 19th, 2016.

The action suit, alleges that its senior Petrobras executives were
involved in a multi-year, multi-billion dollar money-laundering
and bribery scheme, which was concealed from investors when the
investment was made.

Due to the bribes, say the petitioners, the price of Petrobras
shares plummeted, leading to million-dollar losses.  Among the
plaintiffs are large pension funds as well as smaller investors in
the U.S. and other parts of the world.

According to Pomerantz LLP, the New York law firm leading the
charge against the Brazilian oil giant, senior company executives
have openly admitted wrongdoing.

"In testimony released by a Brazilian federal court, the executive
in charge of Petrobras' refining division confessed that Petrobras
accepted bribes from companies to whom Petrobras awarded inflated
construction contracts and then used the money to bribe
politicians through intermediaries to guarantee they would vote in
line with the ruling party while enriching themselves," says the
law firm in a press release.

"For Petrobras to say, 'We're the victims,' when their executives
were perpetrating this scheme suggests that they haven't learned
their lesson," Jeremy A. Lieberman, lead Pomerantz counsel in the
Petrobras case was quoted as saying.  "This is not just an
incident of a few rotten apples on an otherwise pristine tree."


PIRELLI: Recalls 2016 Vehicle Models Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Tire
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Tires
Units affected: 24
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016203TC
ID number: 2016203

Certain tires may not comply with Canadian Motor Vehicle Tire
Safety Regulations. The tires may not be marked with a date code,
contrary to the requirements of the regulations. This could cause
tires to be difficult to identify in the event of a Notice of
defect, and make it difficult for the owner to abide by the
manufacturer's recommended tire expiry date. Correction: Dealers
will replace the affected tires.

  Make         Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----      ----------------------
  PIRELLI                 2016


PROGRESS INC: Jean-Charles Moves for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for Conditional Class Certification, Approval
of Notice and Consent Forms, and to Order Disclosure of Current
and Former Employees, in the lawsuit titled ROGESTE JEAN-CHARLES,
et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Progress, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
3:15-cv-1165 (M.D. Tenn.).

Specifically, the Plaintiffs move this Court to:

     1. Authorize this case to proceed as a collective action for
overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
supplemental Tennessee state law claims, on behalf of all
similarly-situated Direct Support Professionals (DSP) and
Caregivers employed by the Defendant who were not properly
compensated for all hours worked.

     2. Issue an Order directing the Defendant to immediately
provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known
telephone numbers for all putative class members within the last
six years.

     3. Issue an Order that notice be prominently posted at the
Progress, Inc. headquarters, where putative class members work,
attached to current employees' next scheduled paycheck, and be
mailed to all current and former employees so that they can assert
their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation.

     4. Issue an Order tolling the statute of limitations for the
putative class as of the date this action was first filed.

     5. Order that the Opt-In plaintiffs Consent Forms be deemed
filed" on the date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MXtsDLZ3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Gary Blackburn, Esq.
          Bryant Kroll, Esq.
          THE BLACKBURN FIRM
          213 Fifth Avenue North, Suite 300
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 254 7770
          Facsimile: (866) 895 7272
          E-mail: gblackburn@wgaryblackburn.com
                  bkroll@wgaryblackburn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Douglas R. Pierce, Esq.
          Richard C. Lowe, Esq.
          KING & BALLOW
          315 Union Street, Suite 1100
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 259 3456
          Facsimile: (615) 726 5417
          E-mail: dpierce@kingballow.com
                  rlowe@kingballow.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff moves for Class Certification and Relief from
Memorandum, Supporting Documents, and Automatic Briefing
Requirements in class action lawsuit captioned JAMES MENEAR,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RETRIEVAL MASTERS CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., D/B/A
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, the Defendant, Case No.: 16-
cv-690 (E.D. Wisc.)

The motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described
in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ky14idr7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Folate III Kit Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2016
Posting date: May 24, 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, Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-58520

A situation was reported to Roche regarding Folate III reagent kit
lot 189895-01 that was released from the production line and did
not contain the reagent nor the pretreatment. The frequency of
occurrence is considered to be very lot (less than 0.1%).

Affected products
A. FOLATE III
Lot or serial number: 18989501
Model or catalog number: 04476433190
255274

Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH
              Sandhoferstrasse 116
              Mannheim
              68305
              GERMANY


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Trigl Cobas C701 Analyzer Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Posting date: May 24, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58524

The manufacturer has identified during an internal investigation
on a unique customer complaint, that a change in the Cobas C701-
702 application prozone limit check was required for the
triglycerides assay to address a potential for low results without
the expected flag. The application package has been modified and
has been provided accordingly to add the new prozone limit check.

Affected products
A. TRIGL (TRIGLYCERIDES) FOR COBAS C701 ANALYZER
Lot or serial number: 11932001
                      12552901
                      14854801
                      61022901
                      61287501
                      61479601
                      61900301

Model or catalog number: 5171407190

Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH
              Sandhoferstrasse 116
              Mannheim
              68305
              GERMANY


SAKS & COMPANY: "Crawford" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------
In the case captioned STANDIFER W. CRAWFORD, DONALD B. WILLIAMS,
and ROXANNE MELENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAKS & COMPANY, Defendant,
Civil Action No. H-14-3665 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal
granted Saks & Company's motion for summary judgment as to the
three named plaintiffs, denied the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification as moot, and entered and order of
dismissal.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenthal's June 2, 2016 memorandum and
opinion is available at https://is.gd/BU13EB from Leagle.com.

The case involved unpaid overtime claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 201, et seq.  The named
plaintiffs, Standifer Crawford, Donald Williams, and Roxanne
Melendez are former sales associates at the Saks department store
at the Houston, Texas Galleria.  They alleged that Saks regularly
required them to work off the clock and that some of these hours
exceeded 40 in a workweek, entitling them to overtime pay for
those hours.

Standifer W. Crawford, Donald B Williams, Roxanne Melendez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Genevieve Brunswick Estrada, Wills Law
Firm & Rhonda Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC.

Saks & Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy Mitchell Watson
-- twatson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman
-- jmschauer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rachel Megan
Hoffer -- rhoffer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Richard L.
Alfred -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Saks & Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy Mitchell
Watson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


SAVANNA ENERGY: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Burlew" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DONALD R. BURLEW,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. SAVANNA ENERGY SERVICES (U.S.A.) CORP., the
Defendant, moves for Conditional Certification and to Facilitate
Notice.

The Plaintiff moves to facilitate notice of this lawsuit to the
following group of similarly situated individuals:

All current or former employees of Savanna Energy Services
(U.S.A.) Corp. ("Savanna") who performed work as a Rig Manager in
Savanna's drilling division in the United States within the past
three years ("FLSA Collective" or "Rig Managers").

Plaintiff requests that the Court grant his Motion and:

     1) conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice
and discovery;

     2) order that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
Collective Members;

     3) approve the form and content of Plaintiff's proposed
judicial notice and reminder notice;

     4) order Savanna to produce to Plaintiff's Counsel the
contact information (including the name, address, email address,
telephone number, dates of employment, and last four digits of the
social security number) for each Collective Member in a usable
electronic format;

     5) authorize notice to be sent via First Class Mail and e-
mail to the Collective Members pursuant to Plaintiff's proposed
notice plan; and

     6) require that Savanna post a copy of the notice in
appropriate, conspicuous, visible and accessible places at each of
its offices, shops, trailers, or other locations in which
Collective Members currently work during the 90 day opt-in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WvD6hnpL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergenv
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net


SINGING RIVER: Court Approves $149MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi has approved a $149,950,000 class action settlement
negotiated by attorneys with the law firms of Cunningham Bounds,
LLC in Mobile, Alabama and Reeves & Mestayer, LLC in Biloxi,
Mississippi.  The Court's decision followed a two-day hearing in
which the Court heard testimony from witnesses, reviewed
documentary evidence, and evaluated the arguments of counsel for
all parties.  The settlement resolves claims on behalf of more
than 3,000 Singing River Health System ("SRHS") employees,
retirees, and other plan beneficiaries related to the pension
crisis that has been embroiling the hospital for more than a year.

In its 43-page order approving the settlement, the Court found
that "[i]t is in the best interest of all -- proponents as well as
objectors, elected and appointed officials, and importantly, all
the citizens of Jackson County, to make every reasonable effort to
protect and nurture the hospital system upon which they depend for
their critical health care needs."  The settlement both restores
the missing pension funds and helps to ensure that Jackson
County's primary healthcare provider remains economically viable
in the future.

In October 2014, SRHS announced that it had not made a
contribution to the Singing River Health System Employees'
Retirement Plan and Trust ("Trust") since 2009.  The law firms of
Cunningham Bounds, LLC and Reeves & Mestayer, LLC were the first
to file a class action lawsuit seeking recovery of the missed
contributions that they alleged SRHS should have been making to
the Trust each year.  They conducted extensive written discovery,
hired experts in forensic accounting, and engaged in rigorous and
lengthy negotiations involving more than two dozen attorneys from
12 different law firms before finalizing the terms of the
agreement, which then had to be approved by the Court.

Under the settlement, SRHS has agreed to pay $149,950,000 to the
Retirement Trust over time.  This amount is equivalent to the
Plaintiffs' calculation of the present value of the missed
contributions that SRHS failed to make to the Trust between 2009
and 2014.  Additionally, Jackson County will pay $13,600,000 to
SRHS between 2016 and 2024 to support indigent care and
principally to prevent default on outstanding bonds.  The
settlement also provides that a Special Fiduciary, whose sole
fiduciary responsibility is to the Trust, will report to the
Jackson County Chancery Court on a quarterly basis regarding the
financial condition of SRHS, the pension plan, and the status of
the repayment schedule.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, the pension plan cannot be modified without the
approval of the Special Fiduciary and the Jackson County Chancery
Court after sixty (60) days' notice to the Class Members and an
opportunity for a hearing.

"Within a few days of the pension crisis being made public,
Cunningham Bounds began fighting for the hard working employees
and retirees of Singing River Health System -- and we have
aggressively litigated on their behalf ever since.  This was an
extraordinarily complex case involving more than 150 parallel
state court actions, 3 federal class actions, and multiple appeals
to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  We are thrilled that our
determined efforts have resulted in the restoration of the six
years' of contributions to the pension plan that the Hospital
should have made, but didn't until we got involved," said
Lucy Tufts, an attorney with Cunningham Bounds.

Steve Nicholas --sln@cunninghambounds.com -- and Lucy Tufts --
let@cunninghambounds.com -- of Cunningham Bounds, LLC and Jim
Reeves of Reeves & Mestayer, LLC were appointed by the Court as
Class Counsel.  Also representing the Plaintiffs in the federal
class action lawsuit was Matthew Mestayer of Reeves & Mestayer,
LLC.

The law firm of Cunningham Bounds, LLC, founded in 1958, is based
in Mobile, Alabama and has been representing plaintiffs for over
50  years.  The firm represents victims in cases involving
catastrophic  personal injury, industrial accidents, defective
products, truck and automobile accidents, and medical malpractice.
The firm also has expertise in business litigation, complex
litigation, and national and state class action litigation
involving defective products and consumer fraud.


SMITHS MEDICAL: Recalls CADD Administration Sets With Flow Stop
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2016
Posting date: May 20, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-58502

Smiths is notifying users of CADD Administration Sets with flow
stop that these listed sets may affect flow rate when used with a
variety of CADD ambulatory infusion pumps. This may result in
under-delivery of medication by an average additional 5.2% beyond
the labeled system delivery accuracy claim of +/- 6.0%. If drug
under-delivery occurs, patients may not receive their full volume
of medicinal product in the prescribed timeframe.

Affected products:
A. CADD ADMINISTRATION SETS WITH FLOW STOP
Lot or serial number: All lots with EXPIRY ON/BEFORE MAR 2021
Model or catalog number: 21-7321-01
                         21-7321-24
                         21-7322-01
                         21-7322-24
                         21-7323-24
                         21-7324-01
                         21-7324-24
                         21-7333-24
                         21-7336-01
                         21-7336-24
                         21-7339-01
                         21-7339-24
                         21-7359-01
                         21-7359-24
                         21-7383-01
                         21-7383-24
                         21-7390-01
                         21-7390-24
                         21-7391-01
                         21-7391-24
                         21-7394-01
                         21-7394-24
                         21-7395-24

Manufacturer: Smiths Medical ASD, Inc.
              1265 Grey Fox Road
              St. Paul
              55112
              Minnesota
              UNITED STATES


SOUTH CAROLINA: Settles Inmates' Mental Health Care Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Prevost, writing for The State, reports that after 11 years
of litigation, the S.C. Department of Corrections has agreed to
make real changes in the treatment of inmates with serious mental
illness.  A settlement agreement between the agency and the class-
action plaintiffs, Protection and Advocacy for People with
Disabilities, could end the brutal treatment of an estimated 3,500
inmates with serious mental illness.

This is a long-needed agreement that has the potential to end a
dark chapter in South Carolina history.  Offenders with serious
mental illnesses were subjected to abject brutality and neglect,
much of which was captured on video that shocked the nation when
shown in open court.

Ms. Prevost's organization brought the class-action lawsuit in
2005 after investigating numerous incidents of abuse and neglect.
The case was tried for six weeks in 2012.  In early 2014, Circuit
Judge Michael Baxley issued a landmark ruling finding grossly
unconstitutional treatment of inmates with serious mental illness.

"The evidence in this case has proved that inmates have died in
the South Carolina Department of Corrections for lack of basic
mental health care, and hundreds more remain substantially at risk
for serious injury, mental decompensation and profound, permanent
mental illness," Judge Baxley wrote.

Judge Baxley's ruling was a huge victory, but it didn't resolve
the problems.  That depended on the Corrections Department making
significant changes.  The settlement resolves the lawsuit.

Judge finds SC prison system violates rights, threatens lives of
mentally ill prisoners

It creates an independent process to monitor implementation of the
plan that would transform the culture and performance of
Corrections Department employees who deal with inmates with
serious mental illnesses.

It establishes measurements that have strict timetables and will
be supervised by independent national experts. The test for
satisfaction of the standards is that the department would have to
maintain compliance for at least two years.

The Corrections Department will have four years to implement the
remedial guidelines.

Plaintiffs met with strong resistance from previous gubernatorial
administrations.  But after Gov. Nikki Haley appointed Bryan
Stirling corrections director, the tone of negotiations changed.
Even though our discussions were tough and the issues were
complicated, Mr. Stirling recognized the need for a cultural
change and demonstrated an attitude that was both open and
constructive. A level of trust developed among the participants
that allowed us to make progress. `

The governor and Mr. Stirling deserve much credit for the
agreement; if fully implemented, it will comply with Judge
Baxley's order.  The General Assembly also has supported funding
to enable the Corrections Department to comply with the agreement.

This settlement agreement is historic.  But it is only the first
step.  While the current governor and corrections leadership have
demonstrated a commitment to reform, it will be up to the next
governor to assure the four-year implementation of the remedial
plan, and the General Assembly must continue to appropriate the
funds.

Although we are extremely pleased that the case is on its way to
resolution, we continue to regret that the state fought this case
tooth and nail, wasting resources that could have been used to
provide treatment for our clients.

Ms. Prevost is executive director of Protection and Advocacy for
People with Disabilities; contact her at prevost@pandasc.org


STAND-BY PERSONNEL: Faces Hiring Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Durkee, writing for Public Radio Tulsa, reports that lawsuits
in Tulsa County and a national news investigation reveal a pattern
of complaints that businesses engaged in race, sex and age
discrimination in hiring through temporary employment agencies.

In two Tulsa lawsuits, job candidates and a former employee at a
temp agency alleged that agency workers used a coding system and
notes to accommodate client businesses that requested not to be
sent workers of certain races or genders or over a certain age.
The temp agency's owner confirmed to Oklahoma Watch that the
incidents occurred but said they were rare and violated company
policy.

In one lawsuit against the agency and several businesses, five
Tulsans who applied for jobs through the temp agency are seeking
class-action status, alleging the discriminatory practices
occurred often.

In January, Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting, an
investigative news group, published a report that found dozens of
instances and complaints of race, sex and age discrimination at
temp agencies around the country.  Most involved client companies
making discriminatory demands.

Often, the discriminatory actions uncovered by Reveal were
blatant; at other times code words or coding systems were used.
Reveal's investigation turned up the lawsuits in Tulsa County
District Court and federal court against Stand-By Personnel, which
is one of the largest temp agencies in the city and provides
employment to skilled and unskilled laborers.  Reveal provided
copies of court filings to Oklahoma Watch, which also reviewed the
lawsuits and conducted independent reporting.

Among the court records were a race-coding sheet for applicants
and job orders for Stand-By client companies that were filled out
by Stand-By customer service representatives in 2010 and 2011.
The job orders contained notes stating "Men only," "No one over 35
years old.  Prefer Hispanic," "No women," and "Good ol' boy' as
per customer, No B ppl @ Sapulpa locations."

The coding sheet used a solid dot for black people, a circle for
Hispanics and an "x" for American Indians.

The lawsuit by five former Stand-By job applicants, filed in
December 2013, requests that a Tulsa County judge grant class-
action status. That has yet to be decided.

Employment discrimination based on race, sex or age is illegal
under both federal and Oklahoma law.  The five former applicants
complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
which gave them permission to sue; it's not known if EEOC is
investigating the matter.

Mark Morris, owner of Stand-By Personnel, said the documents are
authentic but do not reflect company policy.  Instead, the job
orders and coding system were created by a handful of employees
who were trying to fulfill requests by some of Stand-By's client
companies, he said.

                           Coding System

The Stand-By documents became public after a former customer
service representative filed a discrimination suit against the
company in 2012.

The employee, Amanda Long, who took job orders from clients and
worked at the company from March 2010 to September 2011, alleged
that as a Hispanic, she was subjected to racial discrimination by
Stand-By and that the company required her to discriminate against
temporary workers who applied for jobs through Stand-By. In court
filings, the company denied the allegations.  Long could not be
reached for comment.

Around the time Long left the company, Mr. Morris, who at the time
was partial owner and general manager of Stand-By, sent a memo to
employees reminding them not to refuse temp placement based on
age, sex or race, and stating that even if a client were to make
such demands that it was no excuse for discrimination.

"If a client asks you not to send out persons of a certain race,
sex, national origin, or age, that is not a lawful request and
complying is not doing the right thing," the Sept. 15, 2011, memo
from Mr. Morris states.

Other documents filed in court included emails, notes, internal
memos, employee applications and job orders.  Stand-By's attorneys
accused the woman of stealing the documents and asked the judge to
exclude them from the case and destroy them.

The judge ordered the former employee not to show the documents to
anyone other than her attorney and destroy or return to Stand-By
any original copies, but did not exclude them from consideration
in the case, court records show.  Copies of them were later filed
as part of a deposition, however.  The suit was settled in
September 2013 without Stand-By admitting wrongdoing.
Shortly after the suit was settled, the five individuals who had
applied for or gotten temp work through Stand-By sued the agency
and four of its client companies.  They were represented by the
same Tulsa law firm, Smolen Smolen & Roytman, that had represented
Amanda Long.

The suit states that Stand-By did not address its employees'
discriminatory practices and that the practices "reflect that
discrimination was the defendants' standard operating procedure
-- the regular, rather than the unusual, practice."

Most of the workers were never contacted for skilled or unskilled
job placement despite Stand-By having work available, the lawsuit
alleges.

In court filings, Stand-By Personnel denies engaging in
discrimination and says the plaintiffs failed to report any of
their discrimination complaints to the company at the time of the
alleged incidents.

Tulsa resident Cara Brown, one of the plaintiffs, said in an
interview that she submitted an application with Stand-By after
being laid off in 2008.  Despite her work experience and
availability, Ms. Brown, who is black and in her mid-40s, said she
never received a call from the temp agency, so she began calling
the company asking if there was work available.

Ms. Brown said she was told the company would contact her if a job
was available.  However, at the same time, Ms.  Brown said she saw
advertisements in the newspaper by Stand-By offering jobs.

"Every time I would see something in the newspaper saying they
were hiring, I would call them because I know I qualify,"
Ms.  Brown said.  "I still didn't get anything from them."

Ms. Brown said she later re-applied with Stand-By to find
temporary work.  Her son also applied.  The company placed him in
a job, but she never received a call.

"When I updated my information, I thought for sure I'd be getting
some calls. I even had more experience," Ms. Brown said.  "But it
was the same thing."

Ms. Brown said she even approached a company that contracts with
Stand-By for labor, looking for work.  The job was cleaning
toilets at the Tulsa County Fairgrounds.  But the company told her
she would have to go through Stand-By to be placed.

"That's as low as you can get when you really need a job, but I
was willing to do that," Ms. Brown said.  "I called Stand-By and
said I've got an application on file.  I didn't get that job
either."

Curtis Counce, who is black and worked as a temp for Stand-By,
said he was able to get a permanent job with the company at which
Stand-By placed him.  However, while still working as a temp for
Stand-By, he discovered that a fellow temp at the location, who
was white and doing the same job, was being paid $2 per hour more
than he was.

"I kind of just let it slide under the table," Mr. Counce said. "I
feel like I should have been making the same amount of money as
any other employee there."

"Regardless of my race or color, I just think I should have been
treated equally," he said.

Gloria Ferrell, who is black and 57 years old, said she also
applied at Stand-By but for months never received a call from the
company for job placement, even after calling the firm repeatedly.

"I know I wasn't dumb and qualified for a lot of things.  I
thought, 'Maybe it's my age.' I don't know what it was.  It wasn't
me," Mr. Ferrell said.

In court records, Stand-By states that some of the plaintiffs were
not qualified to perform the jobs available through the agency at
the time and all voluntarily severed their relationship with the
firm.  The workers also didn't file complaints with the EEOC in a
timely manner, the company says.

In view of this and other facts, "this proceeding should not be
designated nor proceed as a class action," Stand-By states.
As evidence of discrimination, the lawsuit cites the coding sheet
and work orders disclosed in the previous lawsuit by Amanda Long.
Morris, the Stand-By owner, said in an interview that the coding
sheet and work orders are authentic, but said the occurrences were
very rare and were done by individual employees acting in
violation of company policy.

"We're not completely innocent. But did we have a concerted effort
for the whole company and were we putting out (of job
consideration) a bunch of people? This is affecting way less than
one percent of these jobs," Morris said "When you're talking to a
client and the salesperson is writing a job order, they sometimes
didn't think about what that guy was asking for.  We never go out
and say 'Hey, we've got a bunch of white guys.'"

The coding system was the idea of one of the customer service
managers who did not inform upper management of what she was
doing, Mr. Morris said, but it fell out of use after about a week.
After it came to light, the employee was reprimanded but not
terminated.

"We admit it, it happened, it was stupid on her part," Morris
said.  "They (the manager and other employees) didn't tell me what
was going on.  They said 'Hey, we've got some clients who are
looking for this type of person.' I don't know why the manager did
it.  She knew better.  They talked about it, they came up with a
code, and they probably (applied) it to about 20 applications.  We
do about 120 applications a week."

Stand-By does receive requests by companies that could be
considered discriminatory, Mr. Morris said, usually from smaller
businesses and older employers.

Once, Stand-By was asked by a state representative's campaign to
send only "pretty women" for part of the campaign's door-knocking
efforts, he said.  He declined to identify the legislator.

"Every once in awhile we would have a client say, 'I need women on
this job' or 'need men on this job," Mr. Morris said.  "They'll
say 'I don't want any blacks, or Hispanics, or whites, or old or
young' sometimes. And we'll say 'Hey, we can't do that.'"

Mr. Morris said he, and by extension Stand-By, believe in giving
everyone a chance to work and get their foot in the door for full-
time employment, regardless of race, sex or age.

"It's a sad deal it did happen.  There are companies out there
that are just that way.  We try to stay away from them, we won't
do business with them," Mr. Morris said.  "There's still some
older people, a supervisor for construction or an old industrial
site
-- that's just the way they are.  They were just raised that way.
But if they won't work with us, if they say something like that,
we'll still send out the best person, the most available person.
We've lost clients because of it."

Lauren Lambright, one of the workers' attorneys, disagreed that
the cases were rare and isolated.  She said attorneys are hoping
to have the case certified as a class-action suit because the
practices affected many workers, not just the current plaintiffs,
and that suit may prevent other companies from doing the same
thing.

"I think it brings some attention to the issues we have in the
workplace and hopefully effect some change," Ms. Lambright said.
"Hopefully, it makes all staffing companies think twice before
accepting discriminatory requests from their clients."


T. ROWE PRICE: To Pay Out $194 Million Over Botched Dell Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Gantz, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that T. Rowe
Price Group Inc. announced on June 6 that it will pay up to $194
million into funds affected by the Baltimore mutual fund manager's
botched vote on Dell Inc.'s buyout in 2013.

T. Rowe had vocally opposed Dell founder Michael Dell's plan to
take the computer company private, but inadvertently backed the
deal because of an administrative error.  The mistake cost
T. Rowe the right to join other investors in suing Dell for a
higher price.

A Delaware judge ruled in May that Dell underpaid by about $6
billion when it bought out shareholders in the $25 billion deal.

The payout represents an effort by T. Rowe to make things right
with fund investors.  Analysts said T. Rowe could have faced a
class-action lawsuit from aggrieved investors.

"T. Rowe Price has a long history of putting our clients'
interests first, and that is what we are doing here," CEO
William J. Stromberg said in a statement.  "Since this situation
began, our focus has been on securing fair value from the Dell
buyout for our clients."

Fund investors will not get a check or an individual cut of the
payout.  Rather, the money will go into funds that held Dell
shares, including the Equity Income, Science & Technology, and
Institutional Large-Cap Value funds, and the Equity Income
Portfolio.

Any current shareholders in those funds will benefit from the
deal.  Shares will be worth more, which will be reflected in
higher account balances for investors.

T. Rowe did not disclose the number of clients invested in each of
its funds.

The Equity Income fund and portfolio and the Science & Technology
Fund are primarily retail investments, meaning shareholders are
individuals.  The Institutional Large-Cap Value Fund is primarily
held by institutional investors.

The Equity Income and Science & Technology funds held the vast
majority of the 31 million Dell shares in T. Rowe funds and
accounts, with 16.5 million and 7 million shares, respectively.

T. Rowe had argued that the proposed Dell buyout undervalued the
company and voted against the plan in an initial vote.

But when the deal was renegotiated, the company's automated system
for informing shareholders how to vote defaulted to a "yes" vote,
according to court records.  Company officials have acknowledged
that they failed to manually change the settings to reflect that a
"no" vote should be cast.

The cash payout, which T. Rowe will take as a one-time write-off
this quarter, will be a hit to the company's 2016 books, but
analysts said it's the right move in the long run.

"For T. Rowe Price, it's the cost of doing business," said
Greggory Warren, a senior stock analyst with Morningstar Inc.
"They made a mistake, they cost fund investors money, and they're
doing the right thing."

The deal is as much about T. Rowe's reputation as it is about
money, Mr. Warren said.  The company could have waited for
investors to file a class-action lawsuit and then tried to fight
it.  Making a deal upfront leaves more money for investors because
there are no lawyers to pay, and sends a message about T. Rowe's
integrity, he said.

The $194 million payout comes from the company's $1.9 billion in
cash and discretionary investment holdings.

T. Rowe won't have to borrow to make its payout, which means the
company's credit rating won't suffer, said Erik Oja, an equity
analyst with S&P Global Market Intelligence.

More immediately, the write-off might sting. T. Rowe expects the
move to reduce net income, after tax, by about $118 million for
2016.

The company reported $1.9 billion in operating income in 2015, and
analysts expect operating income of $1.8 billion this year.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Lawyers Want Fraud Class Action Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld and Jim Christie, writing for Reuters, report that
lawyers for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump asked
the California federal judge he attacked as biased based on his
Mexican heritage to end the Trump University fraud class action
currently scheduled to go on trial in November.

In filings late on June 3, Trump's lawyers argued the case should
not continue as a class action including all students who took the
classes in California, New York and Florida.  The lawyers claimed
the students' cases were too dissimilar to be heard as a class
because they were exposed to different marketing and
advertisements and were told different things by Trump University
employees.

San Diego U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is
overseeing two class action lawsuits over Trump University.  The
presidential candidate said Judge Curiel had treated him unfairly
because he was a Mexican opposed to Mr. Trump's proposal to build
a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.  The judge was born in
Indiana to Mexican parents.

Mr. Trump's lawyers on June 3 sought permission from Judge Curiel
to renew an earlier motion to decertify the class.  The judge
previously ruled the case could proceed as a class action on the
issue of liability, though each student would have to prove
damages separately.

In April, Mr. Trump's lawyers also filed a motion to decertify the
class in the other California case.  The judge has not yet ruled
on that motion.

If the judge were to decertify the classes, former Trump
University students would have to bring individual lawsuits.

Mr. Trump and his for-profit real estate seminars have been
accused of bilking students who paid as much as $35,000 for an
opportunity to learn the businessman's real estate investment
strategies.  The students claim they were defrauded, including by
false claims that he had handpicked instructors to teach them his
secrets.

"Given TU students' radically different experiences, plaintiffs
cannot show that TU students were exposed to the same 'core'
misrepresentations," Daniel Petrocelli, a lawyer for Mr. Trump,
wrote in the June 3 filing.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs declined to comment on the filing.


THAI UNITED: Recalls Curry Dipping & Dressing Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Thai United Food Trading Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10579

  Brand    Common name   Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------   ----    product       ----
  -----                          ----------
  Healthy  Yellow Curry  290 g   5B214YC310    8 01635 00050 8
  Boy      Cooking               2017/NOV/21
           Dipping &
           Dressing


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Senate Republicans Balk at Judge Attacks
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two powerful Senate Republicans
warned Donald Trump to drop his attacks on a Latino judge
presiding over a lawsuit against Trump University, joining the
widespread rejection of their presumptive presidential nominee's
treatment of the federal jurist.

A third prominent Republican who also supports Mr. Trump urged the
candidate to start acting like "a potential leader of the United
States."

"We're all behind him now," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
said on June 5, adding that it's time for unifying the party, not
"settling scores and grudges".  He added: "I hope he'll change his
direction."

So far, Mr. Trump has refused, reiterating in interviews broadcast
on June 5 that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican
heritage means he cannot ensure a fair trial involving a
billionaire who wants to build a border wall to keep people from
illegally entering the United States from Mexico.

Judge Curiel was born in Indiana to Mexican-born parents -- making
him, in Mr. Trump's view, "a hater of Donald Trump."

"I couldn't disagree more" with Mr. Trump's central argument,
McConnell said on NBC's Meet the Press.

"I don't condone the comments," added Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on ABC's This Week.
And Newt Gingrich, who became speaker of the House promising to
open the GOP more to minorities, delivered the harshest warning of
all.

"This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made.  I think it's
inexcusable," Gingrich, a former presidential contender, said on
Fox News on June 5.

Their remarks solidify the line GOP leaders have drawn in recent
days between themselves and Trump, with whom they've made a
fragile peace over their shared sense that almost anyone would be
a better president than Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The GOP pushback against Trump comes two days before presidential
primaries in California, home to more Latinos than whites.
It's the final major battleground between Clinton and Vermont Sen.
Bernie Sanders.  Far ahead of Sanders in the delegate race,
Clinton is poised to clinch her party's nomination in the next few
days.

Mr. Trump has no more competition for the GOP nomination, but he
does have significant issues with the most senior elected members
of the party he hopes to lead.

On June 2, House Speaker Paul Ryan tepidly endorsed Mr. Trump --
but 24 hours later disavowed the billionaire's remarks about Judge
Curiel.

Trump University is the target of two lawsuits in San Diego and
one in New York that accuse the business of fleecing students with
unfulfilled promises to teach secrets of success in real estate.
Mr. Trump has maintained that customers were overwhelmingly
satisfied.  Mr. Trump's legal team has not sought to have Judge
Curiel removed.

Trump University is being sued for $40million in New York by
students who claim they were defrauded, as well as the separate
class-action lawsuit in San Diego that is being overseen by Judge
Curiel.

The San Diego lawsuit claims lectures were more like infomercials
and students were pressured to buy more seminars -- paying up to
$35,000 for courses.

The lawsuit states that students were made to fill out the
satisfaction surveys before the courses ended and that they were
not anonymous, leaving people afraid to criticize their lecturers.

According to the class-action complaint, a one-year apprenticeship
that Trump University students were promised ended after students
paid for a three-day seminar.

Attendees who were promised a personal photo with Mr. Trump
received only the chance to take a photo with a cardboard cutout,
and many instructors were bankrupt real estate investors, the
lawsuit says.

Mr. Trump already has rejected calls for him adjust his approach.

"I'm not changing," he said on May 31 at a fiery news conference
at Trump Tower.

On June 5, Trump doubled down on the idea. Asked on CBS whether a
Muslim judge would be unfair given Trump's plan to ban Muslims
from the U.S, Trump responded: "Yeah.  That would be possible,
absolutely."

For a party that in 2012 explicitly pinned its survival on drawing
support from Hispanics, Mr. Trump's words create an ugly series of
headaches.

Asked three times whether Mr. Trump's attack on Judge Curiel was
racist, McConnell thrice refused to respond directly and repeated
a statement about disagreeing.

"I think it's a big mistake for our party to write off Latino
Americans," said Mr. McConnell, R-Ky.

Mr. Gingrich answered: 'I think that it was a mistake . . . I hope
it was sloppiness.

"(Trump) says on other occasions that he has many Mexican friends,
et cetera, but that's irrelevant.  This judge is not Mexican. This
judge is an American citizen."

Mr. Corker, R-Tenn., expressed the same discomfort many other
Republicans in Congress have complained about when they're asked
to respond to, or justify, Trump's remarks.

"I thought this interview was going to be more about the foreign
policy arena," Mr. Corker said on ABC.

Like Mr. Ryan, all three Republicans have endorsed Mr. Trump.  But
their comments carried the implicit caveat that their support
depends at least in part on Trump dropping his criticism of Judge
Curiel.  All three also suggested ways Trump could move beyond his
legal issues.

Mr. Corker, who recently met with Trump in New York, said Mr.
Trump "has a tremendous opportunity" to build out his foreign
policy agenda.

Mr. Gingrich urged Mr. Trump to become more of a statesman.

"Trump has got to, I think, move to a new level," he said.  "This
is no longer the primaries.  He's no longer an interesting
contender.  He is now the potential leader of the United States
and he's got to move his game up to the level of being a potential
leader."

Mr. McConnell's advice was blunt.

"This is a good time, it seems to me, to begin to try to unify the
party and you unify the party by not settling scores and grudges
against people you've been competing with," he said.  "I'd like to
see him reach out and pull us all together and give us a real shot
at winning this November."


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Top Prosecutor Vows to Continue Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Burke, writing for Newsmax, reports that New York's top
prosecutor promised on June 6 that Trump University students who
allege they were defrauded by the now-defunct operation are "going
to get the money back."

In an interview with host John Catsimatidis on "The Cats
Roundtable" radio show, New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman, who filed a $40 million lawsuit in 2013, repeated
his blasts at the real estate school that bears the name of the
GOP's presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

"I'm proud to be representing the people of New York state, and
we're going to get the money back for the thousands of people who
were ripped off by this -- it wasn't even a university,"
Mr. Schneiderman, who has filed one of the lawsuits pending
against Mr. Trump about his now-defunct operation.

"[Trump University] never registered with the state Department of
Education who were chasing them around trying to get them to stop
calling themselves a university," he added.  "It was really a
bait-and-switch scheme.  Thousands of people were bilked out of
millions of dollars.  We're confident in our legal position."

Mr. Schneiderman said he's unsure New York's lawsuit against Trump
U will go to trial before the November election, but added: "I
think we will get there."

"This has been getting a lot of attention, probably more attention
than it should get, but [Trump's] decided to go on the offensive,"
he said.  "It's become embroiled in presidential politics, which
is really too bad, but that's what happens sometimes."


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Menear" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JAMES MENEAR, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,
v. UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., and CITIBANK, N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-689 (E.D. Wisc.), moves for Class
Certification and Relief from Memorandum, Supporting Documents,
and Automatic Briefing Requirements.

The motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described
in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jRMys3Ok

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


UNITED STATES: IRS Reveals List of Scrutinized Tea Party Groups
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Times reports that more than three years after it
admitted to targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, the
IRS has finally released a near-complete list of the organizations
it snagged in a political dragnet.

The tax agency filed the list in May as part of a court case after
a series of federal judges, fed up with what they said was the
agency's stonewalling, ordered it to get a move on.  The case is a
class-action lawsuit, so the list of names is critical to knowing
the scope of those who would have a claim against the IRS.

But even as it answers some questions, the list raises others,
including exactly when the targeting stopped, and how broadly the
tax agency drew its net when it went after nonprofits for unusual
scrutiny.

The government released names of 426 organizations.  Another 40
were not released as part of the list because they had already
opted out of being part of the class-action suit.

That total is much higher than the 298 groups the IRS' inspector
general identified back in May 2013, when investigators first
revealed the agency had been subjecting applications to long --
potentially illegal -- delays, and forcing them to answer
intrusive questions about their activities.  Tea party and
conservative groups said they was the target of unusually heavy
investigations and longer delays,

Edward D. Greim, the lawyer who's pursuing the case on behalf of
NorCal Tea Party Patriots and other members of the class, said the
list also could have ballooned toward the end of the targeting as
the IRS, once it knew it was being investigated, snagged more
liberal groups in its operations to try to soften perceptions of
political bias.

"As we have identified in our filings in this case, important
questions still exist regarding changes to the IRS' case listings
that occurred after the IRS learned that the [inspector general]
and congressional investigations had begun," he said.  "Based on
these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real
possibility -- if not probability -- exists that the IRS modified
its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own
internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred
narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups."
He said if that did happen, it would have "tainted" the list the
IRS has now released.

The IRS declined to comment, saying its filing spoke for itself.
A series of investigations found the IRS did ask intrusive
questions and did delay applications for years, in violation of
policy.  But so far no investigation has found any order from the
White House to conduct the targeting.

'Tea' and 'patriot' groups

Sixty of the groups on the list released in May have the word
"tea" in their name, 33 have "patriot," eight refer to the
Constitution, and 13 have "912" in their name -- which is the
monicker of a movement started by conservatives.  Another 26 group
names refer to "liberty," though that list does include some
groups that are not discernibly conservative in orientation.

Among the groups that appear to trend liberal are three with the
word "occupy" in their name.

And then there are some surprising names, including three state or
local chapters of the League of Women Voters -- a group with a
long history of nonprofit work.

Some of the most active and prominent tea party groups snared in
the targeting aren't on the class-action list.  At least some of
them opted not to be part of the joint legal action to preserve
their own lawsuits.

Congressional Republicans say IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who
was brought in by President Obama to clean up the agency after the
targeting scandal, has failed -- and even misled Congress during
the investigation. Some Republicans are even pursuing impeachment
against Mr. Koskinen, accusing him of defying a subpoena for
former senior IRS executive Lois G. Lerner's emails by allowing
computer backup tapes to be destroyed.

Even outside of impeachment, the House GOP has proposed a new
round of budget cuts for the IRS, aimed at trying to deliver a
message that Mr. Koskinen's tenure has been unacceptable.
And the tax agency is still defending itself in a series of court
cases.  In addition to the NorCal class action case, the federal
appeals court in Washington, D.C., is currently considering an
appeal by tea party groups who argue the targeting is still going
on.

"One thing remains clear: Continued litigation is the only way to
force the IRS' hand in order to expose its targeting scheme that
was coordinated with the help of the DOJ and other federal
agencies so that we can obtain justice for those patriotic
Americans who were unconstitutionally targeted by their own
government," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American
Center for Law and Justice, which is representing some of the
plaintiffs in the appeals case.

In yet another case, the conservative group Cause of Action has
been pursuing the IRS to turn over documents the group believed
would show White House officials requesting secret taxpayer
information on conservatives.

But in a filing on March 3, the IRS said it has conducted a final
search and can't find any evidence that the White House either
asked for or received protected information.


UNITED STATES: BCBS Files Suit for Promised ACA Payments
--------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Newberry, writing for BABW News, reports that federal
payments to insurers are far exceeding collections under the ACA.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (BCBS) became the
latest healthcare insurer to sue the government for promised
payments, as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) continues to face
mounting legal battles and funding shortfalls, according to the
Wall Street Journal.

The suit, filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims in
Washington, D.C., alleges the government has failed to meet its
obligations to the company and is owed as much as $147 million in
payments.  The money is due from a part of the ACA legislation,
known as "risk corridors," that was originally planned to lower
the risks to insurers by entering into the new ACA insurance
markets.

BCBS is saying the government is in violation of the law as well
as its contractual obligations to the company, and comes on the
heels of similar suits filed by Highmark Health in May, and
another filed in February, by Health Republic Insurance Company.
The latter is seeking class-action status.

Experts say this will likely lead to more such suits by other
healthcare insurers, as they seek to unburden themselves from
significant losses being racked up by the firms with the ACA
plans.  BCBS of North Carolina says it has lost over $400 million
from the ACA plans in just 2014 and 2015, and the lack of payment
by the government has added to the issue.

Initially, the government said the program would provide the money
to insurers that were experiencing financial losses because of the
plans by collecting monies from those insurers that were doing
well financially.  But, so far, the amount the government owes has
exceeded the amount it has collected.

Last fall, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said
they would only be paying out 12.6% of the money claimed by the
insurers in 2014, but promised to pay more at a later date.  The
suit alleges the department officials initially implied payments
would be made even if there were collection shortfalls, but later
said the program would be "budget neutral."  The 2014 spending
bill passed by Congress reinforced that stance.

The suit is asking for the $147 million the company says it is
owed, minus the $18 million it has already received, along with
payments for interest and legal fees.

BCBS of North Carolina expects the 2015 payment to be around $175
million, and is asking the court to force the government to make
all future payments, as outlined under the wording in the 2010
legislation.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Fines Execs for Deceptive Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvie Corbet, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
French court has convicted and fined Uber and two of its
executives for deceptive commercial practices and illegal business
activity over its lowest-cost ride service.

It's the latest legal tangle for the app-based business, which has
faced protests from taxi unions and regulators around the world,
reflecting larger tensions between long-regulated industries and
the borderless, online economy.

The court fined the San Francisco-based company 800,000 euros
($907,000), regional Uber executive Pierre-Dimitry Gore-Coty
30,000 euros, and Uber's France general manager Thibaud Simphal
20,000 euros.  Half of all the fines were suspended.

The court did not hand prison terms, and rejected a prosecutor's
request that the two executives be barred from running any company
for five years.

And the fines were much lower than the 100 million euros in
damages that traditional taxi services had sought.

Traditional taxi services accused the low-cost UberPop service of
unfair competition because it uses non-professional drivers.
UberPop is now banned in France but Uber still operates a service
with professional drivers.

Jean-Paul Levy, lawyer for a taxi union, said the conviction is a
"founding decision", showing that Uber "is a company which placed
itself outside the law."

Jonathan Bellaiche, lawyer for three taxi unions and one
individual taxi driver, said he is "rather disappointed".  "The
important point is that in the end, Uberpop activity was
profitable" given that the amounts of the fines are far lower than
Uberpop's gain he estimated at 46 million euros.

Uber's lawyers did not comment on the court's decision.

Thierry Guicherd, the taxi driver who sued Uberpop, has been
recognized by the court as a victim.

"It's a satisfaction to know that they (Uber) are convicted and
not a satisfaction at all when we know the amounts of the fines.
Because of course the damages that myself and my colleagues are
facing are much more important that what the court decided to
order", he said.

The court ordered Uber to pay Guicherd 1,600 euros for the
damages.

Frederic Bergaud, 35 years old, taxi driver in Paris since three
months, said the conviction of Uber is "a good news".

"For now it's a first step winning. Are we going to win the war we
don't know.  But it's better than nothing", he said.

It was the first trial for Uber managers in France.  During the
trial, lawyers for Uber argued Simphal and Gore-Coty are not the
legal representatives for Uber in France, have no such mandate
from the shareholders and are only salaried managers dealing
mostly with marketing and advertising.

Yet the court ruled on June 9 they were de facto managing Uber in
France.

More than 200 UberPop drivers have been fined under fast-track
procedures in France, and the company has already been convicted
of deceptive commercial practices and fined 150,000 euros
($170,000) over UberPop by a Paris court.

The French Parliament voted to outlaw UberPop and other similar
services in 2014, and Uber suspended its UberPop service in France
in July 2015.  But its standard app-based service still prompts
occasional strikes and clashes with taxi drivers.

Also on June 9, a court in Frankfurt upheld a ban on the UberPop
ride service in neighboring Germany.

Judges threw out an appeal by Uber against a March 2015 ruling by
a lower court that banned UberPop from offering rides with drivers
who don't have taxi permits.  That ruling stemmed from a suit
brought by a German taxi association.  It was heard in Frankfurt
because it was one of several cities where Uber had launched
operations.

The latest verdict can be appealed to a federal court.

In Spain and Italy, Uber is outlawed entirely.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Liss-Riordan Defends Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that for
Shannon Liss-Riordan, familiar ground had been transformed into
enemy territory.

The Boston plaintiffs attorney has spent plenty of time over the
past three years inside U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's
courtroom, successfully parrying attempts by a powerhouse Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher litigation team to run her labor class action off
the road.

But on June 2, Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr. appeared to be
the closest thing she had to a friend in the room.  Meanwhile, she
struggled to maintain her spot at the lectern as hostile
plaintiffs lawyers vied for the microphone.  By the end, she
seemed frustrated by her detractors and the stream of questions
that Chen threw at her over the course of a four-hour hearing.

It appeared almost certain that the $84 million settlement she has
said was so painstakingly crafted with Uber would be rejected.

By removing the legal shadow from Uber's skyrocketing business,
the deal is a certain boon for both the company and
Ms. Liss-Riordan, who stands to receive $21 million -- or more
under a mechanism that pushes the deal's full value to $100
million if the company's valuation grows.

But objectors have complained that she settled too cheaply and its
prospects dimmed during the preliminary approval hearing.  Judge
Chen had clearly heard the opposition from the lawyers who stood
around Ms. Liss-Riordan, and echoed fears she was selling out the
separate claims against Uber raised in their cases so she could
offer the company a "global peace" deal.  "One could say there is
something wrong when claims from another case are . . . some might
say hijacked . . . and on top of that, given almost zero value,"
Judge Chen ask.  "Isn't that troubling? Shouldn't I be troubled by
that?"

TEMPERS FLARE

Judge Chen, known for being a bit of a jokester, grew visibly
angry at one point.  He was drilling down into a part of the
settlement that has generally gotten less attention than the
big-dollar figure -- but hasn't escaped other lawyers suing Uber.

That piece of the deal would wipe away an order that Judge Chen
issued last December rendering Uber's latest arbitration agreement
unenforceable absent revisions and a fresh opt-out notice to
drivers.  The company stood its ground, and both
Ms. Liss-Riordan and Uber appealed the order.

The significance of vacating that order has been downplayed by Ms.
Liss-Riordan, but other attorneys say it will give Uber an edge in
future fights to compel arbitration.

When Judge Chen pressed Ms. Liss-Riordan on whether it would also
retroactively deprive certain drivers in her California and
Massachusetts law suits who opt-out of the settlement of their
right to go to court, she waffled. He turned the screws: "You
signed the settlement agreement," he said. "You ought to know."
Ms. Liss-Riordan then countered that it was "speculative" to
suppose any such driver even existed.  That answer set Judge Chen
off.  "Even if there's one of those, there's a due process
problem," he snapped back, adding that he was prepared to reject
that piece of the deal even if its risks scuttling the rest of the
settlement.

It wasn't the only heated moment.  Ms. Liss-Riordan practically
steamed as she battled suggestions that she had simply abandoned
driver overtime claims that could be worth millions -- only to
settle out another case that brought those claims and assign them
zero value.  To the contrary, she said, she had pursued those
claims in front of Judge Chen but was rebuffed.

"For me to be accused of saying there are not overtime claims so
I'm just going to walk away from them is just patently a
misrepresentation," Ms. Liss-Riordan said, her voice rising.  She
also said she was justified in pursuing the claims she thought
were the most valuable, which alleged that Uber -- in
misclassifying drivers as contractors -- failed to compensate them
for expenses like gas and skimmed tips that were fully owed to
them.

Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, who is among the lawyers now
representing one of the litigation's original named plaintiffs,
stood to take on that argument.  If Ms. Liss-Riordan didn't want
to pursue a kitchen-sink case, he said, she "certainly shouldn't
take the kitchen sink settlement approach."


WAFFLE HOUSE: Certification of 5 Classes Sought in "Jones" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WILLIAM JONES, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. WAFFLE HOUSE, INC., et
al., Case No. 6:15-cv-01637-RBD-DAB (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court
for an order certifying these classes:

     No Pre-Adverse-Action Notice Class: All persons who applied
     for employment with Waffle House, Inc. and its subsidiaries
     ("Waffle House") as hourly employees in the United States
     from October 1, 2010 until March 27, 2015 (and in North
     Carolina from October 1, 2010 until June 6, 2011), and (a)
     on whom Waffle House ran background checks using The Source
     for Public Data, LP ("Public Data"), (b) whom Waffle House
     did not hire, and (c) to whom Waffle House did not provide
     copies of: (i) their background reports, or (ii) a written
     summary of rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

     No Post-Adverse-Action Notice Class: All persons who applied
     for employment with Waffle House as hourly employees in the
     United States from October 1, 2010 until March 27, 2015 (and
     in North Carolina from October 1, 2010 until June 6, 2011),
     and (a) on whom Waffle House ran background checks using
     Public Data, (b) whom Waffle House did not hire, and (c) to
     whom Waffle House did not provide notices pursuant to 15
     U.S.C. Section 1681m(a).

     Inadequate Pre-Adverse-Action Notice Class: All persons who
     applied for employment with Waffle House as hourly employees
     in the United States (but excluding North Carolina) from
     October 1, 2013 until March 27, 2015, and (a) on whom Waffle
     House ran background checks using Public Data, (b) whom
     Waffle House did not hire, and (c) to whom Waffle House
     provided notices that directed applicants to dispute
     inaccurate or incomplete information in their background
     reports with the public-record source.

     Inadequate Post-Adverse-Action Notice Class: All persons who
     applied for employment with Waffle House as hourly employees
     in the United States (but excluding North Carolina) from
     October 1, 2013 until March 27, 2015, and (a) on whom Waffle
     House ran background checks using Public Data, (b) whom
     Waffle House did not hire, and (c) to whom Waffle House
     failed to provide a notice that applicants had a right: (i)
     to obtain free copies of their background reports from
     Public Data within 60 days, or (ii) to dispute with Public
     Data the accuracy or completeness of any information in the
     background report furnished by Public Data.

     Catchall Class: All persons who applied for employment with
     Waffle House as hourly employees in the United States from
     October 1, 2010 until March 27, 2015 (and in North Carolina
     from October 1, 2010 until June 6, 2011) on whom Waffle
     House ran background checks using Public Data.

The proposed classes exclude counsel representing the classes; the
Defendants; any judicial officer presiding over this matter and
the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and
persons who have released their claims against the Defendants.

Mr. Jones also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and to appoint his counsel, CounselOne, PC, as
Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6rpMjaRg

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: Mpascucci@ELPLawyers.com
                  JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com



WALGREENS: Shareholder Class Action Settlement Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
little less than a year after Walgreens and some of its
shareholders moved to settle a class action over a lack of
disclosures to shareholders who said they were concerned over the
company's merger with European retail pharmacy operator Alliance
Boots, objectors to that settlement deal are hoping a federal
appeals court will toss out or rewrite the settlement over
concerns the deal is little more than a $370,000 payoff to trial
lawyers using the investor action as a tactic to insert themselves
into the merger process.

On June 2, Ted Frank, an attorney with the Competitive Enterprise
Institute, on behalf of objector John Berlau, squared off before a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
against attorneys representing Walgreens Boots Alliance and
Walgreens shareholder investor John Hays, arguing the settlement
deal Hays and Walgreens reached last summer failed key legal
tests.

The Washington, D.C.-based CEI describes itself as a "nonprofit
public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles
of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty."
Among other ventures, the CEI operates the Center for Class Action
Fairness, which has filed objections to numerous class action
settlements its leaders believe unfairly benefit plaintiffs'
lawyers who may earn large fees, compared to purportedly nominal
awards for class members.

The arguments before the Seventh Circuit come as the latest step
in a process launched in late 2014, when Mr. Hays and a group of
fellow Walgreens shareholders first took Walgreens to court over
their purported belief the company had left investors in the dark
on certain details in the company's narrative to shareholders
concerning the events leading up to the merger proposal with Boots
Alliance.

Among other subjects, Mr. Hays and his co-plaintiffs said they had
sought more information concerning: the company's handling of a
defamation lawsuit brought in the fall of 2014 by Walgreen's
former chief financial officer Wade Miquelon; the ascent of
billionaire investor Stefano Pessina to the position of CEO of the
new combined company; and the role played by certain "activist"
investors, identified in court documents as the JANA Partners LLC
hedge fund, in spurring and consummating the merger, and in the
process, acquiring allegedly outsized representation on the
company's board, relative to the proportion of the shares held by
the hedge fund investors.

In November 2015, U.S. District Judge Joan B. Gottschall granted
approval of the settlement, over several objections to the deal,
including that of Mr. Berlau, a Walgreens shareholder who is
listed as a "senior fellow" at the CEI.

The settlement included $370,000 for lawyers representing Hays and
other plaintiffs, while providing Walgreens shareholders with
additional company information disclosures concerning the merger.

The plaintiffs were represented by the firms of Pomerantz LLP, of
Chicago and New York; DiTomasso Lubin P.C., of Oakbrook Terrace;
Friedman Oster PLLC, of New York; Law Office of Alfred G. Yates
Jr. P.C., of Pittsburgh; and Levi & Korsinsky LLP, of New York.

On appeal, Mr. Berlau and the CEI argued the informational
disclosures were not "material" enough to justify the attorney
fees awarded in the settlement deal and approved by Judge
Gottschall.

Mr. Frank said the settlement marked the latest example of what he
called the "Merger Tax," in which trial lawyers and certain
shareholders challenge corporate mergers in court, and many secure
relatively quick paydays, while their clients receive only
informational disclosures, which may or may not reveal anything of
consequence.  Mr. Frank estimated as many as 97 percent of all
corporate mergers end up so challenged and, usually, settled.

Mr. Frank said in other jurisdictions courts have begun to take a
dim view of so-called "disclosure-only settlements."  In Delaware,
a state in which large numbers of corporations are registered,
courts in January, in the litigation surrounding the merger of
online real estate sites Trulia and Zillow, declared they would
start to demand the informational disclosures be "plainly
material" to the demands of the shareholders bringing the legal
challenge.

In the Walgreens case, Mr. Frank argued the disclosures provided
by Walgreens under the settlement were "trivial," and didn't meet
this standard.

In reply, attorneys for Mr. Hays, including David Tetjel, of
Friedman Oster, and Walgreens, including James W. Ducayet --
jducayet@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, argued
Judge Gottschall had found at least four of the six specific
disclosures provided by Walgreens under the settlement to be
"material" enough to satisfy legal requirements and allow her to
sign off on the deal.

During oral arguments, judges appeared divided on the questions.
The Seventh Circuit panel included Circuit Judges Richard Posner
and Diane S. Sykes, and U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle.

Judge Yandle said she and Mr. Frank disagreed on a number of
elements of the case, including Mr. Frank's assessment of Judge
Gottschall's legal reasoning in approving the settlement, which
Mr. Frank had called "erroneous."

She said there could "practical consequences" of rejecting the
settlement, as it could cause litigation surrounding the case to
be extended, costing everyone more time and money.

Frank said he and CEI believed the court would be within its power
to alternatively approve the settlement, but greatly reduce the
attorney fees to "nominal" levels, perhaps as low as $1.

"Nominal disclosures get nominal fees," Frank said.

Judge Richard Posner appeared to differ with his colleague, saying
the settlement appeared to him to be Walgreens attempt to quickly
deal with "a gnat," essentially with its pocket change, saying
"$370,000 is nothing to a company like Walgreens."

"They just wanted you to go away," Judge Posner said.


WAYNE, MI: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Sumpter" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John Corbett O'Meara granted the Defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment in the lawsuit styled AMANDA SUMPTER, on
behalf of herself and all similarly situated female inmates of the
Wayne County Jail v. COUNTY OF WAYNE; SHERIFF BENNY N. NAPOLEAN,
in his Official Capacity; and OFFICER TERRY GRAHAM, in her
Individual Capacity, jointly and severally, Case No. 5:14-cv-
14769-JCO-RSW (E.D. Mich.).

Ms. Sumpter's amended motion to certify class is denied without
prejudice, and her motion to strike errata sheet is denied.

The Case challenges the propriety of inmate strip searches at
Wayne County Jail Division I in Detroit, Michigan.  Ms. Sumpter
was strip-searched four times during her 34-day incarceration
during October and November 2012: three times in the "Registry"
area, where inmates are searched when they first come into
Division I and when they return from transfers and court
appearances, and once on her housing ward on the fifth floor of
the jail.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c9SOxHTj


WEBBERSFOOD LTD: Updates Salami Products Recall
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Webbersfood Ltd.
Distribution: Nova Scotia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10577

The food recall warning issued on April 21, 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.

Webbersfood Ltd. is recalling Webbersfood brand salamis from the
marketplace because they may permit the growth of Clostridium
botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products have been sold in Nova Scotia from retail
as described and have also been sold unlabelled by Webbersfood
Ltd. at the Historic Farmers' Market, located at Brewery Square in
Halifax, Nova Scotia, up to and including April 9, 2016.

If you think you became sick from eating a recalled product, call
your doctor.

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 Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand        Common     Size       Code(s) on      UPC
  name         name       ----       product         ----
  -----        ------                ----------
  Webbersfood  Caraway-   Variable   All best        None
               pepper                before dates
               Salami                up to and
                                     including
                                     02 JUL 2016
  Webbersfood  Italian    Variable   All best        None
               Fennel                before dates
               Salami                up to and
                                     including
                                     02 JUL 2016

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/Xlnw6w


YOUR BEST: Recalls Pest Protection Products
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 5, 2016
Posting date: May 31, 2016
Type of communication: Drug
Recall Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-58642

Product was being sold without market authorization (DIN).

Depth of distribution: Retailers (Ontario only)

Affected products
Your Best Friend's Natural Pest Protection
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
N/A
Dosage form: Powder
Strength: N/A
Lot or serial number: N/A

Recalling Firm: Your Best Friend Distributing
Marketing Authorization: Holder Your Best Friend Distributing


ZIMMER INC: Recalls Compression Screw Products
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: May 6, 2016
Posting date: May 30, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Hospitals, Healthcare Professionals
Identification number: RA-58608

These screws are packaged with a double barrier system, two
plastic trays and two Tyvek lids, to provide sterile integrity.
Process monitoring conducted as part of the standard packaging
process identified that in some instances, a small hole may be
present in the inner tray. The holes were found to be caused by a
single tool used by the tray supplier in the manufacturing process
and estimated to be present in less than 10% of the affected
devices. The outer tray is not affected and the device's sterile
integrity remains until the outer tray is opened. No product
complaints have been reported for this issue.

Affected products
A. COMPRESSION SCREW
Lot or serial number: 63290189
Model or catalog number: 47116202400

Manufacturer: Zimmer Inc.
              1800 West Center Street
              Warsaw
              46580
              UNITED STATES

B. MAGNA-FX CANNULATED SCREW FIXATION SYSTEM AND INSTRUMENTATION
Lot or serial number: 63290143
                      63290146
                      63296605
                      63303825
                      63308562
Model or catalog number: 00114205124
                         00114205130
                         00114205138
                         00114606099
                         00114606532

Manufacturer: Zimmer Inc.
              1800 West Center Street
              Warsaw
              46580
              UNITED STATES

C. TRILOGY ACETABULAR SYSTEM-BONE SCREWS
Lot or serial number: 63225662
                      63257719
                      63284572
                      63284573
Model or catalog number: 6250-45-25
                         6250-45-50
                         6250-65-20
                         6250-65-30

Manufacturer: Zimmer Inc.
              1800 West Center Street
              Warsaw
              46580
              UNITED STATES

D. COMPRESSION SCREW
Lot or serial number: 63276975
                      63276976
                      63276979
                      63276980
                      63301523
Model or catalog number: 00662406515
                         00662406520
                         00662406525
                         00662406550
                         00662406560

Manufacturer: Zimmer Inc.
              1800 West Center Street
              Warsaw
              46580
              UNITED STATES


* Companies Facing TCPA Class Actions Need Insurance Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen T. Raptis, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
companies that employ auto-dialing, text messaging and bulk faxing
in their marketing efforts may find themselves the subject of a
class action lawsuit for violating the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).  Because each violation of the TCPA could
cost the advertiser up to $1,500, TCPA class actions could
potentially involve millions in liability, and can be enormously
expensive to defend. Insurance often is a critical lifeline for
companies facing these lawsuits.

It used to be that the "personal and advertising injury" coverage
within general liability (GL) policies at least potentially
protected against TCPA lawsuits.  But in recent years, many GL
policies have added exclusions to their policies that specifically
apply to coverage for TCPA-related claims.  So today's companies
need to be more proactive in finding coverage for TCPA claims, but
absolutely should not give up just because their GL policy
excludes TCPA claims.

As policyholder-side coverage lawyers, our clients sometimes ask
if there is any effective way around TCPA exclusions in GL
policies.  Our first response is usually to ask whether they have
reviewed their other liability policies that may not be subject to
TCPA exclusions.  Two places in particular where there may be
coverage for these lawsuits, but where companies often fail to
look, are in their errors and omissions (E&O) and directors and
officers (D&O) liability policies.

Companies buy E&O insurance, sometimes referred to as
"professional liability" insurance, to protect against liability
claims that arise in the course of performing services for their
customers or clients.  They buy D&O insurance to protect their
officers and directors against liability claims that arise in the
course of their corporate duties.  But D&O policies containing so-
called "Side C" or "entity" coverage also protect the company
itself against certain liability claims.  Both E&O and D&O
policies protect against liability arising from "wrongful acts,"
which usually are defined broadly enough to include TCPA claims.
And unlike many GL policies, E&O and D&O policies often do not
contain specific TCPA exclusions.

To be clear, coverage for TCPA claims under E&O and D&O policies
is far from certain. Insurers don't profit from paying claims, so
companies should anticipate that if other exclusions arguably
apply to a TCPA lawsuit against them, that their insurer will deny
coverage based on those exclusions.  Indeed, where coverage is a
close call, insurers usually deny claims.  For example, the Los
Angeles Lakers basketball organization recently has been embroiled
in coverage litigation against its D&O insurer, which argues that
an exclusion for claims involving invasion of privacy precludes
coverage for a TCPA lawsuit alleging that the Lakers sent
unsolicited text messages as part of the team's marketing efforts.
Companies should be cognizant, though, that they inherently have
the upper hand in similar disputes over the meaning of policy
language because ambiguous policy terms are construed against the
insurer and in favor of the policyholder.
So how do companies potentially exposed to TCPA liability best
protect themselves? Initially, they can be proactive on the front
end when purchasing insurance, where liability exposure is most
effectively managed.  We see many policies, particularly E&O and
D&O policies, that don't expressly exclude TCPA claims.  And in
fact, we sometimes see endorsements added to policies that
specifically include TCPA claims within the scope of coverage. The
most proactive companies will seek to maximize their protection in
the underwriting process before any TCPA lawsuit arises.

But if a company gets sued in a TCPA lawsuit, it needs to
aggressively pursue coverage under all of its potentially
implicated policies.  This means conducting a thorough review of
all the company's liability policies, including GL, E&O, D&O and
even cyber to determine all the potential sources of coverage for
the lawsuit.  It also means providing timely notice of the lawsuit
to each implicated insurer. Finally, it means refusing to take no
for an answer from any insurer that denies (or purports to limit)
coverage on any grounds other than a specific TCPA exclusion . . .
Remember, this is coverage for which the company paid expensive
premiums -- now go get it!


* Cos. Face TCCWNA Class Action Risk Over Websites' Terms of Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin J. Rooney, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that
companies that maintain an online presence typically include
"terms of use" to govern the public's access to their websites and
limit potential liability.  In what is swiftly becoming the class
action "flavor of the day," aggressive plaintiffs' lawyers are
filing complaints alleging that such website terms of use violate
an obscure New Jersey consumer protection statute, the Truth-in-
Consumer Contract, Notice and Warranty Act ("TCCWNA"). In the
first few months of 2016, more than twenty-five companies have
been sued in TCCWNA class actions challenging their websites'
terms of use -- including clothing retailers (Saks Fifth Avenue,
J. Crew, Victoria's Secret), automobile manufacturers (Ferrari and
Nissan North America), tax preparation services (Jackson Hewitt
Tax Service and Intuit, the maker of TurboTax), and purveyors of
consumer goods (Hoover, Toys R Us, and Bed Bath and Beyond).  Many
more companies have received demand letters from plaintiff's
lawyers seeking nuisance value settlements as the price of
avoiding litigation.

These class actions seek significant damages: $100 for each New
Jersey customer allegedly exposed to the terms of use on the
defendant's website over the prior six years, plus the class'
legal fees to prosecute the claim.  Importantly, however,
companies can avoid or mitigate their risk of being sued by a
careful review of their terms of use.

What is TCCWNA?

New Jersey enacted TCCWNA in 1981 to prohibit companies from
including provisions in their consumer contracts and notices that
violate the legal rights of consumers.  The New Jersey Legislature
felt that such provisions, while unenforceable in court, could
nevertheless mislead consumers and dissuade them from asserting
their rights vis-…-vis companies from whom they purchased products
or services.

TCCWNA has two operative provisions: sections 15 and 16.  Section
15 bars a seller from including in a consumer contract or notice a
provision that violates a consumer's "clearly established" legal
rights. Section 16 recognizes that many contracts state that the
enforceability of certain provisions may vary by state (e.g.,
"void where prohibited by law").  Except in the case of
warranties, section 16 requires sellers including such qualifying
language in their contracts to also state whether such provisions
are enforceable in New Jersey.  If a contract or notice violates
either sections 15 or 16, TCCWNA allows "aggrieved" consumers to
sue for "minimum" civil penalties of $100, even in the absence of
compensable injury.

TCCWNA largely sat forgotten on the statute books until a decade
ago, when plaintiffs' lawyers married its civil penalty provision
to the class action device to multiply the $100 penalty by each
consumer who saw or signed the challenged notice or contract.
TCCWNA has thereby joined other statutes that provide fertile soil
for class actions -- such as the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, which similarly impose civil penalties for
receipt of "junk" faxes, unwanted robocalls, and certain kinds of
privacy violations, even in the absence of any compensable injury.

What is this new wave of TCCWNA class actions?

TCCWNA class actions initially focused on sales physically made in
New Jersey, either through door-to-door sales calls or at brick-
and-mortar stores located in the State.  Many of these cases were
inspired by the successful result achieved by the plaintiff in
United Consumer Financial Services Company v. Carbo, 410 N.J.
Super. 280 (App. Div. 2009), where a New Jersey appellate court
affirmed a judgment awarding $100 to each of 16,845 class members
who signed contracts for the installment sale of vacuum cleaners
($1,685,000 in total) and directed the trial court to consider an
additional award of nearly $1,000,000 in attorney's fees and
costs.  Similar TCCWNA class actions were then filed against
businesses that employ standard-form contracts signed by thousands
of customers -- such as self-storage unit providers, health clubs,
and rental car companies.  Many of these cases resulted in class
settlements and lucrative fees for class counsel, and thereby
served to encourage further filings.

The current wave of TCCWNA class actions expands beyond contracts
or notices physically provided in New Jersey and focuses instead
on Internet commerce.  These new complaints contend that TCCWNA
governs any online agreement, terms of use, or other document that
a consumer might review or access from a device located in New
Jersey.

What can my company do to avoid becoming the target of one of
these "terms of use" class actions?

This third wave of TCCWNA class actions remains in the early
stage, and the courts have yet to rule on certain threshold issues
-- such as whether TCCWNA even applies to the terms of use posted
on a website by a company located outside of New Jersey, or
whether someone who simply visits a webpage is an "aggrieved"
consumer with standing to sue. Rather than funding litigation to
find out the answer to those and similar questions, however,
companies can mitigate the risk of being sued in these TCCWNA
class actions by modifying their online terms of use to avoid
arguable TCCWNA violations.

TCCWNA plaintiffs typically contend that the following provisions
either violate a consumer's "clearly established right" under
section 15 or suggest that enforceability varies by jurisdiction,
in violation of section 16:

1. Broad limitation-of-liability provisions. The most common
TCCWNA claim is a contention that the seller over-reached in
purporting to exculpate itself from all liabilities to the
consumer or website user -- including claims for products sold
through the website, claims for reckless or intentional
wrongdoing, or claims allowed by consumer protection statutes
(such as the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act).

2. Provisions waiving claims for punitive damages or product
liability.  TCCWNA plaintiffs challenge provisions that waive the
user's right to seek punitive damages, which they say violates
public policy and the New Jersey Punitive Damages Act.  Similarly,
plaintiffs challenge provisions that, they say, limit the
company's liability for defective or unsafe products, which
plaintiffs contend is unenforceable under the New Jersey Product
Liability Act.

3. Provisions limiting available damages. Plaintiffs argue that
broadly worded provisions seeking to limit the website provider's
liability for incidental, consequential, indirect, or direct
damages run afoul of TCCWNA because they purport to limit a
consumer's ability to recover such damages under consumer
protection statutes (such as the Consumer Fraud Act).

4. Provisions requiring the user to indemnify the website provider
from third-party claims.  Website terms of use commonly require
the user to indemnify against any third-party claims resulting
from the consumer's "use of the site." TCCWNA plaintiffs contend
that such provisions are invalid because indemnity requires some
culpable conduct and consumers cannot be held to a strict
liability standard for indemnity obligations.

5. Provisions which might suggest jurisdictional differences in
enforcement. TCCWNA plaintiffs commonly challenge phrases such as
"void where prohibited law," "except where prohibited by law," "to
the fullest extent allowed by law," "as permitted by law," or
"unless prohibited by law."  Plaintiffs contend that any such
provisions violate TCCWNA section 16.

Companies with an online presence should consider carefully
reviewing these and other provisions in their terms of use, to
make sure that their provisions are enforceable and phrased in a
way that avoids any arguable TCCWNA violation.  While the courts
may ultimately rule that TCCWNA does not apply to online terms of
use offered by a website provider located in a state other than
New Jersey, a compliance review of the terms of use can help a
company avoid the expense of defending a TCCWNA class action.


* Neuwirth Gives Insight Into Antitrust Class Action Landscape
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rigby, writing for CDR, reports that Stephen Neuwirth --
stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, delivered the keynote address to CDR's Spring
Competition Litigation Symposium, giving an insight into the US
system of class actions in antitrust cases.

Mr. Neuwirth's address was rooted in his experience as Quinn
Emanuel's global head of antitrust and competition law, as well as
having acted for both claimants and defendants in multi-million
dollar cases.

As he told delegates, US law, and the way it has been interpreted,
had recently been shaped by concerns that had developed over the
decades about perceived abuses of the class action process.

In outlining the historic development of collective antitrust
actions in the US, Mr. Neuwirth offered delegates good insight
about the type of issues that clients, practitioners and
Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) judges will face under the new
UK statute.  The CAT judges, he said, "are going to have a huge
role, it seems, in defining the way this new collective action
regime is going to work".

Looking at the development of US law, Mr. Neuwirth told his
audience that, initially, it was relatively easy in the US to
obtain certification of classes in antitrust cases.

He noted that one of the premises for the class action regime in
the US is the idea that it is "important to give small claimants
the opportunity to pool their claims together and pursue claims
against big corporations".

Another of the key tenets of the development of US law in this
field was "the concept of the private attorney general" -- that
is, the notion that government has limited resources, and that
while the government can pursue certain extreme abuses of
antitrust laws, "there is a societal benefit in having private
parties act as the discoverers and pursuers of claims against
companies that are violating antitrust laws".

Both developments led to a liberal policy towards class actions in
the US.  Mr. Neuwirth explained that initially, the courts had
proceeded on the assumption that if there was an antitrust
violation in a case, then all the purchasers of a product affected
by the claim were equally so affected.  These actions were
sometimes characterized as 'strike claims'.

Mr. Neuwirth said that US law, however, has evolved.  Recent
rulings, such as the 2007 court of appeal decision in the Hydrogen
Peroxide case, and the US Supreme Court's 2012 Walmart decision,
have compelled a rigorous analysis of class certification
applications.

A CHANGING LANDSCAPE

Hydrogen Peroxide and Walmart impacted the landscape of class
certification, with the cases calling for careful review of
economic analysis, as well as of merits issues bearing on the
class certification requirements.  This has meant that significant
discovery (disclosure) and expert analysis must be undertaken
before the class certification motion is filed.  The US Supreme
Court's Comcast decision in 2013 emphasized the need for a fit
between the expert analysis supporting class certification and the
underlying antitrust claims evident in the case.

As the law has evolved, it is no longer the case that in the US a
small law firm with limited resources can easily support a large
class action.  The practical expense and burdens of obtaining
class certification have operated to separate "the wheat from the
chaff" in terms of actions brought.

The US courts have also been addressing the extent to which "all
or virtually all" members of the class must be shown to have been
impacted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct.  Claimant lawyers
and experts now must provide a careful economic analysis defining
how the proposed class was harmed by the conduct complained of by
the claimants.

Mr. Neuwirth said there were "very significant" threshold
questions that now get asked: is it really the case that such a
broadly defined class has been harmed by the conduct complained
of, or was it just some class members, and were the class members
affected the same way?

With a rigorous analysis to be undertaken at the class
certification stage, Mr. Neuwirth outlined the need for
significant up-front investments to be made, noting that "cases
can sometimes take two or three years or longer before you even
get your class certification motion heard", with further delays
before a decision on class certification is reached.

A NEED FOR INVESTMENT

Under the new UK regime, to the extent it will be necessary to
demonstrate commonality of the class claims, funding for the case
will be an issue, especially in the absence of contingency fees.

"On the defense side, there is an opportunity I think to make
arguments about the extent to which the class really can be said
to be unitary", he noted, suggesting that, even in the CAT, the
identifiability or unity of any class, and the common issues
shared among the class members, could help determine whether the
matter is suitable for collective proceedings.

He added that in the UK, it will be possible to have class
representatives who are not necessarily members of the class. This
will present both challenges and opportunities, including, for
example, in determining the adequacy of representation of that
class by the named claimant.

Experts, noted Mr. Neuwirth, were going to play a very key role,
adding that lawyers would "need to work with experts from 'Day
One' to define the case".

He added that in the US, "the battle of the experts, so to speak,
really has become the key focus in many cases" in defining the
positions taken by either side. Defendants will need to consider
whether the proposed class, as defined, really was harmed by the
conduct at issue.  Mr. Neuwirth said, "there can be real
challenges in saying who was impacted by a violation, if those
issues really get pursued aggressively on the economic front".

DIFFERENCES OF APPROACH

Mr. Neuwirth noted some differences between UK and US law,
including the presence of a pass on defense in the UK (whereas US
federal law allows direct purchasers to recover overcharges
without regard to any pass through to downstream consumers), and
the broad opt-out status enjoyed by US class action claims.

Mr. Neuwirth suggested that in the UK, end purchasers could be
among those claimants best-placed to bring on a claim, since those
making the final purchasers in the chain could not be said to have
passed through the overcharges to anyone else.

He added that the ability for foreign companies to sue in the UK
meant "the marketing side may be very important for claimants that
are trying to [secure] enough of a critical mass of claimants to
make these cases worth pursuing".

Concluding, he said: "Looking at what happened in the US can be
very informative in terms of what is going to happen here in the
UK.  Competition lawyers now will be pioneers before the CAT, and
will have the opportunity to define how the new statutes will be
implemented."


* SA Gold Mining Companies Appeal Silicosis Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franny Rabkin, writing for BDlive, reports that gold-mining
companies have applied to appeal against almost all aspects of the
landmark silicosis class action judgment, a move that, although
not unexpected, could delay or prevent the start of the trial that
could see compensation for tens of thousands of affected mine
workers.

The high court's judgment on the class action paved the way for
between 17,000 and 500,000 mine workers and former mine workers
suffering from silicosis and tuberculosis to sue the mining
companies for damages.

In a case in which much is at stake -- claims could run to
billions of rand -- the companies lodged six separate applications
for leave to appeal.  Between them, the gold mines have contested
almost every aspect of the judgment by the High Court in
Johannesburg.

Applications were lodged on June 3 by Gold Fields, AngloGold
Ashanti, Anglo American SA, DRDGold, African Rainbow Minerals
(ARM) and Harmony Gold.

One of the main grounds of appeal was that the group of potential
claimants certified as a class by the high court was too broad.
The silicosis class certified by the court was current and former
underground mine workers who have contracted silicosis (or their
dependants, if deceased) who worked on gold mines after March
1965.

A similar class was certified for tuberculosis sufferers who had
worked on the gold mines for more than two years.

This meant "mine workers working for different mining companies
and doing different jobs at different places on the different
mines at any point in a time span stretching more than 50 years",
said ARM in its application.

The broad classes would make the litigation unwieldy and
unmanageable, said some of the applications.  The court should
have found that a class action of such magnitude would "in effect
decide nothing on a class-wide basis and unravel into a series of
individual actions", said AngloGold.

Also contested was the court's approach to "common issues".  The
high court decided that there were a number of common issues --
legal and factual questions that were common to every member of
the class and that, therefore, could be argued and decided in a
single lawsuit.  But the companies said the court should have
considered whether the issues that were not common outweighed
those that were.  Anglo American SA added that issues were
labelled as common in a way that was "so generalized and vague
that fundamental differences were obscured and ignored".

Companies also disputed the finding that for the vast majority of
the mine workers -- most of them are poor, ill and living in far-
flung places across the sub-continent -- the class action was the
only realistic chance of their making a claim for compensation.

AngloGold Ashanti suggested the solution to "the problem of the
large number of indigent claims" was not in a court process, but
rather in "another forum, such as the legislative or executive
spheres of government".

The gold-mining companies also challenged the court's decision to
develop the common law to allow for the widows and dependants to
claim for the emotional pain and suffering of their loved ones,
even after they had died -- formerly a claim that was considered
so "personal" that it would die with the claimant.

The companies said the high court was wrong in law on this score
and was also bound by a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that
decided differently.

The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group -- made up of ARM,
Anglo American SA, AngloGold, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye
Gold -- said on June 3 that it was pressing ahead with settlement
negotiations.  The appeal applications should not delay their
attempts expeditiously to "achieve a comprehensive settlement,
which is both fair to past, present and future employees and
sustainable for the sector", it said.

While the companies "deny liability", the working group felt a
fair settlement was "preferable to long and protracted
litigation".


                            *********

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  * * *