---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 181


                            Headlines


AAC HOLDINGS: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ALCON LABORATORIES: Defends Contact Lens Pricing Policies
AMEDISYS INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Illegal Credit Agreement"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Oct. 1 Hearing Set for Seat Antitrust Case
ANGLOGOLD: High Court Reserves Judgment on Civil Society Groups

ARAB BANK: Enters Into Framework Deal to Settle Terrorism Suit
ASHLEY MADISON: Canadian Authorities Investigate Hack
ASHLEY MADISON: Faces Data Breach Class Actions in California
ASHLEY MADISON: Hack Not Attractive to Some Plaintiffs Lawyers
ASHLEY MADISON: Charney, Sutts Strosberg File Class Suit

AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Documentation Not Yet Been Finalized
AVON PRODUCTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint
AXA EQUITABLE: Court Dismisses Complaint, Denies Class Cert.
BB&T BANK: Trial in Ex-NFL Players' Negligence Suit Commences
BOEING CO: Fights Retirement Plan Class Suit

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Interlocutory Appeal Allowed in Aggrenox
BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH: Settles Chemical Leak Class Action for $2.9MM
BRISTOL-MYERS: Judge Dismisses Majority of Claims in Plavix MDL
BROWN FERRIS: NLRB Ruling May Impact Fast Food Industry
CAESARSTONE: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit

CAESARSTONE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE: 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of FDCPA Class Action
CLOUD IMPERIUM: May Face Legal Action Over Star Citizen
CONSTANT CONTACT: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss 1st Amended Suit

DELAWARE NORTH: Proposed Class Action Will Proceed in St. Louis
DELTA AIR: Judge Vacates Baggage Fee Class Action Order
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Trims Car Owners' Suit vs. Cops
DOLE FOOD: CEO Ordered to Pay $148MM for Misleading Shareholders
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Allows No-Poach Suit to Proceed

EASTWICK COLLEGE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Suit
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of IPO Litigation
FAIRWORTH LEGAL FINANCE: Faces Class Suit Over TCPA Violation
FEMA: Trailer Manufacturers Pay $14.8MM to Katrina Victims

FENDER: No Encore for Guitar Price-Fixing Class Suit
GLOBAL CONTACT: Court Wants Plaintiff to Supplement Response
GOLDMAN SACHS: Fraud Suit Over 2008 Mortgage Meltdown to Proceed
HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Court's Decision in Durand Litigation
HERTZ GLOBAL: Metalworkers' 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Calif. Court Rules in "Rutledge" Appeal
ILLINOIS MINE: Settles Coal Mine Subsidence Insurance Class Suit
JANSSEN PHARMA: Loses Bid to Overturn $4-Mil. Topamax Verdict
KEN PAXTON: Texas AG Pleads Not Guilty to Securities Fraud Charge
KHORAMI LLP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Illegal Fee-Sharing Suit

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Jansky" Case
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in Sandusky Wellness Case
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Court to Set Final Settlement Hearing
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Vigorously Defend Varsam Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Vigorously Defend "Legg" Lawsuit

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Deal in LipoScience Case Remains Pending
LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Settle Suit Over Covance Acquisition
LIFELOCK INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jury Trial to Begin in BB&T Negligence Case
OUTERWALL INC: Defends Class Action Against Redbox Subsidiary

PANASONIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Resistor Price-Fixing
PIZZA HUT: Former Delivery Drivers File Suit Over Fees
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Brazil Case Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Granted Motion to Cancel
PHILIP MORRIS: Ruling in Conseil Quebecois Case Overturned

PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Cases Open in Brazil, Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Class Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity Anticipated in "Semple" Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity Anticipated in "Dorion" Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Class Action Still Pending

PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Class Action Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Action Still Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Health Care Cost Recovery Case Updates
PHILIP MORRIS: Update of Nigerian Health Care Cost Recovery Cases
PHILIP MORRIS: Korean Health Care Cost Recovery Case Updates

PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Lights Cases by Individual Plaintiffs Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Public Civil Actions Pending v. Subsidiaries
QLT INC: 2 Class Action Complaints Filed Challenging Merger
SAFEWAY INC: CA Denies Petition for Writ of Mandate in "Esparza"
SALLY HANSEN: Plaintiff's Evidence of Wax-Related Lawsuits Denied

SERVICE CORPORATION: Defending Against "Samborsky" Action
SERVICE CORPORATION: SCI No Longer Party to "Moulton" Suit
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
SIRIUS XM: McKool Seeks to Extend Theory to Broadcast Stations
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Faces Class Suit Over Earthquake Claim Delays

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Booze Coupon Settlement Approved
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Lawyer Won't Receive Incentive Award
STARKIST INC: Settlement Plan Allocation Has Initial Approval
TAMKO BUILDING: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Rules
TARGET CORP: Plaintiffs Lawyers Balk at Data Breach Settlement

TAYLOR ENERGY: Settles Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Suit
TEREX CORP: Deal Reached to Settle ERISA Suit for $2.5 Million
TYSON FOODS: Case Presents Two Class Certification Issues
UNITED STATES: Visitors Seek Claims v. National Park Service
URANIUM ENERGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit

VEMMA NUTRITION: Temporary Shut Down Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme
VIDEOTRON: To Pay $1.2MM in Internet Service Class Suit
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces Class Suit Over 'AlphaSector' Funds
VOLVO CARS: 3rd Cir. Vacates Class Cert Ruling in Consumer Suit
WYNDHAM: Must Face FTC's Data Breach Claims, Court Rules


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against AAC Holdings, Inc., for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until October 23, 2015 to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, on July 29, 2015, the Company reported
that prosecutors in California had indicted the Company's CEO and
certain other employees on murder charges relating to the death of
an AAC patient in 2010. When the news was revealed to the
investing public, shares dropped causing investors harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

Michael Goldberg, Esq
Brian Schall, Esq
Goldberg Law PC
13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey,CA 90292
Phone 800-977-7401
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com
info@goldberglawpc.com


ALCON LABORATORIES: Defends Contact Lens Pricing Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Wyatt, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
contact lens makers struggled on Aug. 27 to defend their pricing
policies in a federal appeals case that could have wide-ranging
effects on the $4 billion industry.

At issue is a Utah law banning minimum prices for contact lenses.
The nation's largest contact lens companies asked the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals in Denver on Aug. 27 to strike down the measure.
They say it was crafted just to help a homegrown discounter, 1 800
Contacts.

But a three-judge panel grilled the contact lens lawyers about why
they don't simply stop doing business in Utah if they insist on
price minimums.

A lawyer for Utah accused the contact lens makers of nationwide
price-fixing and said that lens prices would drop as much as 35
percent nationally if the manufacturers dropped price minimums.

A legal battle over a hotly contested Utah law banning minimum
prices for contact lenses is set to come before a federal appeals
court on Aug. 27.

The nation's largest contact lens companies are asking the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to strike down the measure that
could have wide-ranging effects on the $4 billion industry amid an
increasingly bitter pricing fight.

Alcon Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson and Bausch & Lomb call the
law a brazen overreach written specifically to help Utah-based
discount seller 1-800 Contacts.

Utah lawmakers deny that.  The state's attorney general contends
that the contact lens makers that dominate the market are wrongly
driving up prices and the law is a legitimate anti-trust measure.

The manufacturers are appealing a ruling from a federal judge in
Utah.  After temporarily blocking the law earlier this year, the
10th Circuit allowed the measure to go into effect as the case
unfolds.

1-800 Contacts, one of the country's largest discount sellers, has
since dropped their prices by up to $15 a box on some brands that
were subject to the manufacturers' minimum prices.

The contact lens manufacturers say the Utah law violates
interstate commerce regulations because it allows 1-800 Contacts
to ignore price minimums in online sales to customers outside
state. Utah argues those are considered in-state transactions, no
matter where the customer is.

The contact lens makers started setting minimum prices about two
years ago to protect eye doctors from being undercut by discount
sellers.  If a company sells at too steep of a discount, the
manufacturers pull their products.

Though most contact sales still come through eye doctors who bring
the manufacturers new customers with brand-specific prescriptions,
discounters have taken a bigger slice of the market in recent
years.

The companies say the pricing policies are good for customers, but
they've also been scrutinized by Congress, consumer advocates and
others.


AMEDISYS INC: Faces Class Suit Over "Illegal Credit Agreement"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Griggs, writing for The Advocate, reported that two Amedisys
shareholders have filed a class-action lawsuit against the Baton
Rouge-based home health giant, claiming it has illegal agreements
with lenders that give them the power to decide whether there will
be changes in Amedisys' board of directors.

Amedisys spokeswoman Kendra Kimmons said the company does not
comment on any pending legal matters.

The lawsuit, filed in 19th Judicial District Court, says Amedisys'
board agreed to an illegal credit agreement in 2012 with JPMorgan
Chase Bank and a second agreement in 2014 with Cortland Capital
Market Services LLC.

Both arrangements say a change in the majority of the board
members allow the lenders to require immediate payment of
Amedisys' debt, according to the lawsuit. The acquisition of 35
percent of Amedisys' stock also would trigger immediate payment of
the debt.

The credit agreements deter potential activist investors from
trying to win a majority of seats on the Amedisys board, the
lawsuit says. The agreements also block any takeover because the
company's lenders can approve or reject changes to the board.

The lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Michael Bohnett, a
California resident, and Jeremy Lawson, a Tennessee resident.
However, the lawsuit names only one activist investor: North Tide,
the second-largest shareholder with more than 4 million shares, or
12 percent, of Amedisys' stock.

In December, North Tide sent a letter to Amedisys' board, urging a
merger with Almost Family Inc. and pushing the installation of
Almost Family's chief executive officer and president to head of
Amedisys.

Instead, Amedisys installed Paul Kusserow as its CEO, and no
merger talks have taken place.

"It thus appears that North Tide's concerns have not been
alleviated and it may be forced to run a proxy contest at the
company," the lawsuit says.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Oct. 1 Hearing Set for Seat Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that more
than 75 class action lawsuits have been filed across the country
so far against the four major airlines that are the targets of an
antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, which
is exploring whether the airlines kept ticket prices high by
limiting the number of available seats.

A federal judicial panel on multidistrict litigation has scheduled
an Oct. 1 hearing to consider requests to combine the cases before
one federal court.  All four airlines, American, Delta, United and
Southwest, have denied the antitrust allegations and said they
will vigorously defend themselves.

A list of the known lawsuits and their locations was published in
the aviation blog of the Dallas Morning News.

On July 1, Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce told the
Associated Press that the department was looking into potential
"unlawful coordination" among some airlines.  She declined to
comment further or say which airlines were being investigated.
But a DOJ letter sent to the carriers demanded copies of all
communications the airlines had with each other, Wall Street
analysts and major shareholders about their plans for limiting
passenger-carrying capacity, or "the undesirability of your
company or any other airline increasing capacity," according to
the AP story.

American, Southwest and United acknowledged receiving the civil
investigative demand (CID) from the Antitrust Division of the
Justice Department in their most recent quarterly reports to the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Although Delta did not mention a CID in its own quarterly filing,
the other airlines identified Delta as also being a defendant with
them in the class action suits.  American also said one case was
filed in Canada against Air Canada.

Southwest indicated in its quarterly report that the collusion-on-
capacity idea is not new. It first discussed a lawsuit filed in
Atlanta in May 2009 against Delta and AirTran, which was acquired
by Southwest.  That suit alleged those two airlines conspired to
impose $15-per-bag fees on travelers who checked their bags.  The
filing goes on to say the suit was later amended to accuse Delta
and AirTran of conspiring to reduce capacity on competitive routes
and to raise prices.  But in 2012 the parties filed a stipulation
and order that the plaintiffs abandoned their capacity claim.
AirTran and Delta denied all claims.

The Southwest filing then goes into the new investigation by the
DOJ and the CID regarding passenger capacity dating back to
shortly after the AirTran case began.  "The CID seeks information
and documents about the company's capacity from January 2010 to
the present including public statements and communications with
third parties about capacity," the filing said.  "The company also
received a letter from the Connecticut attorney general requesting
information about capacity."

Two days before that quarterly filing, Southwest chief legal and
regulatory officer Ron Ricks said he was retiring, but he would
remain with the company as a nonofficer employee and as vice
chairman of the board of directors "to assist with the transition
of complex legal projects and specialized governmental affairs
issues."  Southwest included the Ricks information in an Aug. 3
filing with the SEC that was signed by general counsel Mark Shaw.

As for Delta, its quarterly SEC filing in July was less
forthcoming.  It said that no legal matters had changed since the
filing of its annual report in February, even though the DOJ
investigation had begun and the class action lawsuits had started
over the capacity issue.

The February filing merely discussed the bag fee antitrust
lawsuit, saying the case was "based upon certain public statements
[about imposing a bag fee] made in October 2008 by AirTran's CEO
at an analyst conference."

And there's one more lingering airline headache: On July 24, the
Department of Transportation said it was starting an inquiry into
possible price gouging by Delta, American, United, Southwest and
JetBlue.

DOT sent a letter to the general counsel of those airlines asking
for information on their fares immediately after the May 2015
Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia that stymied travel in the
Northeast corridor.  The inquiry is ongoing.


ANGLOGOLD: High Court Reserves Judgment on Civil Society Groups
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South Gauteng High Court reserved judgement on whether the
Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and Sonke Gender Justice will be
allowed to appear as friends of the court in what could be the
county's first class action against the gold industry.

Represented by public interest law organisation Section27, TAC and
Sonke are pushing to be admitted as friends of the court ahead of
an October hearing that will determine whether the landmark class
action suit against about 30 gold mines is allowed to move
forward.

Lodged by Richard Spoor Attorneys, Abrahams Kiewitz Inc and the
Legal Resources Centre (LRC), the class action aims to win
compensation for up to 200 000 miners affected by silicosis or
tuberculosis (TB) and their families. However, first the South
Gauteng High Court must rule in October to accept the class
action.

TAC and Sonke Gender Justice say that, if accepted, they will
provide testimonies showing that silicosis and TB not only affect
miners and families, but also larger communities. Sonke argues
that, by effectively sending sick miners home to die, the gold
industry shifts the burden of caring for their workers to rural
women and girls.

"We are interested in the private and hidden lives of women and
girls because they really carrying the burden of these really sick
mine workers who are no longer able t continue learning a living
in the mines," said Tanya Charles, Sonke Gender Justice Policy
Development and Advocacy Specialist. "This is the story of how
gold mining impacts on women, girls and communities."

The majority of mining houses have opposed the civil society bid.
During two days of litigation, teams representing Anglo America,
Harmony Gold and Gold Fields argued that TAC and Sonke's
testimonies failed tests for novelty and relevance. With the
larger silicosis class action already having dragged for three
years and created more than 5,000 pages of court documents, mining
houses also argued that the addition of more testimonies would
cost them and the court time and money.

But Judge Bashir Vally chastised mining houses for citing costs as
a concern while no less than eight legal teams were representing
the companies. However with about six weeks until the court is due
to decide whether the class action can continue, judges
acknowledged that time was a major concern.

They have asked TAC, Sonke and the mining houses to present a
timeframe that could accommodate the admission of new civil
society evidence.

Section27 Executive Director Mark Heywood said that while he did
not want to try to predict the future, the judges' request for
such a timetable could be a sign that TAC and Sonke have made
strong cases for their inclusion.

Heywood said that not only could the class action help shape
future actions against, for instance, the pharmaceutical industry,
it was also likely the only hope for justice for many who could
not afford to litigate individually.

"In this country, we have access to justice in theory, not in
practice because people can't afford justice," he said. "If the
class action is not certified then for tens of thousands of mine
workers the matter is literally dead."

Silicosis is a lung disease arising from exposure to silica dust
during mining that can appear decades after people are exposed to
the dust. About a quarter of long-serving miners have silicosis,
according to statistics cited by the LRC.

The high burden of silicosis among South African miners has also
helped to fuel a deadly epidemic of TB that has been raging for
decades. By 2007, the Department of Health estimated that the
country's gold mining industry had the world's highest rate of new
TB case.


ARAB BANK: Enters Into Framework Deal to Settle Terrorism Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Goldhaber, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that
on Aug. 14, the plaintiffs in Linde v. Arab Bank reached a
framework agreement to settle the case for a reported $1-billion-
plus, subject to contingencies. (The parties have denied that
sum.) What brought Arab Bank to this extraordinary step?
Hint: It wasn't the jury.

Trial courts often make headlines for jackpot verdicts that are
ultimately reduced or overturned on appeal.  But, as Arab Bank
knows with intimate pain, the real power of a trial judge lies
elsewhere.  Because jackpot settlements are forever. And sometimes
the judge is as crucial to settlement as the jury is to a verdict.

The first break for the Linde plaintiffs who won a reported $1
billion-plus settlement from Arab Bank as not to draw U.S.
District Judge Jack Weinstein, who dismissed the companion case of
Gill v. Arab Bank at square one.  The Brooklyn federal judges
drawn by Linde -- first Nina Gershon and then Brian Cogan -- were
considerably more amenable to the plaintiffs' theories of
causation and evidence.

Judge Gershon penalized Arab Bank for failing to produce suspected
terrorists' bank records by ruling that the jury would be
permitted to infer that Arab Bank served terrorists knowingly, and
Arab Bank would be barred from claiming that it did not.

The plaintiffs' next break was the appellate court's refusal to
review that ruling immediately.  Arab Bank argued that forcing it
to produce bank records in violation of Middle Eastern privacy
laws offended comity -- and the Solicitor General agreed.  Arab
Bank begged for a writ of mandamus because the discovery sanction
amounted to a directed verdict.  But the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit reasoned that Arab Bank could always appeal
from the jury verdict later.  In retrospect, this conclusion looks
na‹ve.

Arab Bank had its clock cleaned in a dramatic liability trial last
September.

But Arab Bank played it cool in its 2014 annual report: "In the
opinion of counsel handling this matter as well as appellate
counsel retained by the Bank, the Bank's position is strong, and
they are confident that there is a high likelihood of success on
appeal."

Then, three things happened to ratchet up the settlement pressure.
First, in February, a Manhattan federal jury held the Palestinian
Authority liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act for $655.5 million,
pending appeal, to 41 plaintiffs in Sokolow.  A crude straight-
line projection based on the number of plaintiffs would suggest a
price tag of nearly $4.8 billion for Arab Bank.  But the defense
would argue that the damages for committing terror offer no guide
to the damages for supporting it.

Then, in April, Judge Cogan made hash of Arab Bank's appellate
arguments in a notably well-written 94-page opinion on the
liability trial.  Judge Cogan argued that the discovery sanction
was appropriate and in any event had no impact.  The verdict, he
wrote, was independently "based on volumes of damning
circumstantial evidence that defendant knew its customers were
terrorists."

The Solicitor General's view on comity was merely dicta, and his
confused brief obviously reflected conflicted feelings within the
executive.  Judge Cogan did not believe that Jordan would truly
prosecute Arab Bank for sharing terrorist bank records, nor that
respecting a mass murderer's right to financial privacy would be
in any nation's interest.  The main defense theory, that a bank's
only obligation is to avoid designated terrorists, was
"illogic[al]," and the fact that Arab Bank's main expert couldn't
read the word Hamas in Arabic didn't help matters.  As a matter of
case law, Cogan batted down all of Arab Bank's arguments for "but
for" causation and apportioned damages.

Judge Cogan's opinion may be persuasive to The Global Lawyer. But
the Second Circuit or the Supreme Court could easily take a
different view on any number of issues.  And to all appearances,
Arab Bank was still prepared to take its chances.

Finally, in the Aug. 11 conference leading up to the damages
trial, Judge Cogan acted like a torador, waving in all the
evidence that Arab Bank regarded as inflammatory, including an
AK-47, the chassis of a blown-up Volkswagen, and a video montage
of terrorist carnage set to the Beatles tune, "I Heard the News
Today, Oh Boy."

"I have to tell the defendant that the plaintiffs are 100 percent
correct on their understanding of [the leading case on
demonstrative evidence]," he said.  "The brief that the plaintiffs
filed yesterday is exactly where I was already coming out on this.
You can use that brief as a template for what I'm going to allow
at trial.  These plaintiffs are fully entitled to have evidence of
the circumstances of these attacks . . . .

[P]robably all of the jurors -- have never seen a terrorist attack
close up, so it's very hard for them to know what kind of
injuries, physical and emotional, might result.  Plaintiffs have
the right to offer evidence to allow them to mentally recreate the
scene so that they can intelligently ascertain damages caused by
the attack . ."

DLA Piper's Shand Stephens protested: "It's a stage.  They're
going to turn the courtroom into a stage to recreate terror
attacks, and that is not what's at issue in this case."

"I kind of think that it is," the court replied.  "I mean, I don't
-- I would urge the plaintiffs, without ordering them, to not try
the case in the press . . . . But the fact of the matter is the
jury has the right . . . to see what happened during the attacks."

At the end of the week the parties announced a framework
settlement.  Having a strong appellate argument is one thing.  But
it's another thing to stare down the barrel of a judgment that
might itself be ruinous, and might elicit drawn-out publicity to
spook investors and correspondent banks.  Even winning on appeal,
depending on which ground it prevailed on, would only earn Arab
Bank the privilege of a new liability or damages trial before
their friend Judge Cogan.

The Global Lawyer is always pleased when a jury is given the
chance to recognize historical truth.  But the defense should not
be deprived of the right to realistically have its arguments heard
on appeal.  The next time the Second Circuit examines its
standards for mandamus or interlocutory review, it should remember
the saga of Arab Bank, and the awesome power of an unsupervised
U.S. District Judge.


ASHLEY MADISON: Canadian Authorities Investigate Hack
-----------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for Legaltech News, reports that Canadian
authorities continue to investigate the publication of leaked
personal data from as many as 40 million users that were taken
from Ashley Madison, an adultery website.  But, one angle that
continues to get attention is that the breach may have been an
inside job.

"Whoever did this had local level access," ThreatSTOP Inc. CEO
Tom Byrnes told Legaltech News.  It was "more like a Bradley
Manning or Edward Snowden," type event, and adds it was likely
"done with file system level access."

Mr. Byrnes said that in this case, evidence in the data "tends to
support" that it was someone or more than one person "who had
physical access through their work."

"The tech evidence supports the assertion it was done with local
access as opposed to remotely," he added.

"There is no explicit evidence of how the data was exfiltrated,"
Mr. Byrnes said.  "These are very large data sets." Given the size
of the data set, it would have sent out alerts and would have
slowed down the site, and would have been noticeable, Mr. Byrnes
said.

Meanwhile, Ashley Madison is offering a $500,000 reward for
information on the possible hackers.  Toronto Police, Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, and the FBI are also investigating the
breach.

Mr. Byrnes says officials will likely be looking at every log and
every person at Ashley Madison.  He says that those employees who
appear to be "trying to cover their tracks," may be of special
interest.  "People leave a lot of breadcrumbs on social media
these days," Mr. Byrnes said.  "You have to investigate all
paths," Byrnes adds.  Whether it was remote or local, "you're
still going to look at the same logs," he said.

There could have been a conspiracy in the breach, as well.  "I'm
not sure this was done by one person," Mr. Byrnes said.

The breach has led to lawsuits and two possibly related suicides.
The events began in July when employees at Avid Life Media (Ashley
Madison's parent company) found an online message from suspected
hackers regarding AshleyMadison.com and EstablishedMen.com.  A
group called "The Impact Team," released a statement on July 20
saying that it gained access to the databases.

The company's CEO has suggested it was an inside job -- perhaps by
a former employee or contractor.  "It was definitely a person here
that was not an employee but certainly had touched our technical
services," Avid Life Media CEO Noel Biderman told Mike Krebs of
Krebs on Security.

"Maybe they're telling the truth for once.  From a business
standpoint, they're toast anyway," Mr. Byrnes added.  "The company
is shot."

From the point of view of other companies, Mr. Byrnes identified
some takeaways: Do background checks on employees and contractors,
trust but verify, require proper log-in credentials.

"Most of these attacks will get caught if you properly monitor
your network," Mr. Byrnes said.  That means looking at the speed
and performance of file systems.  Security is closely related to
network traffic management, too.  "Do the basics and the rest will
tend to follow," Mr. Byrnes advises.


ASHLEY MADISON: Faces Data Breach Class Actions in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that infidelity
website AshleyMadison.com and its parent company Avid Life Media
Inc. have been hit with a pair of class actions in Los Angeles
federal court stemming from the site's recent data breach.

The suits on behalf of unidentified site users join a wave of
litigation in the U.S. and Canada accusing the company of failing
to secure the private financial and personal information of its 37
million users.

Although some plaintiffs lawyers demurred when asked to represent
presumed philanderers in the aftermath of the hack, others have
been less hesitant.  On Aug. 21, Baltimore's HammondLaw sued Avid
Life on behalf of a single John Doe plaintiff for negligence,
emotional distress, invasion of privacy and breach of implied
contract.  The firm is seeking to certify a nationwide class of
site users and a statewide class to pursue privacy claims under
California state law.

"Defendants were aware or should have been aware of the need to
secure users' information, especially in light of the recent rise
of massive security breaches on the Internet and the fact that the
information contained on its servers is particularly sensitive,"
wrote attorney Julian Hammond in the complaint.  The site's
inadequate security, he wrote, led to users' addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, and credit card numbers being made
public along with their photos and details of their sexual
interests.  That suit has been assigned to U.S. District Judge
Philip Gutierrez of the Central District of California.

On Aug. 24, The Ball Law Firm in Los Angeles and Oklahoma City's
Federman & Sherwood sued Avid Life on behalf of a group of five
"Doe" plaintiffs from California, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas and
Minnesota. In addition to pursuing claims under various, consumer
protection and data breach notification laws, the suit seeks to
certify a subclass of users who paid a fee to erase their
information from the site but still had their personal information
leaked as a result of the breach.

Beyond the two suits filed in California, Avid Life also
reportedly faces class actions in Missouri, Georgia, Minnesota and
Texas, as well as a $578 million class action recently filed in
Canada, where the company is based.

As of Aug. 25, no defense firm had made an appearance in either
case filed in Los Angeles.  But as previously reported by The Am
Law Daily, Avid Life has turned to a trio of firms to help deal
with breach-related issues.  DLA Piper represents the company on
cybersecurity, data protection and privacy issues.  Barnes &
Thornburg is providing corporate, technology and IP counsel.
Canadian firm Stikeman Elliott is providing communications,
privacy, and cross-border advice.

Avid Life's vice president and general counsel, Avi Weisman,
didn't immediately respond to an email message on Aug. 25.


ASHLEY MADISON: Hack Not Attractive to Some Plaintiffs Lawyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Polantz, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the AshleyMadison.com hack, which unleashed onto the Internet
on Aug. 19 nearly 40 million names and email addresses of possible
users who sought extramarital affairs, isn't sexy enough for many
plaintiffs lawyers.

Reason No. 1: It's a matter of taste. "Every one of your clients
is from day one on record being a liar and a cheat," said Thomas
Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.  "I
can't think of a less desirable client."

After most online data hacks, class action suits materialize
within days from plaintiffs firms that carry the cause.  That
hasn't happened in the Ashley Madison hack.  To some prominent
plaintiffs lawyers, like Mr. Loeser, the subject matter just isn't
attractive.  A potential victim of the hack approached the firm
seeking to sue, but Mr. Loeser and managing partner Steve Berman
said they wouldn't represent the person.

Mr. Loeser was quick to round out other reasons why:
AshleyMadison.com's parent company, Avid Life Media Inc., is based
in Toronto, meaning it could be more difficult to sue in the
United States.

Another issue: It could be hard to calculate damages. Money lost
in divorces or child custody battles could swing wildly among the
plaintiffs, so class certification would be a challenge, he said.
And then there's finding the affair-site customers.

"Who is going to volunteer to be identified as part of this
class?" asked Kirk Nahra, a privacy and information security
lawyer at Wiley Rein.  He doubted many class action plaintiffs
would materialize because they may have to admit they signed up
with AshleyMadison.com with an apparent interest in cheating.

Personal identifiable information

Additionally, the hackers may not have accessed legally protected
data.  A name and an email address, especially if they could be
faked, aren't regulated to the same extent as full credit card
numbers or health records, the types of things that have caused
suits following hacks at retailer Target Brands Inc. or health
care provider Anthem Inc.  It's still unclear the depth of
information the hackers of the Ashley Madison website reached.

"It's the credit card details that get these merchants into hot
water," said Heather Egan Sussman, a data privacy corporate
defense attorney at Ropes & Gray in Boston.  Some reports on
Aug. 19 said only the last four digits of credit cards had been
released, meaning the data didn't necessarily meet the criteria of
personal identifiable information, or PII, she added.

At this point, though, a plaintiffs lawyer may only need reason to
believe protected personal identifiable data was hacked and a good
hunch of what damages could be.  Those details then could be
worked out during the legal process, in discovery and by using
expert testimony, according to one plaintiffs firm.

The Driscoll Law Firm predicts more than $5 million in damages
already.  An unnamed plaintiff represented by the St. Louis firm
sued Avid Life Media in federal court in Missouri after she gave
her information to the company and paid for deletion of it.  The
suit alleges a breach of contract and also the mishandling of
sensitive data.

"I think yesterday further supports our theory," John Driscoll,
the plaintiffs attorney, said on Aug. 20.  "We have probable cause
to believe there was a data breach.  We'll find out, won't we?"
Avid Life Media has not yet replied in court, and its general
counsel Avi Weisman didn't respond to messages from the NLJ
seeking comment on Aug. 20.

Consumer protection

Cases regarding the breach of contract issue in the Missouri suit
still may bloom at other plaintiffs firm.  These could be consumer
lawsuits, rather than allegations of a violation of data privacy
laws.  The firms soliciting victims of the hack say they are
particularly interested if a user paid extra for the company to
delete their personal information, a feature offered on the site.
The deletions apparently didn't occur.  Schmidt & Clark, one of
the plaintiffs firms, called it a scam.

Other plaintiffs' firms interested in attracting victims were
Abington Cole & Ellery of Tulsa and The Schmidt Firm of Dallas.
Abington Cole & Ellery's website invites Ashley Madison users to
send the firm their names -- or pseudonyms.

The Schmidt firm said it would be flattered even to receive case
referrals from other lawyers.  "There is no excuse for the
extortion of private information -- and there is no going back
once your privacy is stolen and leaked online -- but you may be
able to seek justice by joining an Ashley Madison class action
lawsuit," the site says.

The Ottawa Sun reported that a Canadian law firm also sought
plaintiffs for a class action suit north of the border.  But as of
Aug. 19, there were no takers.

Love and marriage

Of course, there's one other area of unhappiness that could move
into the court system: in marital law.  The data dump may not be a
boon to divorce lawyers nor impact separations already in
progress.  Revelations of adultery have little direct impact on
initiating divorce proceedings since all states have no-fault
divorce laws.

But Sorrell Trope, founding partner of Trope & Trope in Los
Angeles who has represented celebrities such as Britney Spears and
Hugh Grant in divorce and custody matters, said finding out about
the affair could lead to discovery about how much the cheating
spouse had spent on his or her lover.

"You can't have a dispute about whether they're having an affair,"
he said.  "The dispute is whether or not the person having an
affair was spending money -- and we're not talking about somebody
going to lunch with another woman.  Let's say buying another woman
a car, jewelry or things of that sort."

The spouse who was cheated on could seek reimbursement for that
money, he said.

The hacked information also could be useful for private
investigators and even in business disputes, particularly if one
of the parties is spending the company's money on a mistress, said
Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles.  Some contracts
also have morals clauses, which are common with athletes and
actors.

"It's already had impact on people who are in the public eye," he
said, noting that former reality TV star Josh Duggar had an Ashley
Madison account.  "Once you're in a legal battle, especially
scorched-earth legal battles, in the discovery process most stuff
is fair game.  It's just another avenue to lead you down and
induce pain on the other side."

Ashley Madison's response

AshleyMadison.com's parent company has already sprung into legal
action.

Avid Life Media's general counsel told The American Lawyer on
Aug. 19 that DLA Piper and Barnes & Thornburg in the U.S. and
Canadian firm Stikeman Elliott would represent it.  DLA Piper's
focus would be on cybersecurity, data protection and privacy
issues.  Barnes & Thornburg would specialize in technology, IP and
corporate counseling.  Stikeman would focus on communications and
privacy law, including cross-border legal matters.

The evidence of the legal response was evident on Aug. 20.  Of
three known websites offering a quick lookup of the data, one
reported to visitors that it had received a copyright law takedown
request from lawyers representing AshleyMadison.com.


ASHLEY MADISON: Charney, Sutts Strosberg File Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris DiMarco, writing for Legaltech News, reports that as the
National Law Journal pointed out, taking up a case representing
the morally-compromised is not something firms are always willing
to do.  But despite that, firms have stepped up to represent those
affected by the AshleyMadison.com hack, which leaked the personal
data of as many as 40 million users.  On August 20, two Canadian
firms announced that they have filed class action complaints
against the extramarital dating site for its failure to protect
the personal identifiable information of its clients.

Ontario-based Charney Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg have filed
action against Ashley Madison's parent company Avid Dating Life
for failing to protect the sensitive data of clients and for
falsely advertising services it claimed would remove all record of
use from company databases.  While the class action has not been
certified as of yet, the suit seeks $578 million in damages on
behalf of all Canadian citizens.

The lead plaintiff of the case is Eliot Shore, who the firms say
joined AshleyMadison.com after he lost his wife of 30 years.
While Shore is the only named plaintiff as of yet, the firms hope
to attract as many of the 250,000 Canadian subscribers affected by
the breach as possible.  Whether or those subscribers will be
willing to identify themselves (and in many cases confirm that
they cheated on spouses) is another story all together.

In an email to the American Lawyer, Avid Life's vice president and
general counsel, Avi Weisman, confirmed that the company is
working with DLA Piper and Barnes & Thornburg in the U.S., and
Canadian firm Stikeman Elliott, to field legal issues associated
with the breach.  The company also said in a statement that it has
partnered with law enforcement officials including the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.

While legal action against Avid Life is manifesting in Canada,
similar lawsuits may find more difficulty gaining traction in the
United States.  The combination of the type of data leaked, the
stigma associated with the use of Ashley Madison's services, and
the complexity of cross border litigation make the prospect thorny
for U.S. law firms.


AVON PRODUCTS: Settlement Documentation Not Yet Been Finalized
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that certain documentation
relating to the settlement in the class action filed by City of
Brockton Retirement System has not yet been finalized, and the
settlement is subject to court approval.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company.

On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012.

On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their second
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of
Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and including
October 26, 2011.

The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and
two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
November 21, 2014.

The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this
class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members
of the class of claims against the Company and the individual
defendants and payment of $62 million. Approximately $60 million
of the settlement will be paid by the Company's insurers and
approximately $2 million will be paid by the Company (which
represents the remaining deductible under the Company's applicable
insurance policies).

Certain documentation relating to the settlement has not yet been
finalized, and the settlement is subject to court approval. In the
event the settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be unable to
predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it
is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss in
connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate.


AVON PRODUCTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Defendants have
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the
Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and
certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries.

On April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under
ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of
the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014
and between December 14, 2011 and the present.  Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief.

On July 9, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. Avon has provided notice of this matter to the
Company's insurers.

"We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter," the Company
said.  "However, it is reasonably possible that we may incur a
loss in connection with this matter. We are unable to reasonably
estimate the amount or range of such reasonably possible loss.
Under some circumstances, any losses incurred in connection with
adverse outcomes in the litigation matters described could be
material."


AXA EQUITABLE: Court Dismisses Complaint, Denies Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed the complaint and
denied as moot plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the
case captioned, JONATHAN ROSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AXA
EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-2904
(JMF)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Jonathan Ross and David Levin are New York residents
who purchased AXA life insurance policies in 2009 and 2013,
respectively, and whose policies remain in effect . They brought a
putative class action on behalf of those who purchased life
insurance from AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company (AXA),
alleging that AXA violated New York Insurance Law Section 4226 by
engaging in various shadow insurance transactions in connection
with its life insurance business.

AXA moved to dismiss the Complaint and opposed Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification on multiple grounds, including lack of
Article III standing.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/e32hSWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Furman is compelled to
conclude that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims and
that Paintiffs' argument relying on Section 4226 of New York
Insurance Law was insufficient to establish such standing.

Plaintiffs are represented by John Singleton Skilton, Esq. & David
James Harth, Esq., PERKINS COIE LLP

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company is represented by Brad Scott
Karp, Esq. -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Bruce Birenboim, Esq. --
bbrieboim@paulweiss.com -- Elizabeth M. Sacksteder, Esq. --
esacksteder@paulweiss.com -- Caitlin Elizabeth Grusauskas, Esq. --
cgrusauskas@paulweiss.com -- Jesse Scott Crew, Esq. --
jcrew@paulweiss.com -- Justin David Lerer, Esq. --
jlerer@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
LLP


BB&T BANK: Trial in Ex-NFL Players' Negligence Suit Commences
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that jury
selection began on Aug. 26 in Miami federal court in the
negligence trial against BB&T Bank brought by six current and
former NFL players-and it quickly became clear that seating a jury
would take more time than usual.

Free agent Santana Moss and retirees Ray Lewis, Clinton Portis,
Lito Sheppard, Fred Taylor and Derrick Gaffney were in court as
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom quizzed a 54-member jury pool.

The players were among more than a dozen football players who sued
BB&T for allowing unauthorized financial transactions in accounts
handled by their former financial adviser.  Pro Sports Financial
Inc. allegedly forged their signatures to open BB&T bank accounts
and make unauthorized withdrawals to invest in a failed Alabama
casino deal.

Three players -- Moss, Sheppard and Taylor -- will have a one-week
bench trial before Judge Bloom, while Lewis, Portis and Gaffney
will proceed with a jury trial.

The jury pool included five lawyers, including Ileana Cruz, a
Miami-Dade assistant county attorney who serves as president of
the Miami-Dade chapter of the Florida Association for Women
Lawyers; Joshua Spector, who previously served as a special
assistant to University of Miami President Donna Shalala and
traveled with the Hurricanes football team; and Jackie Perczek, an
attorney with Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf in Miami.

After laying out the facts of the case, Judge Bloom questioned the
jurors extensively about whether they have ill feelings about
banks, worked for banks, been victims of identity theft, hold
athletes in high or low esteem, work for the legal system, met any
of the lawyers or athletes or heard of the players.

Numerous prospective jurors said they like football and know the
players, and about 10 said they had been victims of identity
theft.  Most said that would not affect their ability to serve on
the jury.

Some jury candidates had firm opinions about athletes and banks in
general.

A teacher and single mother said: "We are talking about people who
made ridiculous amounts of money for doing sports.  They should be
responsible for handling their money.  It's a shame they don't
provide information to the players about managing their money and
that they don't educate themselves."

A man said, "Most athletes in general have sacrificed their bodies
for their sports.  They've sacrificed everything.  I have a bias
against banking institutions in general.  The fact that the
recession was caused by them . . . they have a stigma.  I feel the
burden of proof is on the banks.  It will be hard to think the
bank is in the right."

One of the players nodded his head while listening to the
response.

Several teachers on the panel said they were teachers and it would
be a hardship for them to miss the first weeks of school.  Many
others said they had plans for out-of-town travel over Labor Day
weekend that would interfere with the trial.

The players were seen joking around during breaks.  "I want to lie
down and take a nap," one of them joked.

The players are represented by Matthew Brenner --
matt.brenner@lowndes-law.com -- and Ronald Edwards Jr. --
ronny.edwards@lowndes-law.com -- of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster,
Kantor & Reed in Orlando and Elizabeth Kagan -- Liz@kagan-law.com
-- of the Kagan Law Firm in Fort Myers.

BB&T is represented by a team of lawyers from GrayRobinson's Tampa
office headed by David Hendrix -- david.hendrix@gray-robinson.com

During the jury trial, the plaintiffs are expected to call several
current and former bank officials to testify about alleged
violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, according to court documents.

The suit filed in October 2013 alleges Fort Lauderdale-based Pro
Sports, the players' defunct financial management firm, opened
bank accounts in their names with forged signatures and withdrew
nearly $53 million without their permission or knowledge.

The lawsuit was filed by 16 current and former players.  Several
settled their claims, according to Michael Simon of Simon &
Sigalos of Boca Raton, who handled a similar lawsuit.

Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based BB&T was sued after assuming
the assets in 2012 of Fort Lauderdale-based BankAtlantic, which
was accused of aiding and abetting fraud and failing to act in
good faith and with reasonable care.

Many of the players filed separate lawsuits against Pro Sports and
its principal, Jeff Rubin.

The players alleged Pro Sports and Rubin used their money to
invest in the Alabama casino venture, which was shut down by
authorities.  They also sued a Greenberg Traurig lawyer for
failing to properly advise them on the deal.  Greenberg settled
most of the claims in 2012.

BB&T maintained it had no duty to monitor individual transactions
and said the statute of limitations for seeking refunds had
passed.

After playing college football at UM, Lewis played his entire 17-
year career for the Baltimore Ravens.  He is claiming a loss of
$3.8 million.

Portis, a former UM running back, was with the Denver Broncos and
the Washington Redskins.  He is claiming a loss of $3.1 million.

Moss, a wide receiver at UM, played for the Redskins and the
New York Jets.  He is claiming a loss of $4.85 million.

A former University of Florida cornerback, Sheppard played 10
seasons with the Philadelphia Eagles, Jets, Minnesota Vikings and
Oakland Raiders.  He claims a loss of $5 million.

Mr. Taylor, who played at UF, was a running back with the
Jacksonville Jaguars and New England Patriots for 13 seasons.  He
is claiming a loss of $3 million.

Mr. Gaffney was a wide receiver for eight seasons with the Jets
after playing at UF.  He is claiming a loss of $3 million.


BOEING CO: Fights Retirement Plan Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
Sarra Randazzo, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
a federal judge will begin weighing whether Boeing Co. mishandled
its 401(k) plan by offering imprudent investment options and
allowing excessive fees to get passed on to employees.

The class-action suit, filed on behalf of 190,000 Boeing employees
and retirees, has been in court for almost a decade. On the
plaintiffs' side is a St. Louis lawyer known for waging yearslong
battles over retirement plans. Boeing is his biggest target to
date.

The company has vowed to fight the suit, one of only a few such
cases to go to trial. Boeing said it "strongly disagrees with the
claims" and is prepared to show that its investment options and
fees have been in line with industry standards.

Backing the suit is Jerome Schlichter, a personal-injury and
civil-rights lawyer who since 2006 has gone after companies for
alleged violations of the complex Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, or ERISA. Since then, he has filed 18 suits against
major corporations over purported 401(k) violations. The lawsuit
against Boeing, filed in September 2006, was one of the first.

Eight settlements have resulted in more than $214 million in
payouts, with $70 million of that going to 67-year-old Mr.
Schlichter and his law firm, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP. The
settlements also required the companies to make permanent changes
to their retirement plan practices. Six of his cases are pending,
including one that went to the U.S. Supreme Court earlier, and
four others have been dismissed.

As defined-benefit pension plans in the private sector are phased
out, more Americans have come to rely on 401(k) plans, which allow
employees to save pretax dollars, for their retirement. Of the
$24.9 trillion in U.S. retirement assets at the end of March,
18.7% was in 401(k) plans, according to the Investment Company
Institute, a mutual-fund trade group. That is up from 15.5% of the
$14.2 trillion retirement market in 2008.

Boeing's $44 billion 401(k) plan is the second-largest in the
nation after International Business Machines Corp., according to
the Labor Department.

The lawsuit, which will be heard in federal court in East St.
Louis, Ill., accuses Boeing of failing to uphold its fiduciary
duties to employees by allowing excessive fees to go unchecked,
choosing higher-cost retail mutual funds over cheaper options, and
improperly making 401(k) plan decisions to benefit vendors
receiving other Boeing business.

In court documents, the plaintiffs say Boeing employees each paid
$103 for administrative services in 2005, when a plan of its size
should have charged no more than $42, according to an expert hired
by the plaintiffs. Between 1997 and 2005, the plan overpaid for
record-keeping and administrative services by $35.4 million,
according to the hired expert.

In 2007, the company reduced its per-employee fees to $32 after
putting out a bid for a new contract, court filings show.

The class action also criticizes Boeing for including options to
invest in the company's own stock and in a money-losing
technology-sector fund.

In a deposition, one former Boeing executive defended the tech
fund, saying the investment was optional. "An individual has the
right to shoot themself (sic) in the foot if they so desire," the
executive said. "They pay the price."

In court papers, Boeing, represented by O'Melveny & Myers LLP and
Bryan Cave LLP, said that it isn't the company's fault if a
particular investment underperformed. "There is no crystal-ball
requirement in ERISA," the company said in a 2009 court filing.

Across the country, 401(k) plan fees dropped by an average of 0.1%
between 2009 and 2012, according to a study released by
BrightScope Inc., a company that rates 401(k) plans, and the
Investment Company Institute.

Some industry experts say the fee reductions are the natural
evolution of an industry that has been in existence only since the
1980s.

Mike Alfred, the chief executive of BrightScope, said he believes
the string of class-action lawsuits has improved industry
practices-though he added that some companies named in the suits,
including Boeing, have had strong overall 401(k) plans compared
with the rest of the market.

Mr. Schlichter, the son of an aircraft mechanic, said he was
inspired to look into the industry after watching his mother
survive on his father's federal pension. "She didn't have to worry
about stocks and fees," he said. Making sure companies are
upholding their fiduciary responsibilities, he said, "levels the
playing field for an unsophisticated employee."

One Boeing employee who is an original party to the suit is John
Bunk, an aircraft assembly inspector who took a retirement buyout
from the company in May. Now, he is living on an Alpaca farm in
Illinois and relying on both a Boeing pension and 401(k) plan. "We
just thought Boeing was mishandling our money," Mr. Bunk said of
how the suit began. "I never dreamed it would take this long."

The trial, expected to last about four weeks, is the oldest case
on the docket of U.S. District Judge Nancy Rosenstengel. "Nine
years of litigation has resulted in deep antagonism and hostile
posturing," Judge Rosenstengel wrote in a recent court order
encouraging the parties to settle, while acknowledging that such a
deal was unlikely.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Interlocutory Appeal Allowed in Aggrenox
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stefan R. Underhill granted Defendants' motion to
certify the March 23, 2015 Order for interlocutory appeal in the
case, IN RE AGGRENOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES
TO: ALL ACTIONS, Case No. 3:14-MD-2516-(SRU)(D. Conn.).

On March 23, 2015, Judge Underhill issued a Memorandum of Decision
and Order disposing of four motions to dismiss the various claims
in the aggregation of pharmaceutical antitrust cases. One of those
motions was granted without prejudice, one was substantially
denied, and two were granted in part and denied in part.

On appeal, the defendants wish to raise two specific issues on
appeal: (1) whether the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs'
antitrust claims begins to run anew from each alleged overcharge,
or from the date of the allegedly anticompetitive underlying
conduct (or from the earliest that the plaintiffs knew or should
have known of that conduct); and (2) whether the plaintiffs'
antitrust claims should have been dismissed for failure to plead
causation under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.

In his Memorandum and Order dated July 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/IPigPOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Underhill agreed with
the defendants that the plaintiffs must plead and ultimately must
prove that they have been injured by the alleged antitrust
violation in order to recover, and the March 23 order does not
contradict that requirement.

Plaintiffs are Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq. --
mjasinski@motleyrice.com -- Michael M. Buchman, Esq. --
mbuchman@motleyrice.com -- William H. Narwold, Esq. --
wnarwold@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC

Defendants are represented by Brigid M. Carpenter, Esq. --
bcarpenter@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BERMAN, CALDWELL
& BERKOWITZ, P.C., Robert D. Carroll, Esq. --
rcarroll@goodwinprocter.com -- Sarah K. Frederick, Esq. --
sfrederick@goodwinprocter.com -- Christopher T. Holding, Esq. --
cholding@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP


BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH: Settles Chemical Leak Class Action for $2.9MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that more than 10
years after a chemical leak forced thousands of East Point
residents out of their homes on a December night, a German
chemical company has reached a $2.9 million class action
settlement that will pay each affected resident $500.  One-third
of the settlement amount will go the attorneys who handled the
long-running litigation, said lead class counsel Roger Orlando of
Decatur's Orlando Firm.

Two class representatives will also receive $10,000 apiece,
Mr. Orlando said.

The original suit claimed that a class of up to 8,000 people had
been ordered to evacuate.  But both Orlando and the attorney for
the defendant company, Atlanta solo David Currie, said that
because several thousand of the class members settled their claims
years ago, a much smaller number of individuals will be receiving
payments.

Under the terms of the settlement, which was reached in July but
has yet to be finalized by the court, any leftover funds will
revert to the company, Brenntag Mid-South.

The leak occurred on the night of Dec. 15, 2004, when a tank
containing about 8,000 gallons of glacial acetic acid --
essentially a concentrated vinegar product used in food,
pharmaceutical and manufacturing processes-became overheated.
That occurred after an employee at the Mullin Industrial Park
hooked a steam line to a delivery pipe on the tank and left it
unattended.  The acid began to boil and turned into a gas,
releasing a plume through an emergency valve.

Neighbors reported a strong chemical smell to police, and
emergency response officials from East Point and Atlanta ordered a
mass evacuation of everyone within a 1 1/2 mile radius.
Authorities used a reverse-911 alert system, driving through the
streets with loudspeakers and going door-to-door to warn
residents.

According to the complaint, many of the residents were sent to
public shelters, while others went to hotels or slept in their
cars.  While prolonged exposure to glacial acetic acid can
irritate the skin, throat and eyes, there were no injuries
reported, the lawyers said.

"My class representative holed up in a Waffle House all night,"
said Mr. Orlando.

The evacuation order was canceled the next day.

Mr. Orlando, whose firm specializes in mass torts, was already
involved in another class action stemming from a chemical fire in
Conyers earlier that year, "so we had a group together already,"
he said.

Two days after the East Point leak, his firm, along with lawyers
from eight other firms in Savannah, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana
and Texas, filed a putative class action in federal court in
Atlanta asserting claims for negligence, nuisance, strict
liability and trespass.

That suit sought damages for personal injuries, emotional
distress, lost income and property damage, among other claims. I t
was dismissed by mutual consent a few months later and re-filed in
Fulton County Superior Court.

"We agreed to allow them to refile if they dropped the personal
injury and lost wages claims," said Mr. Currie.

The Fulton suit included claims of fraud, based on allegations
that adjusters hired by Brenntag had misrepresented the risks the
evacuees had incurred and the amount of compensation they were
entitled in pressuring them to sign releases.  The new suit asked
the court to certify a sub-class of plaintiffs who wanted to
rescind their agreements and join the class.

Mr. Currie said that Brenntag had settled with more than 7,000
people after the leak, and confirmed that it had paid each adult
$200 and each child $50.

Superior Court Judge Craig Schwall appointed attorney Cary Ichter
as a special master, and extensive litigation ensued as the
parties wrangled o ver class definition and Daubert challenges to
proposed experts. The case was further delayed by a trip to the
Georgia Court of Appeals, which in 2011 upheld Judge Schwall's
certification of an "inconvenience/evacuation class" of
plaintiffs.

In addition to fighting the class certification, Brenntag argued
that the emergency response officials were to blame for
exacerbating a relatively benign incident that could have been
eased if firefighters had allowed an employee into the building to
turn off the steam to the tank.

"It was kind of inexcusable from our perspective," said
Mr. Currie.  "First, glacial acetic acid is not that big a deal.
Second, if they'd let him in, he could have turned off the heat.
Even if you figure, 'well, they didn't know what it was,' there
was no reason to continue the evacuation after the release was
stopped.  It was stopped at 6 a.m., and the evacuation continued
until 3 p.m."

There were also indications that the East Point Fire Department
had used the event as a training exercise and unnecessarily
expanded its scope and duration, Mr. Currie said.

In March, Judge Schwall adopted Judge Ichter's recommendation,
tossing out the fraud and rescission claims.

Mr. Orlando said he had made an early, unsuccessful offer to
settle for $10 million over lunch with defense counsel, but no
serious settlement discussions occurred until a mediation in July.

The plaintiffs' initial demand was $19.7 million to settle the
case, Mr. Currie said, including $14.5 million in compensation and
$5 million in attorney fees.  Mr. Orlando said he did not recall
any such figures.

"By the time we got to mediation, their primary expert was out,
the sexy big-ticket items were out, and they were left with a case
of inconvenience," said Mr. Currie.

The $2.9 million settlement was reached July 21 during a mediation
before Rex Smith at Henning Mediation, Mr. Orlando said.

Mr. Orlando noted that the $500 payments represent 150 percent
more than what Brenntag voluntarily paid the adult evacuees.
Those who accepted the earlier settlements are not eligible for
the new payouts, he said, and Mr. Currie noted that none had ever
tried to return the money.

"This was a lot of work over a long period of time," Mr. Orlando
said.  "In mass tort cases, you've got to have staying power;
you've got be able to stay toe-to-toe with someone with limitless
resources."


BRISTOL-MYERS: Judge Dismisses Majority of Claims in Plavix MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that the federal
judge in Trenton overseeing multidistrict litigation over
allegedly improper marketing of blood pressure drug Plavix has
granted motions by defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-
Aventis U.S. to dismiss the majority of claims in a False Claims
Act case related to the drug.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
dismissed claims under the False Claims Act related to Medicare
Part D and the Medicare plans of 33 states, as well as claims
based on state formularies.  Also dismissed were state law claims
based on the laws of 43 states.  The judge declined to dismiss FCA
claims for 17 states, and state law claims for seven states.

Relator Elisa Dickson was a sales representative for Sanofi-
Aventis, which marketed the drug jointly with Squibb, according to
court documents.  She claimed Sanofi instructed her to promote
Plavix to physicians with claims that the company knew were
untrue.  For example, Dickson claimed she was told to promote
Plavix as superior to aspirin for stroke patients, while trial
data showed Plavix was not effective for that population.  She
also claimed she was instructed to focus Plavix sales calls on
physicians that billed large amounts of prescriptions to
government payors.

The suit was filed in the Southern District of Illinois in March
2011 and transferred to New Jersey by the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation in February 2013.

Judge Wolfson ruled that, because the relator did not claim Plavix
was excluded from Part D coverage, or that it was prescribed for
any use other than its on-label use, that any prescription of the
drug for its on-label use was reasonable and necessary under
Medicare Part D.  As such, the relator cannot state a claim under
the FCA in that context, Judge Wolfson said.

As to the Medicaid claims, Judge Wolfson noted that 33 states
impose a "medical necessity" as a condition of Medicaid
reimbursement.  The judge dismissed those claims based on her
finding that the relator failed to sufficiently define "medical
necessity" or explain why Plavix should not be covered in light of
its approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. But the
other 17 states impose a requirement that treatment be "cost
effective."  Since the relator claimed that Plavix is no more
effective than aspirin, but far more expensive, Judge Wolfson
found those claims were plausible.

Judge Wolfson also rejected the relator's claims that Plavix was
placed on lists of approved drugs for each state's Medicaid
program based on misleading information from the defendants.
There were "simply no allegations how any of defendants' allegedly
false promotional statements were material to, or had any bearing
on, the decisions made by" committees that develop formularies,
Judge Wolfson said.

The judge also dismissed claims under various states' equivalents
to the FCA for the same reasons the federal FCA counts were
dismissed.  However, claims under state versions of the FCA in
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Montana, North Carolina,
Oklahoma and Rhode Island were not dismissed because those states
include a cost-effectiveness provision in their Medicaid laws.

The defendants also claimed that the suit suffers fatal pleading
deficiencies that should mandate dismissal under Rules 8(a) and
9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  They noted that the
complaint is bereft of any names of physicians to whom
misrepresentations were allegedly made, or dates of any instances
when the relator or other sales representatives made such
misrepresentations.  Nor did the complaint cite doctors who
prescribed Plavix as a result of such misrepresentations or
Medicare or Medicaid beneficiaries who received and filled those
prescriptions.

However, before the case was transferred to New Jersey, Chief U.S.
District Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois
ruled that the relator's pleading was adequate, and his ruling
stands under the law of the case doctrine, Judge Wolfson said.

The lawyer representing the relator, Christopher Cueto of
Belleville, Illinois, did not return a call seeking comment.
Gavin Rooney -- grooney@lowenstein.com -- of Lowenstein Sandler,
representing Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis, had no
comment about the ruling.

The Plavix marketing practices MDL still accounts for 250 cases
before Judge Wolfson, down from a high of 311.


BROWN FERRIS: NLRB Ruling May Impact Fast Food Industry
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in a
potentially game-changing decision, the National Labor Relations
Board decided on Aug. 27 to modify its definition of "joint
employer."

The board's 3-2 ruling along party lines in the case of
Brown Ferris Industries Inc. tears a major hole in a previously
existing legal wall between a company and its contractors, opening
companies up to more potential liability for employment law
violations.

The case posed the question of whether Leadpoint Business
Services, a staffing agency, and BFI, a company that runs
recycling facilities, can be considered "joint employers" of
Leadpoint workers contracted to BFI.  In ruling "yes," the NLRB
emphasized that a growth in the "diversity of workplace
arrangements," including temporary work in the U.S., calls for a
restatement of the old joint employer standard.

The board decided that BFI and Leadpoint are both employers in the
common-law sense and both exercise enough control over factors,
including the terms and conditions of employment for the Leadpoint
workers, to both be considered employers under the law.

The idea that companies and their contractors can both be liable
for employment law issues (and can both be brought to the
bargaining table in union cases) is troubling for some.  But what
might have an even bigger impact long term is the potential that
Brown Ferris Industries has to disrupt franchise law.

The decision supports the emerging legal concept that franchisors
and franchisees can be treated as "joint employers."  This means
that the corporate office can be held responsible for alleged
violations at individual franchisee-run locations.  In fact,
Richard Griffin Jr., the NLRB's general counsel, has already
targeted McDonald's Corp. as a joint employer with its
franchisees, and more similar cases may be coming.

The decision can still be appealed to a federal circuit court,
should BFI so choose.


CAESARSTONE: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against CaesarStone Sdot-Yam Ltd. and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-06726, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
CaesarStone securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased CaesarStone securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 26, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

CaesarStone manufactures and sells engineered quartz surfaces
under the CaesarStone brand in the United States, Australia,
Canada, Israel, Europe, and internationally. The Company's
products are engineered quartz slabs, which are used as kitchen
countertops in the renovation and remodeling, and residential
construction end markets, as well as other applications, including
vanity tops, wall panels, back splashes, floor tiles, stair, and
other interior surfaces that are used in various residential and
non-residential applications. It sells its products directly to
fabricators, sub-distributors, and resellers; and indirectly
through a network of independent distributors.

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 that: (i)
that the cost of quartz rose substantially by  approximately 20%
in 2014 while the Company claimed in SEC filings the impact of the
price increase was just 4%; (ii) independent lab tests demonstrate
that CaesarStone's samples contained less quartz than advertised;
(iii) CaesarStone's reported consolidated margins, gross margins,
and EBITDA were overstated; (iv) the extent of and risk posed by a
growing number of lawsuits for approximately 60 silicosis-related
injuries or deaths suffered by workers and fabricators of its
product in Israel was understated; (v) the impact recent OSHA
warnings regarding silicosis would have on the opening of a new
U.S. facility and associated costs;  (vi) recent inspection
reports revealed audit deficiencies related to revenue and
inventory controls; and (vii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about CaesarStone's business, operations,
and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

On August 19, 2015, analyst firm Spruce Point Capital Management
published a report on CaesarStone describing the aforementioned
false and misleading statements and failures of disclosure.  On
this adverse news, CaesarStone ADRs fell $3.68, or 7.6%, to close
at $44.61 on August 19, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.

Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW
Fax: 212.661.8665
http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/


CAESARSTONE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of CaesarStone Sdot-Yam Ltd. ADRs from March 25, 2013 through
August 18, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
CaesarStone investors under the federal securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the cost of quartz
increased significantly by approximately 20% in 2014 while
CaesarStone claimed in SEC filings the impact of the price rising
was just 4%; (2) independent lab tests revealed that CaesarStone's
samples contained less quartz than advertised; (3) CaesarStone's
reported consolidated margins, gross margins, and EBITDA were
overstated; (4) the extent of and risk posed by a rising number of
lawsuits for approximately 60 silicosis-related injuries or deaths
suffered by workers and fabricators of its product in Israel was
understated; (5) the impact recent OSHA warnings concerning
silicosis would have on the opening of a new U.S. facility and
associated costs; and (6) recent inspection reports revealed audit
deficiencies related to revenue and inventory controls.

On August 19, 2015, analyst firm Spruce Point Capital Management
published a report on CaesarStone describing the aforementioned
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact. On
this adverse news, CaesarStone ADRs fell $3.68, or 7.6%, to close
at $44.61.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 26, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-699.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016
Phone:+1 978-474-0100
toll-free: 866-767-3653
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com


CAPITAL ONE: 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of FDCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that a bank's
acquisition of credit card debt on which a consumer already has
defaulted does not subject the bank to federal rules on fair debt
collection practices, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit has decided.

The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act places certain
requirements on "debt collectors."  Debt collectors are defined as
those who "regularly" collect or attempt to collect debts owed to
others or whose "principal" business purpose is debt collection.
Creditors, on the other hand, are typically not subject to the
statute's rules.

The plaintiff in the case, representing a putative class suing
Capital One Bank in the Northern District of Georgia, argued that
a bank that seeks to collect on a debt that was already in default
when the bank acquired it is a debt collector subject to the
requirements of the statute.  Otherwise, the plaintiff argued,
entities that regularly acquire and pursue collection of defaulted
debt could avoid the law.

The Eleventh Circuit panel disagreed, upholding U.S. District
Judge William Duffey's dismissal of the case. T he Aug. 21 ruling
authored by Eleventh Circuit Judge Charles Wilson said the
language of the statute made clear that the plaintiff's position
was wrong.

As alleged by the plaintiff, the case stems from Capital One's
May 2012 acquisition of about $28 billion of HSBC's
United States-based credit card accounts, including plaintiff
Keith Davidson's own credit card account.  Several years prior to
the acquisition, HSBC had sued Mr. Davidson for a balance of
$1,059.68 plus interest on that account, and he had settled for
the reduced amount of $500.  Mr. Davidson had failed to pay,
resulting in a default judgment against him.

Capital One brought its own collection suit against Davidson in
August 2012, seeking to collect on the same debt.  Capital One's
state court complaint alleged that Davidson's account was
delinquent in the amount of $1,149.96 -- more than twice the
amount for which he had settled with HSBC.

Mr. Davidson, a Georgia resident, sued Capital One on behalf of a
putative class of consumers whom Capital One had sued in Georgia
to collect on accounts acquired from HSBC.  The lawsuit claimed
that Capital One had violated the federal debt collection law.
Davidson alleged that Capital One's state court complaint had
falsely stated the amount of the debt and the accompanying
affidavit was "robo-signed," contained false statements and was
not based on personal knowledge.  Mr. Davidson claimed Capital One
violated provisions of the statute that prohibit a debt collector
from using false, misleading or deceptive representations or
tactics, including a specific subsection that prohibits the false
representation of the amount of a debt.

Judge Duffey dismissed the suit, saying that the bank fell under
neither of the definitions of a debt collector, since it neither
regularly sought collection on the debts of another nor made debt
collection its principal business.  Judge Duffey said that whether
Davidson's debt was in default at the time Capital One acquired it
was irrelevant.

The plaintiff appealed, saying that most federal courts that had
considered the issue had sided with his position.  The Eleventh
Circuit panel of Judge Wilson, Eleventh Circuit Judge Beverly
Martin and visiting U.S. District Judge W. Terrell Hodges of
Florida affirmed in a ruling for the bank.

The plaintiff had pointed to a subsection in the federal debt
collection statute, 15 U.S.C. 1982a(6)(F)(iii), that excludes from
the definition of "debt collector" anyone who attempts to collect
a debt owed to another if the debt was not in default at the time
it was acquired.  Based on that subsection, argued the plaintiff,
anyone who attempts to collect on a debt acquired from another is
a debt collector if the debt was in default at the time of the
acquisition.

Judge Wilson said that argument required ignoring the statute's
definition of debt collector, which must be satisfied before the
exclusion even applies.  He quoted legislative history to the
effect that entities excluded include "mortgage service companies
and others who service outstanding debts for others, so long as
the debts were not in default when taken for servicing."

Judge Wilson said the plaintiff's argument would clash with one of
the definitions of "debt collector": anyone who regularly attempts
to collect debts "owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another."  Judge Wilson said the plaintiff's interpretation would
require the insertion of the word "originally" at the beginning of
that phrase.  "But we are not in the business of rewriting
statutes," said Judge Wilson.

As for the plaintiff's argument that the Eleventh Circuit's
position would create a loophole to protect entities that
regularly acquire defaulted debt, Judge Wilson said such entities
would not escape regulation if a case could be made that the
principal purpose of their business was debt collection.  "In any
event," he said, "to the extent that such a loophole does exist,
it is for Congress, not the courts, to close."

Rik Tozzi of Burr & Forman in Birmingham, Alabama, who argued the
appeal for Capital One, could not be reached.  The lawyer who
argued the appeal for the plaintiff, Daniel Edelman of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, couldn't be reached, either.

Mr. Davidson's local counsel, Suwanee solo practitioner E. Talley
Gray, said the plaintiff was considering asking the whole court to
review the matter.  She said she understood that the Federal Trade
Commission had contacted the plaintiff's team and expressed
displeasure with the ruling, and the plaintiff's lawyers were
exploring whether the FTC would file an amicus brief in the
matter.

A spokesman for the FTC said the agency couldn't comment on
others' cases.

The case is Davidson v. Capital One Bank, No. 14-14200.


CLOUD IMPERIUM: May Face Legal Action Over Star Citizen
-------------------------------------------------------
Andy Chalk, writing for PC Gamer, reported that Derek Smart says
he has instructed his lawyers to send a "demand letter" to Star
Citizen developer Cloud Imperium Games insisting on a "complete
forensic accounting" of the money that has been spent on the game,
as well as a solid release date and a refund option for anyone who
wants one. Failure to deliver on any of those demands, he said in
a post on his personal blog, will lead to the immediate filing of
a class-action lawsuit.

Smart has been a very vocal critic of Star Citizen and CIG for
some time now. He backed the game on Kickstarter at the $250 tier,
but in July his pledge was refunded, and not at his request: "It
was obvious he was not a supporter of our project and was just
using our visibility as a platform to gain attention and promote
his current game and his past games," a CIG rep said at the time.
But Smart has continued his campaign against a game he says is
simply too ambitious and complex to be developed and delivered as
promised.

He said he'd taken the first step toward launching legal action
against the studio by sending a letter demanding a full accounting
of the situation-legal action he expects will be necessary to
force the studio's compliance.

"As all previous calls for accountability have failed, we don't
expect RSI [Roberts Space Industries] to co-operate (hence the
need to contact the Federal authorities), with us. Which means
that the next steps, depending on how they respond to the letter,
would be for a class-action lawsuit (already in various stages of
preparation), to move forward and be immediately filed," Smart
wrote. "And through that, we're going to subpoena and depose every
single key person, while asking for specific documents during
discovery which will hopefully shed a light on what is going on.
They will ask for protective orders, try to delay and drag things
out etc. We will fight it every step of the way and my guess is
that with the Federal authorities involved, it may get resolved
even before it gets to trial; and then we'll have answers either
way."

"And if they do fight this, they're going to do it with your
money, simply because they don't believe that you-the backers-are
entitled to accountability. If they had nothing to hide, resolving
this matter should be very straightforward," he continued, bold
emphasis his. "Sadly, I feel that this is the only way that we are
going to get the answers that we are entitled to, before this
whole thing collapses and makes it more difficult to sift through;
especially where spoliation of material evidence becomes an issue.
Not to mention the fact that they have studios outside of North
America, which will make things even more difficult to sift
through."

Smart's lengthy missive also offers advice to backers on how to
obtain a refund, which includes contacting the FTC, as well as how
to sign up to take part in the lawsuit if and when it goes ahead.
And there's a bit at the end in which he insists that, despite
what some Star Citizen supporters and Cloud Imperium itself have
suggested, his criticism of the game is not an attempt to drum up
interest in his own Line of Defense MMO.

"Had [Cloud Imperium Games founder] Chris Roberts and co not
maintained a pattern of dishonesty, then when called out,
foolishly singled me out, then went for broke and tried to silence
me with the actions that they took, and which gave me a clear
indication that they had something to hide, we would never have
come this far," he wrote. "Finally, in this legal action that I
have now initiated, note that I haven't asked for anything that
benefits me in any, way, shape or form. This is not, and never
was, about me nor my game."

Star Citizen is currently sitting at a little under $88 million in
crowdfunding support. Cloud Imperium said in the most recent Star
Marine status update that all features "have been tasked out, devs
are assigned to them, and we're burning the tasks down as fast as
we are able." There's currently no launch date, but we are rapidly
approaching the two-month window which Roberts hinted at in June,
when he announced that the Star Marine FPS module would be delayed
by an unspecified duration.


CONSTANT CONTACT: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint alleges that officers and directors of Constant
Contact, Inc. violated federal securities laws between October 23,
2014 and July 23, 2015, by making misleading statements about
Constant Contact's business operations and financial performance.
Constant Contact provides online marketing tools that are designed
for small businesses, nonprofits, and associations worldwide.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/constant-contact-
inc

Constant Contact Fails to Disclose Poor Customer Conversion Rates

According to the complaint, Constant Contact failed to disclose
that its gross customer additions were lower than expected, that
it suffered negative trends in consumer conversion rates, and that
it was directing new clients toward the lowest-priced packages. As
a result, the complaint alleges that the company's statements
about its business operations and prospects lacked a reasonable
basis.

On July 23, 2015, after the market closed, Constant Contact
announced its earnings results for the second quarter of 2015 with
a weak third quarter outlook. The company experienced low trial-
to-conversion rates in April and May of 2014, along with a
significant swing in product mix, with about 80% of new clients
choosing the least expensive email package over higher-priced
offerings. On this news, Constant Contact stock fell $3.35 per
share, or over 11%, to close at $26.18 per share on July 24, 2015,
on unusually heavy volume.

Constant Contact Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

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

Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101
Phone (619) 525-3990 or
Toll Free (800) 350-6003
www.robbinsarroyo.com
DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com


CVS PHARMACY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss 1st Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendants'
motions to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended class action
complaint and to certify an immediate interlocutory appeal with a
stay of proceedings in the case captioned, KEITH ROBERT DEAN, JR.,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. CVS PHARMECY, INC., et. al, Defendants, Case No.
14-2136 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against their former
employer Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc. alleging failure to pay
overtime wages in violation to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL).

In the Memorandum Order dated July 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/lDpwrhfrom Leagle.com, the Court said, "If anything,
FLSA's lack of available relief for gap-time claims makes it more
likely that there is a remedy under state law, as clearly
explained by the Second Circuit in Lundy. Thus, at this early
juncture, I will decline to dismiss Count II of the First Amended
Complaint, without prejudice to Defendants' right to reassert this
argument at summary judgment."

The Court also held, "Defendants withdrew their Motion to Compel
Arbitration of Pressley's claims without prejudice to their right
to renew the Motion at a later stage of these proceedings.
Accordingly, I do not need to address their Motion to Compel at
this time. Finally, as I already stayed the class certification
issue pending discovery, I am still not prepared to rule on the
merits of class certification, particularly in light of the fact
that this issue will not even be fully briefed until January 15,
2016 under the current Stipulated Case Management Order."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
DONOVAN AXLER LLC
1845 Walnut St
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: (215)732-6067

     - and -

Philip J. Gordon, Esq. -- pgordon@gordonllp.com -- GORDON LAW
GROUP LLP

Defendants are represented by Stephanie Jill Peet, Esq. --
stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com -- Felice B. Ekelman, Esq. --
EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS


DELAWARE NORTH: Proposed Class Action Will Proceed in St. Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record reported that against their wishes, lawyers who
accuse concession stand operators at Busch Stadium and Edward
Jones Dome of exploiting volunteers must pursue their suit in St.
Louis.

On Aug. 18, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey of Jefferson City
transferred their suit against Delaware North Companies Sports
Service to district court in St. Louis.

"Delaware North has made a clear showing that the balance of
interests weighs strongly in favor of the proposed transfer," she
wrote.

Matthew Leonard of St. Louis County filed a class action complaint
against Delaware North in May, at Cole County circuit court in
Jefferson City.

Leonard sought back pay for thousands who volunteered to work in
concession stands.

He toiled at Busch Stadium on May 30, 2013, according to his
complaint.

His lawyer, Ryan Paulus of Kansas City, wrote that volunteers were
recruited under the auspices that they were raising money for
nonprofit organizations.

"Defendant is in fact exploiting a volunteer labor force to avoid
paying money for necessary labor, a privilege not afforded for-
profit companies under the Fair Labor Standards Act," Paulus
wrote.

He proposed to certify a class seeking the federal minimum wage of
$7.25 an hour and a class seeking the Missouri minimum of $7.65.

Delaware North removed the suit to the nearby Western District
federal court in June, and moved for transfer to Eastern District
court in St. Louis.

Delaware North counsel Douglas King of Clayton, Mo. wrote that all
events giving rise to the action occurred in St. Louis and nearly
all witnesses reside there.

Paulus opposed transfer in light of Jefferson City's position
between Busch Stadium and North Delaware concessions at a minor
league stadium in Springfield, Mo.

That didn't impress Laughrey, who wrote that the Springfield
stadium had average attendance of 3,245 and five to seven food and
beverage locations.

She wrote that Busch Stadium's capacity is about 46,588
spectators, with average turnstile attendance of 38,023, and 52
food and beverage locations.

She wrote that the Jones Dome's capacity is about 65,000, with
average turnstile attendance of 38,736, and 47 to 55 food and
beverage locations.


DELTA AIR: Judge Vacates Baggage Fee Class Action Order
-------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
federal judge in Atlanta has vacated his Aug. 6 order that allowed
an antitrust suit over baggage fees against Delta Air Lines and
AirTran Airways to go forward as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten on Aug. 17, without
explanation, vacated his order that the suit claiming illegal
price-fixing by the two airlines could proceed for all U.S. Delta
and AirTran passengers who since 2008 have paid to check their
bags. Prior to 2008, passengers were able to check first bags for
free.

Delta and AirTran -- which competed fiercely for customers who fly
out of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta --
began in 2008, within weeks of each other, to charge their
customers a new $15 first-bag fee.  Delta's first-bag fees have
now risen to $25.  AirTran was absorbed in 2011 by Southwest
Airlines, which doesn't charge bag fees.

The court docket contains no explanation as to what might have
prompted Batten's change of heart.  But in a scheduling order
Batten filed Aug. 24, the judge asked for a single, consolidated
supplemental brief from airline attorneys on their opposition to
class certification. Batten limited the requested brief to 15
pages.

He then gave lawyers representing the potential class until Oct. 9
to respond to the airlines' new briefs and two briefs filed in
October 2013, that included specific objections to class
certification.

In their 2013 briefs, which remained under seal until late last
year, the airlines had argued that class certification was
inappropriate because the implementation of bag fees -- which the
airlines described as "unbundling" from the base air fares -- "led
to reductions in base fares."

AirTran lawyers contended -- and Delta attorneys agreed -- that
air fares were so variable, and so individualized, that, according
to AirTran, "two passengers traveling on the same route at
different times, or at the same time on different routes, or even
on the same flight, could have been impacted very differently."

Finally, Judge Batten also gave lawyers in the long-running case
until late October to file briefs on competing motions to exclude
each other's expert testimony about how to identify and define a
proposed class of passengers.  In a footnote in his scheduling
order, Judge Batten noted that the deadlines regarding motions to
exclude testimony "are for purposes of expert opinions and
testimony at issue at the class certification and summary judgment
stage."

Passenger lawyers David Flint -- dflint@swfllp.com -- with
Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint in Atlanta and Daniel Kotchen of
Kotchen & Low in Washington wouldn't comment on Judge Batten's
decision to vacate his previous ruling.  Delta attorney
Randall Allen -- randall.allen@alston.com -- at Atlanta's Alston &
Bird could not be reached for comment.  AirTran lead counsel at
Vinson & Ellis in Washington also could not be reached.

In his Aug. 6 order certifying the class, Judge Batten rejected
arguments by the lawyers for the airlines that some fliers
actually benefited from the fees for a service that had previously
been free.  The judge said a class action was appropriate because
individual claims by passengers who have checked bags on Delta and
AirTran since 2008 were "so small that the cost of individual
litigation would be far greater than the value of those claims."


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Trims Car Owners' Suit vs. Cops
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia granted Defendant, District of
Columbia's motion to dismiss Counts One, Two, Four, Six, Eight,
Nine, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fifteen and Sixteen and granted in
part motion to dismiss Counts Three and Fourteen, and dismissed
all claims of Plaintiffs Shanita Washington, Tanisha Williams and
David Littlepage without prejudice in the case, KIMBERLY KATORA
BROWN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant,
Case No. 1:13-CV-0569(CRC)(D.D.C.).

The 22 Plaintiffs in the putative class action are owners of cars
or currency that they allege were improperly seized and retained
by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
The seizures were effected under a prior version of Washington
D.C.'s civil forfeiture statute, D.C. Code Sec. 48-905.02 (2012).
Plaintiffs contend that various aspects of the former law, and
MPD's implementation of it, violated their constitutional rights
under both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

In the motion, the District moved to dismiss the amended complaint
arguing that the seizures have crippled drug and other criminal
organizations while the proceeds of the forfeitures enhance the
ability of financially-strapped police departments to protect the
public from other crimes.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated July 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vY3i7afrom Leagle.com, Judge Cooper concluded that
the Plaintiffs' challenges to the propriety of the seizures are
properly brought under the Fifth Amendment and not the Fourth and
that any relief an interim hearing provide is outweighed by the
government's interest in retaining seized currency.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

William Charles Cole Claiborne, III, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CLAIBORNE III
601 Indiana Ave., NW
Washington, DC 200004
Tel: (202)824-0700

     - and -

Lynn E. Cunningham, Esq. -- lcummnigham@law.gwu.edu -- LAW OFFICES
OF LYNN E. CUNNINGHAM

Government of the District of Columbia is represented by Chad
Wayne Copeland, Esq. & Gary Daniel Feldon, Esq., OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


DOLE FOOD: CEO Ordered to Pay $148MM for Misleading Shareholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
Delaware judge on Aug. 27 ordered 92-year-old Dole Food CEO
David Murdock and a former top lieutenant to pay $148 million in
damages for misleading directors and shareholders in a deal that
took the company private in 2013.

The judge on Aug. 27 said the billionaire businessman, along with
former Dole president and chief operating officer C. Michael
Carter, breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty in structuring
a $1.2 billion cash buyout that left the fruit-and-vegetable giant
in Murdock's hands.

Vice Chancellor Travis Laster noted that a board committee was
able to overcome most of the two men's "machinations," negotiating
an increase in Mr. Murdock's initial $12 per share offer to a deal
price of $13.50, which received a narrow 50.9 percent approval
from stockholders.

"But what the committee could not overcome, what the stockholder
vote could not cleanse, and what even an arguably fair price does
not immunize, is fraud," wrote Mr. Laster, whose damage award
represents an incremental value of $2.74 per share.

Morgan Evans, a Dole Food spokeswoman, said the company had no
comment on the ruling.

Attorneys for Messrs. Murdock and Carter did not immediately
respond to email messages seeking comment.

Stuart Grant, an attorney representing shareholders in the
litigation, noted that the judge concluded that shareholders were
entitled not only to a fair price, but to "a fairer price designed
to eliminate the ability of the defendants to profit from their
breaches of the duty of loyalty."

"We are extremely pleased not only with the large financial
recovery, but the forceful way in which the court excoriated the
defendants for the brazen way they tried to hijack Dole for their
own advantage in taking the company private," Mr. Grant said in a
prepared statement.

Among other things, Mr. Laster said that before Murdock made his
initial buyout proposal, Mr. Carter made false disclosures about
how much money Dole could save by selling roughly half its
business in 2012, and canceled a stock repurchase program.  Then,
after Mr. Murdock made his proposal, Mr. Carter provided the board
committee with lowball management projections, followed by a
secret meeting the next day in which Mr. Murdock's advisers and
financers were given more positive and accurate data.

"His job was to carry out Murdock's plans, and he did so
effectively, even ruthlessly," Mr. Laster said of Mr. Carter's
role after taking over day-to-day management of the company in
early 2013.

The efforts to undermine the committee continued throughout the
deal process, the judge said.

"The projections Carter provided were knowingly false," Mr. Laster
wrote in his 106-page opinion. "Carter intentionally tried to
mislead the committee for Murdock's benefit."

Mr. Laster declined to hold Murdock's financial adviser and lead
financing source, Deutsche Bank, liable for its actions.

"Deutsche Bank acted improperly by favoring Murdock and treating
him as the bank's real client in transactions before the merger,
even when Deutsche Bank was officially representing Dole, but
Deutsche Bank did not participate knowingly in the breaches that
led to liability, and Deutsche Bank's role as Murdock's advisor
did not lead causally to damages," the judge concluded.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Judge Allows No-Poach Suit to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge has allowed a potential class of artists and engineers to
proceed with claims that California's top animation studios
conspired to drive down their wages.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh previously had dismissed claims
against studios including DreamWorks Animation SKG, Pixar, The
Walt Disney Company and Lucasfilm for falling outside the four-
year statute of limitations that governs federal and state
antitrust law.  But on Aug. 20 Judge Koh was satisfied by the
argument in plaintiffs' second amended complaint that employees
couldn't have sued sooner because the studios covered up the
alleged conspiracy.

"Plaintiffs have pled specific facts showing that certain
defendants took affirmative steps to conceal the existence of
plaintiffs' claims," Judge Koh wrote in a 55-page order denying
defendants' joint motion to dismiss.  "Moreover, the court finds
that plaintiffs have adequately alleged that plaintiffs did not
have actual or constructive knowledge of their claims, and that
plaintiffs acted diligently once plaintiffs discovered their
claims."

The ruling is a win for plaintiffs attorneys with Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and Susman Godfrey,
who accused the animation studios of agreeing not to recruit each
other's employees, and using dinner and drink meetings to
illegally set caps on industry salaries.

Covington & Burling represents Pixar, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney and
Two Pic MC. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe represents Sony
Pictures Animation Inc. and Sony Pictures Imageworks Inc. Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher represents DreamWorks. Williams & Connolly
represents Blue Sky Studios Inc.

The litigation against the animation studios is one of several
follow-on cases that have sprung up in the wake of a successful
class action over alleged no-poach agreements involving Apple
Inc., Google Inc., Adobe Systems Inc., Intel Corp., Pixar,
Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc.  That suit resulted in settlements
topping $430 million.


EASTWICK COLLEGE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Defendants moved to dismiss and Plaintiff moved to file an amended
complaint in the case captioned, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
SUEDA WHATLEY and JOHN and JANE DOE, individually, Plaintiff, v.
EASTWICK COLLEGE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-1226
(WJM)(D.N.J.).

Plaintiff/Relator Sueda Whatley filed this case against Defendants
Eastwick Education, Inc., E.L.M. Eastwick Education, Inc., M.
Eastwick Education, Inc., and Thomas Eastwick alleging that
Defendants "overcharged students for coursework by charging them
private tuitions while also collecting loans and grants from the
federal government. Plaintiff, a former student of the Hohokus
Schools, sought to recover damages and penalties on behalf of the
United States as a qui tam relator under the False Claims Act and
asserted several state law claims.

In the motion, Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.

District Judge William J. Martini of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated July 23,
2015 available at http://is.gd/RiZuVCfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss finding that the Plaintiff failed to
state a claim and denied Plaintiff's motion to amend because the
SAC failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court would
not allow Plaintiff to file the proposed SAC.

Plaintiffs are represented by James Atkinson Plaisted, Esq. --
jplaisted@walderhayden.com -- WALDER, HAYDEN & BROGAN, PA

Defendants are represented by Julian A. Schulman, Esq. --
jschulman@suffernlaw.com -- SCHULMAN & KISSEL, P.C.


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Edison International and Southern California Edison Company said
in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015, that on July 6, 2015, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Edison
International, its CEO and CFO. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants violated the securities laws by failing to disclose
that Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision-
makers were more extensive than initially reported. The complaint
purports to be filed on behalf of a class of persons who acquired
Edison International common stock between July 31, 2014 and June
24, 2015.


FACEBOOK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of IPO Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the district court's ruling dismissing all of
the actions in the case captioned, In re: Facebook, Inc., Initial
Public Offering Deritative Litigation, Case Nos. 14-1445, 14-1784,
14-1309, 14-632 (2nd Cir.).

The district court dismissed all of the actions on threshold
grounds, ruling that: (i) plaintiffs were not actual or equitable
owners of Facebook stock at the time of the alleged wrongdoing,
(ii) plaintiffs failed to adequately plead demand futility, and
that (iii) the claims were unripe.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the court erred in considering
these bases for dismissal before adjudicating subject matter
jurisdiction.

Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs of the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit in the Order dated July 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/RBOeZcfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the district court's
ruling, finding no error to the judgment and that none of the
putative derivative plaintiffs satisfied the requirement of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1.

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew S. Love, Esq. --
alove@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph David Daley, Esq. -- joed@rgrdlaw.com
-- Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq. --
pafioravanti@prickett.com -- PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A

Facebook Inc. is represented by James P. Rouhandeh, Esq. --
rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- Charles S. Duggan, Esq. --
Charles.duggan@davispolk.com -- Andrew Ditchfield, Esq. --
Andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com -- DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP


FAIRWORTH LEGAL FINANCE: Faces Class Suit Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
Wisconsin personal injury firm has filed its second class action
lawsuit over unsolicited faxes, this time against a company that
helps fund lawsuits.

The Milwaukee firm Urban & Taylor filed its complaint on May 29 in
Milwaukee County Circuit Court, alleging Los Angeles-based
FairWorth Legal Finance violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by sending it an unsolicited fax.

The defendant removed the case to federal court on Aug. 14.

"Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients," the lawsuit says. "A
junk fax wastes the recipient's fax machine paper and ink toner.
An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient's valuable time that would
have been spent on something else."

According to its website, Urban & Taylor is a plaintiffs firm that
practices in the areas of automobile accidents, vaccine injuries
and nursing home abuse, among other subjects.

It also says one of its attorneys, Jay Urban, is in the process of
reviewing lawsuit claims for men who have experienced chemical
burns or allergic reactions after using the "Just For Men" hair
coloring product.

Urban has served on the board of governors of the Wisconsin
Association for Justice, the state's trial lawyers group, since
1998. Scott Taylor also serves on the board.

FairWorth Legal Finance, according to its site, provides non-
recourse cash advances to plaintiffs who have lawsuits pending and
need financial help with living expenses and litigation costs.

FairWorth is part of an industry, referred to by some as "lawsuit
lending," that has fought regulation, saying its cash advances are
not technically loans because if a plaintiff loses, a company does
not receive its advance back.

In its answer to the complaint, FairWorth says it has not violated
any laws. It admitted that it sent a one-page fax to the firm on
Dec. 18, and then another on April 24.

It also says that it has transmitted the same fax to more than 100
other numbers.

Urban & Taylor is seeking $500 for each violation of the TCPA. The
firm is representing itself in the case.

It is the firm's second TCPA case, having sued American Registry
of Florida in 2014. However, the firm voluntarily dismissed the
case because it did not serve the defendant properly.


FEMA: Trailer Manufacturers Pay $14.8MM to Katrina Victims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie E. Gates, writing for The Clarion-Ledger, reported that for
several years after Hurricane Katrina, ads selling FEMA trailers
were on the Internet and in publications.

At its peak, there were more than 45,000 temporary housing units
provided to disaster survivors in Mississippi after Katrina, said
Mary Langenbacker, a spokeswoman for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's recovery office on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

"In response to Hurricane Katrina, FEMA conducted the largest
housing operation in our country's history," Langenbacker said. "A
mission of that scope and magnitude required a collaborative
effort between FEMA, state emergency management offices including
the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, HUD and the
assistance from volunteer agencies across the United States to
serve as caseworkers and assist families in creating recovery
plans."

FEMA's Katrina temporary housing mission ended in February 2012.

"One hundred percent of the housing units have been deactivated,
and those households have moved on to more permanent housing,"
Langenbacker said. "In addition to utilizing temporary housing
units, FEMA worked with local housing authorities and public
sector property management offices to locate rental resources
including apartments, condominiums, rental houses and privately
owned mobile home parks."

The government-issued trailers, brought to help the thousands left
homeless by the storm, came with problems, however.

They were found to have elevated levels of formaldehyde.
Classified as a carcinogen, formaldehyde can cause breathing
problems.

Still, Shirley Acker of Pearlington said her family's FEMA trailer
was a "godsend."

"The FEMA trailers were a blessing, even though we later found out
about the formaldehyde," Acker said. "They were convenient and
comfortable. They were just somewhere to live comfortable until we
got everything back into order ... I had no problem with them. A
lot of people said their eyes were burning, and they didn't know
what was going on. We were able to stay in them until we got our
homes back going or we got new homes."

The formaldehyde in the trailers led to lawsuits from some Katrina
victims and a class-action settlement with manufacturers and some
contractors who installed or maintained the trailers. Twenty-one
FEMA trailer manufacturers agreed to pay a total of $14.8 million
to resolve claims.

Kim King, who lived in a FEMA trailer for over two years in
Waveland, said FEMA asked if she wanted to buy the trailer.

"Two years were enough for me," King said. "I was happy to turn it
back in."

King said living in a FEMA trailer was difficult, but it was
helpful to have one. "I mean the alternative was sleeping out in
the elements."

King said a FEMA trailer needed to be viewed as emergency shelter.
"It was always wild that some people complained as if it was meant
as a long-term means of lodging," she said. "Our trailer had a
full-size toilet, a tub, full refrigerator and was fine for us. As
we lost everything, we had lots of room.

"We did have the wall fall on us one day as they had been built in
a hurry, and we could see where they glued the wall on the frame,"
King said.

"It was very small, but at times I had up to 10 people in there
with us. That's because many of the volunteers who came to help
wanted to say they stayed in an actual FEMA trailer," King said.

King said the trailers were "inspected" monthly, which was really
a joke since no one really "inspected" anything. "Instead they
would just ask for a signature, although one girl told me she knew
that the space shuttle had punched holes in the atmosphere and let
all the heat pour in. She said that is why we had such a bad
storm. She was a FEMA inspector."

In 2009, FEMA began disposing of the trailers brought to
Mississippi with the General Service Administration acting as the
sales agent.

GSA conducted Internet auctions throughout the United States.

The goal was to reduce the size of the inventory and thus
significantly reduce the annual cost of approximately $133 million
being incurred from storing 120,000 excess mobile homes, park
models and travel trailers.

In February 2009 GSA sold several bulk lots of the Katrina units -
- 101,802 units on 11 Internet auctions. The units were sold under
normal sales terms and conditions with the exception that larger
lots had extended removal times.

Over time, the average amount of proceeds per unit decreased from
approximately $2,000 to approximately $1,500 per unit. A portion
of the proceeds were to returned to FEMA to offset the cost of
purchasing and maintaining them.


FENDER: No Encore for Guitar Price-Fixing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Kathrine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit refused to revive a class action accusing
Fender, Gibson and other guitar manufacturers of conspiring to fix
prices.

Consumers flooded courts around the country with such claims after
the Federal Trade Commission settled its investigation into music-
products price-fixing in 2007.

Though the National Association of Music Merchants faced a cease-
and-desist order as part of the consent decree, it never admitted
any wrongdoing and did not even face a fine.

A federal judge in San Diego eventually consolidated the ensuing
consumer complaints, which took aim at five manufacturers, NAMM
and Guitar Center Inc., the largest musical instrument retailer in
the United States.

Joshua Ramsey and the other plaintiffs claimed that, between 2004
and 2009, the defendants conspired to implement and enforce
minimum-advertised-price policies -- which fixed the minimum price
at which any retailer could advertise the manufacturers' guitars
and guitar amplifiers -- as part of a classic "hub-and-spoke"
agreement designed to raise retail prices and restrain
competition.

On, a three-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit found that the case
had properly been dismissed for failure to state a claim.

A "hub-and-spoke" conspiracy involves both vertical agreements
between manufacturers and retailers and horizontal agreements
among competitors.

The role of the "hub" is typically filled by a dominant purchaser,
the "spokes" are competing manufacturers or distributors that
enter into vertical agreements with the hub and the "rim" of the
wheel consists of the horizontal agreements among the spokes.

Consumers painted Guitar Center acted as the hub, pressuring the
manufacturer defendants (the spokes) to adopt the advertising
policies, with the manufacturers' agreements to adopt the policies
forming the rim.

In the panel's 29-page opinion, Judge Carlos Bea wondered where
the NAMM, who allegedly facilitated the agreements, fit into the
"homespun metaphor."

"Might we suggest 'lug nuts'?" he wrote.

Rather than indicating illegal action, the allegations of the
"parallel conduct" might simply show that the defendants responded
similarly to similar market pressures.

"In an interdependent market, companies base their actions in part
on the anticipated reactions of their competitors," he said. "And
because of this mutual awareness, two firms may arrive at
identical decisions independently."

To support their allegations, the plaintiffs identified six "plus
factors" -- such as the manufacturers' simultaneous adoption of
the policies, and a rise in retail prices occurring during falling
demand. Bea said, however, that these factors still indicated
nothing more than similar reactions to similar pressures.

The policies were not adopted all at once, but over a period of
several years, which Bea said "does not raise the specter of
collusion."

Since the consumers alleged rising prices for all guitars, not
just for those manufactured and sold by the defendants, Bea
dismissed those claims as well.

Elizabeth Pritzker, an attorney for the would-be class with
Pritzker Levine in Oakland, Calif., said in an email that she was
"obviously disappointed with the court's decision."

"But the fact that the majority and dissent view the facts of the
case differently suggests to us that this was a very close
decision for the members of the panel," she said.

Judge Harry Pregerson dissented from the majority's opinion,
finding that the plaintiffs alleged a plausible antitrust scheme.

"When truly analyzed together, the six plus factors strongly
suggest that the manufacturer defendants reached an illegal
horizontal agreement," he said.

The rising prices of the guitars despite falling demand was for
Pregerson "perhaps most suggestive of collusion."

He said the majority opinion was based on "numerous assumptions"
about the guitar and guitar-amplifier retail market.

"I simply cannot agree with the majority opinion that the
plaintiffs' inference of an agreement is implausible, especially
when the litigation is at the motion to dismiss stage, not the
summary judgment stage," Pregerson said (italics in opinion).

Addressing Pregerson's dissent, Bea said that the plaintiffs
indeed provided a context for the manufacturers' adoption of the
policies, but not one that plausibly suggests illegal horizontal
agreements.

"Instead, the complaint tells a different story, one in which
Guitar Center used its substantial market power to pressure each
manufacturer to adopt similar policies as in its own interest," he
said.

"Such conduct may be anticompetitive -- and perhaps even violate
antitrust laws -- but it does not suggest the manufacturers
illegally agreed among themselves to restrain competition."

Attorneys for the defendants could not be immediately reached for
comment.


GLOBAL CONTACT: Court Wants Plaintiff to Supplement Response
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ROSS REDDICK, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CONTACT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-425-PK (D. Ore.),
Plaintiff Ross Reddick moved for remand of the matter to the
Multnomah County Court.

Plaintiff Ross Reddick filed a putative class action against
defendant Global Contact Solutions, LLC (GCS), in the Multnomah
County Circuit Court on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated on January 29, 2015. By and through his state-court
complaint, Reddick alleged GCS' liability under Oregon statutory
law for failure to pay wages and for failure to pay all wages due
and owing at the termination of employment, both such failures
arising out of GCS' alleged practice of requiring all of its
employees to attend mandatory training at the beginning of their
employment, without compensation. GCS removed Reddick's action to
the court effective March 13, 2015, on the purposed basis of
original federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA).

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon in the Opinion and Order dated July 21,
2015 available at http://is.gd/dBxGnvfrom Leagle.com, directed
the Plaintiff to supplement his response to the Court's Order to
show cause dated June 1, 2015 and for GCS to optionally supplement
its response to that same Order so that the court could determine
the jurisdiction on Reddick's claims to the fullest evidentiary
record.

Ross Reddick is represented by:

David Arthur Schuck, Esq.
Karen A. Moore, Esq.
Stephanie J. Brown, Esq.
SCHUCK LAW, LLC,
0013 NE Hazel Dell Ave,
Vancouver, WA 98685
Tel: (360)566-9243

Global Contact Solutions, Inc. is represented by Thomas M.
Triplett, Esq. -- ttriplett@schwabe.com -- Amanda T. Gamblin, Esq.
-- agamblin@schwabe.com -- Leora Coleman-Fire, Esq. --
lcoleman-fire@schwabe.com -- SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC


GOLDMAN SACHS: Fraud Suit Over 2008 Mortgage Meltdown to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that The
Appellate Division, First Department, cleared the way on Aug. 18
for a $120 million suit charging Goldman Sachs and hedge fund
giant Paulson & Co. with fraud in connection with the 2008
mortgage meltdown.

The unanimous panel held that ACA Financial Guaranty had
"adequately pleaded all of the requisite elements comprising a
fraud claim."  ACA's losses had derived from a guarantee it issued
to one of Goldman's mortgage-backed bond funds.

The First Department previously had been reversed in the case, ACA
Financial Guaranty Corp. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 650027/11, when
a divided Court of Appeals, in a May 7 ruling, found ACA had shown
"justifiable reliance" on Goldman's representations.  The Court of
Appeals remitted the case to the panel of Justices David Friedman,
Dianne Renwick, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels and Darcel Clark to decide
issues not addressed in its earlier ruling.

The case arose out of the ABACUS fund deal Goldman had marketed in
2006, which created a basket of mortgage-backed bonds in which its
clients could invest.  The fund was sponsored by Paulson & Co.

ACA alleged that Paulson secretly "shorted" the ABACUS fund,
betting that it would decline in value.  By influencing the bonds
that made up the fund, ACA alleged Paulson, run by billionaire
John Paulson, selected mortgages most likely to default for the
fund, insuring it would suffer losses.

ACA alleges Paulson was a large client of Goldman's and thus
Goldman had an incentive to mislead ACA.

The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Goldman -- the
nation's 76th largest company, with $40 billion a year in
revenues -- with civil fraud in the ABACUS case, and in 2010
collected a $550 million fine, the largest settlement in its
history.

The SEC also charged the Goldman employee who managed the deal,
Fabrice Tourre, with fraud.  He declined to settle; last year he
was found liable by a Manhattan jury and ordered to pay a $825,000
fine.

Investors in ABACUS lost about $1 billion, the SEC said, and
Paulson made about the same amount.  Paulson & Co., which manages
about $20 billion, was not charged by the SEC in the case.

ACA paid investors $120 million under its guarantee and became
insolvent as a result, its suit alleges.

Goldman sought to have the suit dismissed by claiming ACA was a
sophisticated financial institution which had an independent
relationship with Paulson and could have inquired as to his hedge
fund's intentions with respect to ABACUS.

In a 2012 ruling, Justice Barbara Kapnick, sitting at the time as
a Commercial Division judge, rejected Goldman's argument, saying
ACA had alleged facts sufficient for a jury to conclude that
Goldman had "intentionally misled ACA from its silence in the face
of ACA's manifest detrimental reliance on its mistaken belief that
Paulson was on the same side of the transaction as it was."

The earlier 3-2 First Department decision overruled
Justice Kapnick, since elevated to the First Department bench,
holding that "a fraud claim is barred where a sophisticated and
well-counseled entity fails to include an appropriate prophylactic
provision in the agreement governing the transaction from which
the legal dispute arises to ensure against the possibility of
misrepresentation."

A divided Court of Appeals rejected that logic in its 5-2 ruling,
saying ACA, by alleging it had been mislead by Mr. Tourre into
believing that Paulson was investing in a portion of the ABACUS
deal that would absorb the first losses, was absolved of any
obligation to have required a "prophylactic provision" in the deal
documents assuring ACA that Paulson was indeed "long" on the deal.

The Court of Appeals dissenters argued that ACA, as a
sophisticated entity, had an obligation to conduct due diligence
that would have exposed the truth of Paulson's role.

The case is before Commercial Division Justice Saliann Scarpulla.
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Theodore Edelman heads the team
representing Goldman.  He did not respond to an email requesting
comment.  A spokesman for Goldman declined to comment.

ACA is represented by Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman partner
Marc Kasowitz.  "We and ACA are pleased that the case will now
move forward," Mr. Kasowitz said.


HANOVER INSURANCE: Awaits Court's Decision in Durand Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral
argument on the appeal in the Durand Litigation took place on June
11, 2015 and the Company awaits the Court's decision.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff
claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of
similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional
so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an
estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum
distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the Company and the
Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the
additional claims set forth in (a) and (b), however, in response
to a motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed the new breach
of fiduciary duty claim to stand, but only as to plaintiffs'
"whipsaw" claim that remained in the case.

On June 22, 2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Partial Motion
for Summary Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw" claim of one of the
named plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after
December 31, 2003.

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice
the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the
putative class members he sought to represent.

On December 17, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying a
class to bring "whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty
claims consisting of all persons who received a lump sum
distribution between March 1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a
subclass to bring such claims consisting of all persons who
received lump sum distributions between March 1, 1997 and March
12, 2002.

On December 17, 2013, the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion
for entry of a final order allowing an immediate appeal by the two
named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed
claims that the 2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation
of ERISA, and for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum
distribution should have been greater.

On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable
or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims
remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on
April 30, 2014.

The appeal of the dismissal of the claims of the two named
plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint was filed on May 30,
2014. Oral argument on the appeal took place on June 11, 2015 and
the Company awaits the Court's decision. The Company filed a
Summary Judgment motion to dismiss another class of plaintiffs
that were added with the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs have
objected to this motion pending the outcome of the appeal.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Metalworkers' 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. (Hertz), Mark P. Frissora,
and Elyse Douglas to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the
SAC) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the
case captioned, In re HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 13-7050 (D.N.J.).

Lead Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers' Local No. 80 Pension Trust
Fund brought a putative securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of Hertz common stock between May 8, 2013, and
September 25, 2013 (the Class Period), alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) as a result of various claimed
misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants during the class
period. During the Class Period, Defendant Mark P. Frissora served
as Hertz's CEO and Chairman and Defendant Elyse Douglas served as
Hertz's Senior Executive Vice President and CFO.

Defendants made four arguments for dismissal of Plaintiff's Sec.
10(b) claim:

     (1) the SAC did not comply with the PSLRA's pleading
requirements;

     (2) Plaintiff failed to plead any actionable statements;

     (3) Plaintiff did not adequately plead scienter; and

     (4) Plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation.

District Judge Madeline Cox Arled of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated July 22,
2015 available at http://is.gd/TmzJ10from Leagle.com, granted,
without prejudice, Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint (the SAC) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) finding that Plaintiff failed to state a claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLP

Defendants are represented by Kevin Harry Marino, Esq. --
kmarino@khmarino.com & John D. Tortorella, Esq. --
jtortorella@khmarino.com -- MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Calif. Court Rules in "Rutledge" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ED RUTLEDGE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent; BIZCOM
ELECTRONICS, INC., Objector and Respondent, Case No. H036790 (Cal.
App. Ct.), Plaintiffs I Braun Degenshein (Degenshein), and Susanna
Giuliano-Ghahramani (Giuliano-Ghahramani) -- both of whom were
representative plaintiffs of a class of California residents who
purchased certain HP notebook computers -- filed a putative class
action against HP for alleged claims against HP for violation of
the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), unjust enrichment and breach of express
warranty. After years of litigation, the trial court ultimately
made a "no merits" determination as to the CLRA claim, and granted
HP's motion for summary judgment as to appellants' remaining
claims.

On appeal, Plaintiffs challenged seven trial court orders: two
summary adjudication orders related to two different class
representatives and the class itself, two class certification
orders related to denial of a nationwide class and the denial of
certification of the CLRA claim, and three discovery sanctions
orders.

Presiding Judge Rushing of the Court of Appeals of California,
Sixth District in the Order dated July 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/lGCCiafrom Leagle.com, reversed summary adjudication
of the UCL claims in favor of HP, the no merits determination as
to the CLRA claims in favor of HP, summary adjudication of the
breach of express warranty claim of Giuliano-Ghahramani and the
class in favor of HP and the order denying certification of a
nationwide class, affirmed the summary adjudication of the breach
of express warranty claim of Degenshein in favor of HP, the order
denying certification of the CLRA claims, the order imposing
monetary sanctions against appellants and the order denying
evidentiary sanctions against HP.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Robert S. Green, Esq.
GREEN & NOBLIN,
700 Larkspur Landing Cir,
Larkspur, CA 94939
Tel: (415)477-6700;

     - and -

C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.
KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF
401 Watt Ave #1,
Sacramento, CA 95864
Tel: (916)448-9800

Defendant is represented by Michael J. Stortz, Esq. --
Michael.Stortz@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, Daniel J.
Bergeson, Esq. & John W. Fowler, Esq. -- barnese@professionals-
law.com -- BETH O'NEAL ARNESE, BERGESON


ILLINOIS MINE: Settles Coal Mine Subsidence Insurance Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record reported that state officials who insure properties
at risk of subsiding into coal mines settled a class action over
premiums after Darrell Cates, spouse of appellate judge Judy
Cates, withdrew as lead plaintiff.

The Illinois Mine Insurance Subsidence Fund resolved the dispute
in July, after Cates's lawyers found substitute plaintiffs.

Settlement documents gave credit to former St. Clair County
circuit judge Lloyd Cueto for successful mediation. Cueto retired
in 2012 and works in private practice and as a mediator for
Aequitas Alternative Dispute Resolution in St. Louis.

The documents didn't disclose the amount the Fund will pay, but a
provision awarding $43,300 in legal fees and costs signaled a
slender recovery.

Proceedings will continue against Fireman's Fund, which retained
20 percent of premiums on policies it sold to property owners
eligible for the state fund.

Lawyer David Cates, son of Judy and Darrell Cates, filed the suit
in 2013.

He claimed his father paid worthless premiums, because a
subsidence event in progress at his home disqualified him from
receiving further insurance proceeds.

David Cates withdrew from the action, turning it over to Eric
Holland and Seth Crompton of St. Louis.

Joseph Martineau of St. Louis, representing the Fund, reported a
settlement to associate judge Randall Kelley in June.

Holland and Crompton amended the complaint in July, replacing
Cates with Connie and Donald Bergmann of Fairview Heights.

Holland and Crompton wrote, "Plaintiffs were unaware that they
could avoid paying the mine subsidence insurance premiums until
they heard about this lawsuit and a similar lawsuit involving mine
subsidence insurance premiums and began to investigate their
rights."

The lawyers wrote that the Illinois Mine Subsidence Act requires
insurers to offer subsidence coverage in 34 counties.

The Act created the fund to reinsure policies of primary carriers;
a board of six insurance industry representatives, four public
members and one provider run the fund.

"Thus, the insurance industry representatives control the day to
day management and operations of the IMSIF, including the
establishment of rates, premiums, deductibles, and retentions,"
Holland and Crompton wrote.

They wrote that under the Act, all damage caused by an event or
continuous events is treated as one occurrence.

"Only once the mine subsidence has completely stopped is there
insurance again available," they wrote.

They wrote that no one told the Bergmanns they didn't need to pay
premiums.

They further wrote that annual policy renewals contained the
subsidence coverage.

A day later the Bergmanns and the Fund jointly submitted a
settlement agreement and asked Kelley for preliminary approval.

It would provide $366 for those who paid premiums during
subsidence events from 2003 to 2008, and $155 for those who paid
from 2008 to 2014.

Policyholders who receive notice and file claims would need no
proof of loss, unless they exercise an option to claim greater
damage.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Loses Bid to Overturn $4-Mil. Topamax Verdict
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the state Superior Court has denied Janssen Pharmaceuticals' bid
to overturn a $4 million verdict stemming from claims that its
anti-seizure drug Topamax caused birth defects.

A split three-judge panel of the court on Aug. 20 affirmed the
October 2013 verdict in Czimmer v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals.  The
decision interpreted Virginia law, rejected Janssen's claims that
federal law pre-empted state law, and determined that minors have
an independent right to recover medical expenses incurred before
turning 18, as long as the parents do not try to duplicate the
claim.

Although Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy, who wrote the majority
opinion, noted the state Supreme Court has not explicitly decided
whether a minor can recover medical expenses before turning 18,
she said the high court has expressed its doubts about the
validity of the doctrine against minors recovering the expenses.

"We cannot discern any reason to allow a tortfeasor to avoid
penalty based on the failure of the minor's parents to bring a
timely action," Judge Mundy said.  "This is an unwarranted
windfall in favor of a responsible tortfeasor due to a victim's
age.  Therefore, the trial court did not err in declaring that
Blake [Czimmer] was not time-barred from independently recovering
his pre-majority medical expenses."

Senior Judge William H. Platt issued a dissenting opinion, stating
he would have reversed the award because a causation question on
the verdict sheet failed to comply with Virginia law.

Janssen argued the trial court had applied a "substantial factor"
standard of causation despite the fact the Virginia Supreme Court
had rejected that standard as against state law.

Judge Platt said the trial court had equated the term "substantial
factor" with "factual cause" and used them interchangeably, and
therefore the only causation question the jury was asked went
against Virginia law, which the parties had agreed to apply.

"I would conclude that the trial court's charge as a whole was
inadequate and had a tendency to mislead or confuse rather than
clarify a material issue," Judge Platt said.

However, Judge Mundy said Janssen's argument had asked the court
to view the term "substantial factor" on the verdict sheet in
isolation.  When viewed with the rest of the court's instructions,
the phrase complied with Virginia law, Judge Mundy said.

"Even though the charge contained the words 'substantial factor,'
it adequately defined causation such that the jury would not
misconstrue the burden of proof," Judge Mundy said.

According to Judge Mundy, plaintiff April Czimmer had a history of
migraine headaches, and in 2006 she was prescribed Topamax.  She
continued taking the drug, which was categorized by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration as a pregnancy C drug, until February
2007.

In December 2006, Ms. Czimmer became pregnant with her son, Blake
Czimmer, who was born with a severe cleft lip and cleft palate
with a hole above his lip, Mundy said.  Since birth, he underwent
several surgeries, and was expected to undergo numerous surgeries,
including a jaw resection and bone graft, at the time of maturity.

April Czimmer sued Janssen in April 2011, alleging the company
failed to warn her about the risks of birth defects when taking
the drug.  A jury in October 2013 awarded Ms. Czimmer more than $4
million, including $3.4 million for non-economic pain and
suffering and $562,000 for future health care costs.

On appeal, Janssen contended the jury sheet violated Virginia law,
the future medical costs should have been barred, federal law
pre-empted Czimmer's state law negligent failure-to-warn claim,
and a key witness's testimony did not support the jury's causation
finding.

According to Judge Mundy, Janssen had argued the testimony of
Lisa Basye, the physician's assistant who had prescribed the drug
to Ms. Czimmer, failed to show that Ms. Basye would not have
prescribed the drug if Janssen had provided different labeling.
The company also argued the trial court should not have excluded
some evidence for impeaching Ms. Basye.

Mundy reviewed the testimony and said that, in the light most
favorable to Ms. Czimmer, the testimony was sufficient.

Regarding the pre-emption issue, Janssen contended it could not
have provided the proposed warning about potential birth defects
without approval from the FDA, and there was clear evidence that
the FDA would not have approved such a warning, Judge Mundy said.

However, similar claims were recently rejected by the Superior
Court in its March decision in Gurley v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals.
In that case, a three-judge panel, led by Platt, upheld an $11
million verdict against Janssen over similar Topamax-related
claims.

Both Scott A. Love of Clark, Love & Hutson in Houston, who
represented Ms. Czimmer, and Drinker Biddle & Reath attorney
Kenneth A. Murphy -- Kenneth.Murphy@dbr.com -- who represented
Janssen, did not return a call seeking comment.


KEN PAXTON: Texas AG Pleads Not Guilty to Securities Fraud Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Weber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Texas' attorney general, Ken Paxton, pleaded not guilty to
securities fraud charges on Aug. 27 during a hearing in which he
asked the judge to bar cameras from future proceedings and his
high-powered lawyer resigned.

Texas' top law enforcement officer, who says he will not resign
from the office he assumed in January, didn't comment as he left
the Fort Worth courthouse with his wife after the hearing.  Tea
party activists who came in support called Mr. Paxton the victim
of political conspiracy, while Democrats accused him of demanding
special treatment.

Mr. Paxton is charged with two counts of securities fraud over
allegations that he deceived investors in a tech startup that
compensated him for reeling in new shareholders.  The alleged
deception happened in 2011, when Mr. Paxton was a state
legislator, and a fellow Republican legislator is among those he
is accused of deceiving.

Mr. Paxton's attorney, former federal judge Joe Kendall,
unexpectedly announced during the hearing that he would no longer
represent Mr. Paxton.  In a motion filed with the court, Judge
Kendall wrote that recent differences had "adversely" impacted his
relationship with Mr. Paxton and made any continued work
"untenable."

When Mr. Paxton began to explain from his seat his attorney
situation, Judge George Gallagher interrupted Texas' top lawyer.

"You need to stand, please," Judge Gallagher said.

Mr. Paxton said he intends to have a new attorney this week.  Two
special prosecutors appointed to the case did not object, but one
noted that Paxton has now gone through three attorneys in three
months and that he was wary of possible stall tactics.

"This case has to be tried at some point," said Kent Schaffer, a
Houston attorney and one of the special prosecutors.

Mr. Paxton seldom spoke in court, but he had Judge Kendall tell
the judge he would fight any effort to move the case out of Collin
County, where he is from, and ask that no cameras be allowed at
future proceedings.  Judge Gallagher, who allowed a TV station to
broadcast the Aug. 27 hearing live, reminded Paxton that he, the
judge, would decide whether to allow cameras.

When Mr. Paxton was booked on the charges earlier in August, he
was allowed to skirt a longstanding jail requirement that suspects
wear a white towel around their shoulders in booking photos.
Critics said this amounted to special treatment.

"He continues to operate that Ken Paxton has rules for himself,
but everyone else has to operate under a different set of rules,"
Texas Democratic Party Director Manny Garcia said.

Gov. Greg Abbott and other top Texas Republicans haven't publicly
rallied behind Paxton, though one GOP state lawmaker was in court
to watch the proceedings.

Mr. Paxton is one of two state attorneys general in the U.S. who
are staying in office while fighting criminal charges.
Pennsylvania Democrat Kathleen Kane is accused of leaking grand
jury information.


KHORAMI LLP: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Illegal Fee-Sharing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
a Manhattan judge has refused to dismiss a litigation financing
company's suit against a California law firm that defaulted on a
credit agreement, rejecting the firm's claim that the arrangement
amounted to illegal fee-sharing.

Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich on Aug. 18 found
that public policy supports the kind of litigation financing
agreement at issue in the case.

"Permitting investors to fund firms by lending money secured by
the firm's accounts receivable helps provide victims their day in
court.  This laudable goal would be undermined if the credit
agreement were held to be unenforceable.  The court will not do
so," Justice Kornreich said in Hamilton v. Khorrami, 650791/2015.

Hamilton Capital VII, a hedge fund that provides litigation
financing to law firms that handle plaintiffs tort cases on a
contingency basis, entered into a credit agreement with Khorrami
LLP, a Los Angeles-based firm headed by Shawn Khorrami.

Khorrami LLP's website boasts it is one of California's most
successful plaintiffs firms, with more than $2.5 billion in
verdicts and settlements recovered for clients.  But the firm is
now facing a substantial number of creditor claims, and
Justice Kornreich said in May that "the firm is deteriorating as
we speak."

Under a 2009 credit agreement, Hamilton established a $6 million
revolving credit facility to help fund mr. Khorrami's operations.

Khorrami LLP agreed to pay interest of 25 percent each year of the
outstanding principal amount plus an additional interest payment
calculated as a percentage of the firm's gross revenue, according
to Hamilton's court papers.  This latter part was capped at 10
percent of gross revenue over three years or 10 percent of $100
million, whichever would be greater.

The transaction documents were amended several times to increase
the credit facility and extend the maturity date.

The law firm defaulted by failing to pay the balance by the
maturity date and the parties attempted to resolve the matter by
negotiating payment plans.

In August 2014, Mr. Khorrami, as managing partner, executed an
affidavit of confession of judgment, acknowledging that the firm
was indebted to Hamilton by about $8.5 million, including about $2
million in interest.  The parties attempted to work out a
settlement but negotiations broke down in February 2015.

The following month, Hamilton sued the law firm and Mr. Khorrami,
claiming breach of the transaction document, unjust enrichment and
sought an injunction for the appointment of a receiver, among
other claims.

In June, Justice Kornreich appointed solo practitioner Sylvia
Elizabeth Di Pietro as temporary receiver to the firm's
outstanding fees.

Mr. Khorrami and his firm moved to dismiss the suit, claiming the
portion of the credit agreement requiring the firm to share fees
is unenforceable because it is a prohibited fee-sharing agreement
between a law firm and a non-lawyers. Under the New York Rules of
Professional Conduct, a lawyer or law firm shall not share legal
fees with a nonlawyer.

"Defendants are wrong," Justice Kornreich wrote, noting this was
not an issue of first impression.

She agreed with the decision of Justice Eileen Bransten, who ruled
in Lawsuit Funding, LLC v Lessoff, 2013 WL 6409971, that the
litigation financing agreement in that case did not violate the
New York ethical rules.

While it is well settled that actual fee-sharing agreements are
illegal, Justice Kornreich said, case law cited by the defendants
does not support the proposition that a credit facility secured by
a law firm's accounts receivable constitutes impermissible fee
sharing.

Instead, Justice Kornreich said, courts have expressly permitted
law firms to fund themselves in this manner.

"Modern litigation is expensive, and deep pocketed wrongdoers can
deter lawsuits from being filed if a plaintiff has no means of
financing her or his case," she wrote.

But, the judge added, "providing law firms access to investment
capital where the investors are effectively betting on the success
of the firm promotes the sound public policy of making justice
accessible to all, regardless of wealth."

Addressing Mr. Khorrami's arguments that the credit agreement is
also unenforceable because it violates California's usury laws,
Justice Kornreich noted the contracts at issue contain a New York
choice of law clause.

Justice Kornreich said the New York General Obligation Law and
case law preclude courts from questioning a validly agreed-to
choice of law clause.  "The court must apply New York law,
including New York's usury laws," she said, and the firm "is not
entitled to dismissal based on California law."

Hamilton's lawyer, Steven Shore, partner at Ganfer & Shore, said
the case is significant "because the judge recognizes the
importance of providing this kind of financing" to level the
playing field for plaintiffs in tort cases.

Morelli Ratner partner David Ratner and associate Perry Fallick,
who are counsel to Mr. Khorrami and his firm, declined to comment.
They have moved to withdraw from the case, citing nonpayment of
attorneys fees.

Mr. Khorrami's Los Angeles counsel, Nicholas Tepper of the Tepper
Law Firm, declined to comment on the status of his client's firm,
but said Mr. Khorrami is "confident in the judicial process and
that his position in the end will win out."


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Jansky" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
motion for class certification was denied in the case filed by
Yvonne Jansky.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that
the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices,
and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes
to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting
in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages,
as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. In
June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for class certification was denied.
The Company will vigorously defend the remaining claims in the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in Sandusky Wellness Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in the case, Sandusky
Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
million for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA,
and injunctive relief. In September 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for
class certification was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's
Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining individual claim was
granted. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Court to Set Final Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in
the cases filed by Christine Bohlander and Jemuel Andres, the
Court will schedule a final settlement hearing following closure
of the settlement notice period.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit and
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. In the consolidated lawsuit, the
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists
and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to
provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of
the California Labor Code.

On May 28, 2015, the District Court issued a preliminary approval
of the class action settlement and notice of the settlement has
been sent to putative class members. The Court will schedule a
final settlement hearing following closure of the settlement
notice period.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Vigorously Defend Varsam Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the Varsam lawsuit.

The Company was a defendant in two additional putative class
action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres
consolidated lawsuit.

The lawsuit of Rachel Rabanes v. California Laboratory Sciences,
LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles, and the lawsuit Rita
Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA LabCorp, was filed
in June 2014 in the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Diego. As a result of the Andres settlement, the Plaintiff in
the Rabanes case dismissed her case.

The Plaintiff in the Varsam case alleges on behalf of similarly
situated employees that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed
to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of
the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks monetary damages,
civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
The Company will vigorously defend this lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Will Vigorously Defend "Legg" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit filed by Christopher W.
Legg, et al.

On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that
the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration
date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt.
The lawsuit seeks damages of not less than $0.0001 million but not
more than $0.01 million per violation, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Deal in LipoScience Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
settlement in a class action case related to the acquisition of
LipoScience remains pending.

Prior to the consummation of the Company's acquisition of
LipoScience, Inc., purported stockholders of LipoScience filed
four putative class action lawsuits against LipoScience, members
of the LipoScience board of directors, the Company and Bear
Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery and, with respect to one of the
lawsuits, in the Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina.
The lawsuits alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other
violations of state law arising out of the proposed acquisition.
Each suit sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the merger.

On October 23, 2014, the case in North Carolina was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. On October 29, 2014,
the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated the four actions under
the caption In re LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10252-VCP (the "Consolidated Action").

On November 7, 2014, the Consolidated Action plaintiffs entered
into a memorandum of understanding with the defendants regarding a
settlement of the Consolidated Action. In connection with the
settlement, the parties agreed that LipoScience would make certain
additional disclosures to its stockholders. Subject to the
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel, entry by
the parties into a stipulation of settlement and customary
conditions, including court approval, the settlement will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought, including
all claims relating to the merger.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
report.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: To Settle Suit Over Covance Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Plaintiffs in the Delaware class action case related to the
acquisition of Covance entered into a memorandum of understanding
with the Defendants regarding a settlement.

On November 19, 2014, the Company entered into a definitive merger
agreement to acquire Covance for $6,150.7 million in cash and
Company common stock. The transaction closed on February 19, 2015.
Prior to the closing of the transaction, purported stockholders of
Covance filed two putative class action lawsuits. One of the
lawsuits, captioned Berk v. Covance Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10440-
VCL, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on December 9,
2014. The other lawsuit, captioned Ojeda v. Herring et al., No.
MER-C-92-14, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Mercer County, New Jersey, on November 12,
2014.

Both suits named as defendants Covance, members of the Covance
board of directors, the Company and Neon Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was merged out of
existence in connection with the Acquisition. The lawsuits alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law
arising out of the proposed acquisition. Each suit sought, among
other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger.

On January 21, 2015, the case in New Jersey was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. On February 9, 2015,
the Plaintiffs in the Delaware case entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the Defendants regarding a settlement.

In connection with the settlement, the parties agreed that Covance
would make additional disclosures to its stockholders. Subject to
the entry by the parties into a stipulation of settlement and
customary conditions, including court approval, the settlement
will resolve all the claims that were or could have been brought,
including all claims relating to the merger.


LIFELOCK INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP, a national class action, shareholder rights law firm
with offices in New York and Los Angeles, announces an
investigation of Lifelock, Inc..  The investigation focuses on
possible breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of federal
securities laws by the Board of Directors of LOCK.

On July 21, 2015, the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC")
announced that would be taking action against LOCK for failing to
comply with a 2010 Order barring the Company from making any
further deceptive advertising claims and requiring LOCK to take
more rigorous measures to safeguard customers's personal
information.  On this news, shares of the Company fell nearly 50%
from $16.06 to $8.15. A complaint has filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona alleging that the
Company and its Board of Directors: (1) made false and/or
misleading statements; (2) failed to establish and maintain a
comprehensive security program to protect its customers's personal
information, as required by the 2010 Order issued by the FTC; (3)
failed to meet the recordkeeping requirements established by the
2010 Order issued by the FTC; and (4) continued to engage in
deceptive advertising practices barred by the 2010 Order issued by
the FTC.  As a result, LOCK shares traded at an artificially
inflated price.

The deadline for shareholders having significant realized or
unrealized losses to serve as lead plaintiff is September 21,
2015.  These shareholders are encouraged to contact WeissLaw LLP
for more information about their rights or to share information.
Please contact Joshua Rubin by telephone at (888) 593-4771 or by
email at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.  We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients and obtained important corporate governance relief in many
of these cases.  If you have information or would like legal
advice concerning possible corporate wrongdoing (including insider
trading, waste of corporate assets, accounting fraud, or
materially misleading information), consumer fraud (including
false advertising, defective products, or other deceptive business
practices), or anti-trust violations, please email us at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com or fill out the form on our website,
http://www.weisslawllp.com/contact/report_fraud/

Joseph Weiss, Esq.
WeissLaw LLP
1500 Broadway, New York, NY 1003
T: 212.682.3025
F: 212.682.3010
Toll Free: 1.888.593.4771
infony@weisslurie.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Jury Trial to Begin in BB&T Negligence Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Law.com, reports that it's halftime in
Miami federal court for six current and former NFL players suing
BB&T for negligence.

A jury trial was set to begin on Sept. 1 for three players before
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom in Miami following a four-day bench
trial that ended on Aug. 28.

Retirees Ray Lewis, Clinton Portis and Derrick Gaffney are seeking
millions of dollars in the jury trial.

Free agent Santana Moss and retirees Fred Taylor and Lito Sheppard
presented their claims in the bench trial.

Bloom said she would deliver her verdict at the end of the jury
trial.

The players allege BB&T should be held liable for nearly $53
million in unauthorized transfers from their accounts made by
their former financial adviser, Fort Lauderdale-based Pro Sports
Financial Inc.

Sixteen current and former players sued Winston-Salem, North
Carolina-based BB&T in October 2013.  Many have settled their
claims.

BB&T is represented by a team of lawyers from GrayRobinson's Tampa
office led by David Hendrix -- david.hendrix@gray-robinson.com

The players are represented by Matthew Brenner --
matt.brenner@lowndes-law.com -- Jim Toscano --
jim.toscano@lowndes-law.com -- and Ronald Edwards Jr. --
ronny.edwards@lowndes-law.com -- of Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster,
Kantor & Reed in Orlando and Elizabeth Kagan of the Kagan Law Firm
in Fort Myers.


OUTERWALL INC: Defends Class Action Against Redbox Subsidiary
-------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend vigorously in a class action complaint against the Redbox
subsidiary.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair
County, Illinois. The plaintiff alleged that, among other things,
Redbox charges consumers illegal and excessive late fees in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois
Rental Purchase Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract
Renewal Act and the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and
other relief.

In November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the
District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

In May 2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint.

In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class certification, and
Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court denied Redbox's
motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The plaintiff filed
an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an amended motion for
class certification on June 5, 2012.

The court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The amended class certification motion was briefed and argued.

At the hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class
certification, the plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is
pursuing only her claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase
Agreement Act and the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act.

On May 21, 2013, the court denied plaintiff's amended class action
motion. On January 29, 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court denied
plaintiff's petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial
of class certification. Redbox has moved to dismiss all remaining
claims on mootness grounds, and the Court granted Redbox's motion
on December 11, 2014. The plaintiffs appealed on January 7, 2015.

"We believe that the claims against us are without merit and
intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this matter. Currently,
no accrual has been established as it was not possible to estimate
the possible loss or range of loss because this matter had not
advanced to a stage where we could make any such estimate," the
Company said.


PANASONIC CORP: Faces Class Action Over Resistor Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers
with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy are going after the makers of yet
another tiny and ubiquitous electrical component for alleged price
fixing.

On Aug. 20 the firm hit a handful of global manufacturers,
including Panasonic Corp., with a class action accusing them of
fixing the prices of linear resistors.  The components, which
regulate electrical current, are found by the hundreds in almost
all electronics.

"Defendants -- the worlds' largest manufacturers of linear
resistors -- along with other co-conspirators (yet unknown)
agreed, combined and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain or
artificially stabilize prices of linear resistors sold in the
United States," the plaintiffs lawyers wrote in a complaint filed
in the Northern District of California.

As a result, purchasers paid artificially inflated prices,
according to the complaint.

The complaint targets six companies and their subsidiaries:
Panasonic, KOA Corp., Murata Manufacturing Co., ROHM Co., Vishay
Intertechnology Inc. and Yageo Corp.

The Cotchett team argues the defendants collectively controlled
the vast majority of the U.S. and global resistor market.  The
manufacturers fixed resistor prices by restricting product supply,
discussing confidential business information, coordinating prices
for specific customers and products, and concocting mechanisms to
nullify competitive sales processes, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs lawyers, led by Cotchett partners Joseph Cotchett
and Steven Williams, seek to represent a class of indirect
purchasers who bought the parts individually from distributors,
who in turn bought them from the defendants.

Cotchett and Williams also are leading litigation on behalf of
indirect purchasers of electrolytic capacitors -- electricity-
storing components found in most electronic devices.

The two cases are related.  The Department of Justice began
investigating the resistor industry in June as an offshoot of its
probe into the capacitor industry, according to the complaint, and
the two initiatives target many of the same companies.  For
example, Panasonic cooperated with the DOJ capacitors
investigation, the lawyers wrote, and the company is believed to
be cooperating with the resistors probe as well.


PIZZA HUT: Former Delivery Drivers File Suit Over Fees
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two former Pizza Hut delivery
drivers are suing the company, claiming its delivery fees on
orders illegally cut into their tips.

The Daily Gazette of Schenectady reports the lawsuit filed in
Albany federal court says the pizza chain violates New York labor
laws by keeping delivery fees as a profit.  The suit alleges that
Pizza Hut's mandatory delivery fees give customers the impression
they are part of the tip, but drivers receive no portion of it.

William Lewis worked as a delivery driver for a Pizza Hut in
Schenectady from 2005 to 2012.

Attorneys for Lewis and Syracuse resident Samantha Crawford are
seeking a class-action lawsuit that would consider all the
company's delivery drivers.

A message left on Aug. 24 at the company's Plano, Texas,
headquarters seeking comment wasn't returned.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Brazil Case Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
appeal related to the class action lawsuit filed by The Smoker
Health Defense Association in Brazil is still pending.

The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable without
hearing evidence. The court did not assess actual damages, which
were to be assessed in a second phase of the case. The size of the
class was not defined in the ruling.

In April 2004, the court clarified its ruling, awarding "moral
damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $340) per smoker per full year
of smoking plus interest at the rate of 1% per month, as of the
date of the ruling. The court did not award actual damages, which
were to be assessed in the second phase of the case. The size of
the class was not estimated. Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo
Court of Appeals, which annulled the ruling in November 2008,
finding that the trial court had inappropriately ruled without
hearing evidence and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.

In May 2011, the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff
appealed the decision. In February 2015, the appellate court
unanimously dismissed plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff may further
appeal. In addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal
to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff
did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still
pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Appeals Court Granted Motion to Cancel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
Cecilia Letourneau class action lawsuit, a Court of Appeal in
Canada granted the motion to cancel and overturned a trial court's
ruling that the Company's subsidiary make an initial payment
within 60 days.

On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal,
Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Cecilia Letourneau class
on liability and awarded a total of CAD 131 million (approximately
$100.5 million) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 46 million
(approximately $35.3 million) to the Company's subsidiary. The
trial court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage
award into a trust within 60 days. The trial court found that a
claims process to allocate the awarded damages to individual class
members would be too expensive and difficult to administer. The
trial court ordered a briefing on the proposed process for the
distribution of sums remaining from the punitive damage award
after payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs.

On June 26, 2015, the Company's subsidiary commenced the appellate
process by filing its inscription in appeal of the trial court's
judgment with the Court of Appeal of Quebec.

"Our subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's
order for payment of CAD 46 million (approximately $35.3 million)
into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. On July 23,
the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned
the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make an initial
payment within 60 days," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Ruling in Conseil Quebecois Case Overturned
----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
class action lawsuit filed by Conseil Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La
Sante and Jean-Yves Blais, a Court of Appeal granted the motion to
cancel and overturned the trial court's ruling that the Company's
subsidiary make an initial payment within 60 days.

On May 27, 2015, the Superior Court of the District of Montreal,
Province of Quebec ruled in favor of the Blais class on liability
and found the class members' compensatory damages totaled
approximately CAD 15.5 billion (approximately $11.9 billion),
including pre-judgment interest.

According to the Company, "The trial court awarded compensatory
damages on a joint and several liability basis, allocating 20% to
our subsidiary (approximately CAD 3.1 billion including pre-
judgment interest (approximately $2.38 billion)). The trial court
awarded CAD 90,000 (approximately $69,000) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 30,000 (approximately $23,000) to our subsidiary.
The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately $770 million) of the compensatory damage award into
a trust within 60 days, CAD $200 million (approximately $154
million) of which is our subsidiary's portion, and the full
punitive damage award into a trust within 60 days, CAD 30,000
(approximately $23,000) of which is our subsidiary's portion. The
trial court ordered a briefing on a proposed claims process for
the distribution of damages to individual class members and for
payment of attorneys' fees and legal costs."

"On June 26, 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process
by filing its inscription in appeal of the trial court's judgment
with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a
motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment of
approximately CAD 200 million (approximately $154 million) into a
trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. On July 23, the Court
of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial
court's ruling that our subsidiary make an initial payment within
60 days."


PHILIP MORRIS: 11 Smoking & Health Cases Open in Brazil, Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that 11 cases
brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs in Brazil
(2) and Canada (9) are pending.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class
of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in
these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in
these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory
and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses
raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a
claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the
risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.

The Company said, "As of July 29, 2015, there were a number of
smoking and health cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or
indemnitees, as follows:

* 65 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina (26),
Brazil (22), Canada (2), Chile (7), Costa Rica (2), Greece (1),
Italy (2), Morocco (1), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1),
compared with 63 such cases on July 30, 2014, and 63 cases on
August 1, 2013; and

* 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual plaintiffs
in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such cases on July
30, 2014 and 11 such cases on August 1, 2013.


PHILIP MORRIS: Preliminary Motions Pending in "Adams" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
preliminary motions are pending in the class action pending in
Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.,
The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009.

The Company, its subsidiaries, and its indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Preliminary motions are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity Anticipated in "Semple" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that no
activity in the "Semple" case is anticipated while plaintiff's
counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

The Company said, "In the class action pending in Canada, Semple
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme
Court (trial court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we,
our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to tobacco products
and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents and family
members, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of
government health care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products.
No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan."


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity Anticipated in "Dorion" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that no
activity in the "Dorion" case is anticipated while plaintiff's
counsel pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

The Company said, "In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion
v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's
Bench, Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, our subsidiaries,
and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
bronchitis and severe sinus infections resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products. To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees have not been properly served with the complaint. No
activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan."


PHILIP MORRIS: "McDermid" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
class action pending in Canada, McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, "we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees
(PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the
use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
were alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed."

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Bourassa" Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that "In the
class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada,
filed June 25, 2010, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees (PM
USA and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December
2014, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim."

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Jacklin" Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that "In the
class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, filed June 20, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use
of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
he does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future."


PHILIP MORRIS: Canadian Health Care Cost Recovery Case Updates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, provided updates of
Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation in Canada.

These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental
plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures
allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of
liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery
including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict
liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of
a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product,
failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under
statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate
cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate
remedy at law, "unclean hands" (namely, that plaintiffs cannot
obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and
benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of
limitations.

The Company said, "As of July 29, 2015, there were 16 health care
cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Canada (10), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared
with 15 such cases on July 30, 2014 and 15 such cases on August 1,
2013."

"In the first health care cost recovery case pending in Canada,
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of British Columbia v. Imperial
Tobacco Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Vancouver Registry, Canada, filed January 24, 2001, we, our
subsidiaries, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, the government of the
province of British Columbia, brought a claim based upon
legislation enacted by the province authorizing the government to
file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover
the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting
from a "tobacco related wrong." The Supreme Court of Canada has
held that the statute is constitutional. We and certain other non-
Canadian defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the court. The
court rejected the jurisdictional challenge. Pre-trial discovery
is ongoing.

"In the second health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of New Brunswick v. Rothmans Inc., et
al., Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Court, New
Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, filed March 13, 2008, we, our
subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the
government of the province of New Brunswick based on legislation
enacted in the province. This legislation is similar to the law
introduced in British Columbia that authorizes the government to
file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover
the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result
of a "tobacco related wrong." Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

"In the third health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., et al.,
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada, filed
September 29, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA
and Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
claim was filed by the government of the province of Ontario based
on legislation enacted in the province. This legislation is
similar to the laws introduced in British Columbia and New
Brunswick that authorize the government to file a direct action
against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs
it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a "tobacco related
wrong." Preliminary motions are pending.

"In the fourth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada,
Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador v. Rothmans Inc., et
al., Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. Johns,
Canada, filed February 8, 2011, we, our subsidiaries, our
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador based on legislation enacted
in the province that is similar to the laws introduced in British
Columbia, New Brunswick and Ontario. The legislation authorizes
the government to file a direct action against cigarette
manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has incurred,
and will incur, as a result of a "tobacco related wrong."
Preliminary motions are pending.

"In the fifth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada,
Attorney General of Quebec v. Imperial Tobacco Limited, et al.,
Superior Court of Quebec, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we, our
subsidiary, our indemnitee (PM USA), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of
the province of Quebec based on legislation enacted in the
province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other
Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to
file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover
the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result
of a "tobacco related wrong." Defendants filed their defenses in
December 2014 and July 2015. Pre-trial discovery is ongoing.

"In the sixth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her
Majesty in Right of Alberta v. Altria Group, Inc., et al., Supreme
Court of Queen's Bench Alberta, Canada, filed June 8, 2012, we,
our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the
government of the province of Alberta based on legislation enacted
in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in several
other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the
government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers
to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur,
as a result of a "tobacco related wrong." Preliminary motions are
pending.

"In the seventh health care cost recovery case filed in Canada,
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v.
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, Inc., et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg Judicial Centre, Canada, filed May 31, 2012, we, our
subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other
members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed by the
government of the province of Manitoba based on legislation
enacted in the province that is similar to the laws enacted in
several other Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the
government to file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers
to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur,
as a result of a "tobacco related wrong." Defendants filed their
defenses in September 2014. Discovery is scheduled to begin in
2017.

"In the eighth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, The
Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et
al., Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatchewan, Canada, filed
June 8, 2012, we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria), and other members of the industry are defendants. The
claim was filed by the government of the province of Saskatchewan
based on legislation enacted in the province that is similar to
the laws enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The
legislation authorizes the government to file a direct action
against cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs
it has incurred, and will incur, as a result of a "tobacco related
wrong." Defendants filed their defenses in February 2015.
Discovery is scheduled to begin in 2017.

"In the ninth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Prince Edward Island
v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Prince
Edward Island (General Section), Canada, filed September 10, 2012,
we, our subsidiaries, our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and
other members of the industry are defendants. The claim was filed
by the government of the province of Prince Edward Island based on
legislation enacted in the province that is similar to the laws
enacted in several other Canadian provinces. The legislation
authorizes the government to file a direct action against
cigarette manufacturers to recover the health care costs it has
incurred, and will incur, as a result of a "tobacco related
wrong." Defendants filed their defenses in February 2015.
Discovery is scheduled to begin in 2017.

"In the tenth health care cost recovery case filed in Canada, Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Nova Scotia v.
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., et al., Supreme Court of Nova
Scotia, Canada, filed January 2, 2015, we, our subsidiaries, our
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The claim was filed by the government of the
province of Nova Scotia based on legislation enacted in the
province that is similar to the laws enacted in several other
Canadian provinces. The legislation authorizes the government to
file a direct action against cigarette manufacturers to recover
the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, as a result
of a "tobacco related wrong." In January 2015, we, our
subsidiaries, and our indemnitees were served with the statement
of claim. Defendants filed their defenses in July 2015. Discovery
is scheduled to begin in 2017.


PHILIP MORRIS: Update of Nigerian Health Care Cost Recovery Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, provided updates of
Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation in Nigeria.

These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental
plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures
allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of
liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery
including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict
liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of
a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product,
failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under
statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate
cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate
remedy at law, "unclean hands" (namely, that plaintiffs cannot
obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and
benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of
limitations.

The Company said, "As of July 29, 2015, there were 16 health care
cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Canada (10), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared
with 15 such cases on July 30, 2014 and 15 such cases on August 1,
2013."

"In the first health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The
Attorney General of Lagos State v. British American Tobacco
(Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Lagos State, Lagos,
Nigeria, filed March 13, 2008, we and other members of the
industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the
cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20
years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-
related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of
injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of
making challenges to service and the court's jurisdiction.
Currently, the case is stayed in the trial court pending the
appeals of certain co-defendants relating to service objections.

"In the second health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The
Attorney General of Kano State v. British American Tobacco
(Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Kano State, Kano,
Nigeria, filed May 9, 2007, we and other members of the industry
are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the cost of
treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years,
payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related
diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive
relief, plus punitive damages. We are in the process of making
challenges to service and the court's jurisdiction. Currently, the
case is stayed in the trial court pending the appeals of certain
co-defendants relating to service objections.

"In the third health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The
Attorney General of Gombe State v. British American Tobacco
(Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Gombe State, Gombe,
Nigeria, filed October 17, 2008, we and other members of the
industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the
cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20
years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-
related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of
injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In February 2011, the
court ruled that the plaintiff had not complied with the
procedural steps necessary to serve us. As a result of this
ruling, plaintiff must re-serve its claim. We have not yet been
re-served.

"In the fourth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The
Attorney General of Oyo State, et al., v. British American Tobacco
(Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Oyo State, Ibadan,
Nigeria, filed May 25, 2007, we and other members of the industry
are defendants. Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the cost of
treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20 years,
payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-related
diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of injunctive
relief, plus punitive damages. We challenged service as improper.
In June 2010, the court ruled that plaintiffs did not have leave
to serve the writ of summons on the defendants and that they must
re-serve the writ. We have not yet been re-served.

"In the fifth health care cost recovery case in Nigeria, The
Attorney General of Ogun State v. British American Tobacco
(Nigeria) Limited, et al., High Court of Ogun State, Abeokuta,
Nigeria, filed February 26, 2008, we and other members of the
industry are defendants. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the
cost of treating alleged smoking-related diseases for the past 20
years, payment of anticipated costs of treating alleged smoking-
related diseases for the next 20 years, various forms of
injunctive relief, plus punitive damages. In May 2010, the trial
court rejected our service objections. We have appealed.


PHILIP MORRIS: Korean Health Care Cost Recovery Case Updates
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, provided updates of
Health Care Cost Recovery Litigation in Korea.

These cases, brought by governmental and non-governmental
plaintiffs, seek reimbursement of health care cost expenditures
allegedly caused by tobacco products. Plaintiffs' allegations of
liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery
including unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent design, strict
liability, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of
a voluntary undertaking or special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, defective product,
failure to warn, sale of cigarettes to minors, and claims under
statutes governing competition and deceptive trade practices.
Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms of relief including
compensatory and other damages, and injunctive and equitable
relief. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of proximate
cause, remoteness of injury, failure to state a claim, adequate
remedy at law, "unclean hands" (namely, that plaintiffs cannot
obtain equitable relief because they participated in, and
benefited from, the sale of cigarettes), and statute of
limitations.

The Company said, "As of July 29, 2015, there were 16 health care
cost recovery cases pending against us, our subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Canada (10), Korea (1) and Nigeria (5), compared
with 15 such cases on July 30, 2014 and 15 such cases on August 1,
2013."

"In the health care cost recovery case in Korea, the National
Health Insurance Service v. KT&G, et. al., filed April 14, 2014,
our subsidiary and other Korean manufacturers are defendants.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants concealed the health hazards of
smoking, marketed to youth, added ingredients to make their
products more harmful and addictive, and misled consumers into
believing that Lights cigarettes are safer than regular
cigarettes. The National Health Insurance Service seeks to recover
approximately $53.7 million allegedly incurred in treating 3,484
patients with small cell lung cancer, squamous cell lung cancer,
and squamous cell laryngeal cancer from 2003 to 2012. The case is
now in the evidentiary phase.


PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Lights Cases by Individual Plaintiffs Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of
July 29, 2015, there were 2 lights cases brought by individual
plaintiffs pending against the Company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees in Chile (1) and Italy (1), compared with 2 such cases
on July 30, 2014, and 1 such case on August 1, 2013.

These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf of a
class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the term
"lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Public Civil Actions Pending v. Subsidiaries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of
July 29, 2015, there were 2 public civil actions pending against
the Company's subsidiaries in Argentina (1) and Venezuela (1),
compared with 2 such cases on July 30, 2014, and 4 such cases on
August 1, 2013.

Claims have been filed either by an individual, or a public or
private entity, seeking to protect collective or individual
rights, such as the right to health, the right to information or
the right to safety. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these
cases are based on various theories of recovery including product
defect, concealment, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in these
cases seek various forms of relief including injunctive relief
such as banning cigarettes, descriptors, smoking in certain places
and advertising, as well as implementing communication campaigns
and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by public or
private institutions.

The Company said, "In the public civil action in Argentina,
Asociaci¢n Argentina de Derecho de Danos v. Massalin Particulares
S.A., et al., Civil Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina, filed
February 26, 2007, our subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer association,
seeks the establishment of a relief fund for reimbursement of
medical costs associated with diseases allegedly caused by
smoking. Our subsidiary filed its answer in September 2007. In
March 2010, the case file was transferred to the Federal Court on
Administrative Matters after the Civil Court granted the
plaintiff's request to add the national government as a co-
plaintiff in the case. The case is currently in the evidentiary
stage."

"In the public civil action in Venezuela, Federation of Consumers
and Users Associations ("FEVACU"), et al. v. National Assembly of
Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Health, Constitutional
Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, filed April 29, 2008, we
were not named as a defendant, but the plaintiffs published a
notice pursuant to court order, notifying all interested parties
to appear in the case. In January 2009, our subsidiary appeared in
the case in response to this notice. The plaintiffs purport to
represent the right to health of the citizens of Venezuela and
claim that the government failed to protect adequately its
citizens' right to health. The claim asks the court to order the
government to enact stricter regulations on the manufacture and
sale of tobacco products. In addition, the plaintiffs ask the
court to order companies involved in the tobacco industry to
allocate a percentage of their "sales or benefits" to establish a
fund to pay for the health care costs of treating smoking-related
diseases. In October 2008, the court ruled that plaintiffs have
standing to file the claim and that the claim meets the threshold
admissibility requirements. In December 2012, the court admitted
our subsidiary and BAT's subsidiary as interested third parties.
In February 2013, our subsidiary answered the complaint."


QLT INC: 2 Class Action Complaints Filed Challenging Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
QLT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that following the announcement of the
Merger, two putative class action complaints challenging the
Merger were filed.

On June 17, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Speiser, et al. v. Insite Vision, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
RG15774540, was filed in California Superior Court for Alameda
County, naming as defendants InSite, all of the members of the
InSite Board of Directors, QLT and Merger Sub.

On July 10, 2015, a second purported class action entitled
McKinley v. Ruane, et al., Civil Action No. RG15777471, was filed
in the same court, naming the same defendants.

In both cases, the plaintiffs, who claim to be InSite
stockholders, allege in their complaints that members of the
InSite Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties to InSite
stockholders by agreeing to enter into a Merger Agreement with QLT
because the Merger Consideration is inadequate and the process by
which the transaction was agreed to was flawed. The plaintiffs
also allege that InSite, QLT and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
breaches of duty by the members of the InSite Board of Directors.
The plaintiffs seek to enjoin consummation of the transaction or,
in the alternative, to recover unspecified money damages, together
with costs and attorneys' fees. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in
both cases have indicated that they will seek to consolidate the
cases into a single action.

The cases are currently at a preliminary stage; the defendants
have not filed responses to the complaints and no discovery has
taken place. InSite, QLT, Merger Sub and the members of the InSite
Board of Directors believe that the complaints are without merit
and intend to defend themselves vigorously.

Additional lawsuits may be filed against InSite, QLT and/or the
board of directors of either company in connection with the Merger
in an effort to enjoin the proposed Merger or seek monetary relief
from InSite, QLT or Merger Sub. An unfavorable resolution of any
such litigation surrounding the proposed Merger could delay or
prevent the consummation of the Merger. In addition, the cost of
defending the litigation, even if resolved favorably, could be
substantial. Such litigation could also substantially divert the
attention of InSite's and QLT's management and their resources in
general. There can also be no assurance that InSite, QLT or Merger
Sub will prevail in its defense of any such lawsuits to which it
is a party, even in an event where such company believes that the
claims made in such lawsuits are without merit and defends such
claims vigorously.

One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that no
outstanding judgment, injunction, order or decree of a competent
governmental authority shall have been entered and shall continue
to be in effect that prohibits, enjoins or makes illegal the
consummation of the Merger or the issuance of QLT common shares
pursuant to the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.
Therefore, if the plaintiffs in any lawsuit that have been or may
be filed secure injunctive relief or other relief prohibiting,
delaying or otherwise adversely affecting the defendants' ability
to complete the Merger, then such injunctive or other relief may
prevent the Merger from becoming effective within the expected
timeframe or at all.


SAFEWAY INC: CA Denies Petition for Writ of Mandate in "Esparza"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Nora M. Manella of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Four, denied the petition
for writ of mandate in the case, SAFEWAY, INC. et al.,
Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent; ENRIQUE ESPARZA et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case
No. B255216 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Enrique Esparza, et al., filed a putative class action against
Safeway Inc. and The Vons Companies for violations of the Labor
Code and the unfair competition law. The complaint alleged that
petitioners failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to
pay compensation for those missed breaks.  They sought class
certification of (1) the meal break class composed of over 200,000
employees who worked for petitioners between December 28, 2001 and
June 17, 2007, and (2) the receiver rest break subclass composed
of all such employees who worked as receivers after December 28,
2001. On February 6, 2014, the trial court granted the motion with
respect to the meal break class, and otherwise denied the motion.

On appeal, Safeway seek a writ directing the trial court to vacate
the grant of certification and to enter a new order denying
certification contending that the trial court erred in granting
class certification with respect to the meal break class.

In the Order dated July 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4G0w7b
from Leagle.com, Judge Manella found no error in the ruling of the
trial court. The petitioners failed to establish merits
determintation.

Petitioners are represented by James L. Payne, Esq. --
jlp@paynefears.com -- Eric C. Sohlgren, Esq. -- ecs@paynefears.com
-- Jeffrey K. Brown -- jkb@paynefears.com -- Andrew K. Haeffele,
Esq. -- akh@paynefears.com -- PAYNE & FEARS

Plaintiffs are represented by Mike Arias, Esq. --
mike@asstlawyers.com -- Mikael H. Stahle, Esq. --
Mikael@asstlawyers.com -- Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. --
alfredo@asstlawyers.com -- ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC


SALLY HANSEN: Plaintiff's Evidence of Wax-Related Lawsuits Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a woman who was severely burned when a jar of body wax exploded in
her hand cannot introduce evidence of other wax-related lawsuits
in her case against the manufacturer, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Richard P. Conaboy of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania ruled that plaintiff Kelsey Ouelette did not show
that the other cases against defendant Sally Hansen she cited were
similar to hers.

"Significantly, other incidents noted in plaintiff's exhibits do
not involve the product at issue here," Judge Conaboy said.  "No
evidence has been presented that the products identified in the
exhibits are substantially similar in composition to the lavender
spa body wax used by plaintiff, were manufactured in the same or a
similar manner, or contained the same or similar warnings."

The explosion occurred Jan. 22, 2012.  Ms. Ouelette, who had used
the body wax previously without incident, maintained that she
followed the heating instructions and placed it in the microwave
for 30 seconds, and then an additional 10 seconds, noting that the
wax was not soft enough to spread.

After removing the wax from the microwave, Ms. Ouelette placed it
on the counter.  She noted that it was not steaming or bubbling
and walked over to the garbage can, walked back, and picked up the
jar.  According to Judge Conaboy, the jar began to sizzle in her
hand and subsequently exploded, shooting hot wax onto
Ms. Ouelette's hands and right arm.  She sustained third-degree
burns from the incident.

Ms. Ouelette sued Sally Hansen, Dell Laboratories and Coty US
claiming that, in addition to her injuries, she suffered post-
traumatic stress disorder as a result of the explosion and burns
and incurred medical expenses and wage losses.

In making her claims, Ms. Ouelette sought the admission of several
exhibits detailing legal actions against Sally Hansen, including
Internet articles and an unsigned, undated complaint from another
plaintiff.

Citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge
Conaboy said, "'In products liability cases, evidence of prior
accidents is not relevant, and therefore inadmissible, unless the
accidents occurred under "substantially similar" circumstances.'"
Having determined that the examples Ms. Ouelette pointed to in her
documents were not substantially similar, Judge Conaboy then said
in his memorandum that the evidence Ouelette submitted was
insufficient for impeachment purposes as well.

"Plaintiff does not state how the exhibits now presented would be
used for impeachment purposes.  She provides no evidence that
information contained in the exhibits is accurate nor does she
identify a methodology for doing so," Judge Conaboy said.  "In
sum, plaintiff's cryptic conclusory statements are woefully
inadequate to support her broad assertion that the information
about allegedly similar incidents is properly presented for
impeachment purposes."

However, Judge Conaboy did rule that Ms. Ouelette should be able
to present claims under the malfunction theory, used to establish
strict liability when direct evidence of a defect is not
available.

The defendants claimed that Ms. Ouelette misused the wax, but
Judge Conaboy said the company's expert did not explain what type
of misuse would be consistent with wax container failure and
splatter.

"Defendants must do more to establish that they should prevail at
this stage of the proceeding -- it is their burden to show that
plaintiff cannot succeed on the malfunction theory as a matter of
law and they have not done so," Judge Conaboy said.

The defendants further argued that the plaintiff could not advance
her argument to a jury without an expert because the case involved
issues that are "well outside the comprehension of the average
juror."

Ms. Ouelette responded that "jurors who normally have experience,
here with microwaves, cosmetics, the importance of handing melting
items, etc., is enough to allow for a reasonable jury to conclude
the product was defective, especially when the Sally Hansen wax
sizzles, explodes like a volcano, and the container
disintegrates," according to Judge Conaboy's opinion.

Ultimately, Judge Conaboy said it was the defendants' own witness
who posited that jurors would understand the details of the case.
"Defendants' experts discuss that most people are familiar with
heating products in microwaves and potential problems with
overheating," Judge Conaboy said, "concluding that '[h]undreds of
millions of people heat materials in microwave ovens every day
with relatively few inflicting severe burns on themselves.'"

Ms. Ouelette's attorney, Joseph Robert Rydzewski, did not return a
call seeking comment.

The attorney for the defendants, Patrick Heffron --
pheffron@chartwelllaw.com -- did not return a call seeking
comment.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Defending Against "Samborsky" Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Charles
Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those persons
similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services, Inc., et
al; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-Central
Civil West Courthouse. This lawsuit was filed in April 2014
against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought on
behalf of employees who worked as family service counselors in
California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for various violations of state laws regulating wage and
hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and
injunctive relief.

"We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, in this
lawsuit," the Company said.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


SERVICE CORPORATION: SCI No Longer Party to "Moulton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that SCI will
no longer be party to the suit, Karen Moulton, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stewart Enterprises,
Inc., Service Corporation International and others; Case No. 2013-
5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of New Orleans.

The Company said, "This case was filed as a class action in June
2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in connection with SCI's
proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs
allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by
Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI. The
plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination. We filed
exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were granted in June
2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer be party to the
suit. The case will continue against our subsidiary Stewart
Enterprises and its former individual directors. We cannot
quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of
damages."


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of ServiceSource
International, Inc. who purchased the Company's securities between
January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014 inclusive (the "Class Period").

ServiceSource provides recurring revenue management, maintenance,
support, and subscription for technology and technology-enabled
healthcare and life sciences companies. The complaint alleges that
defendants made allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and management which
caused the stock price to inflate, allowing certain insiders to
sell their ServiceSource stock at artificially-inflated prices;
and, in addition whether Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of
ServiceSource, obtained millions of dollars in cash bonuses and
other perks as a result of the alleged fraud. The complaint
further alleges that ServiceSource investors have been damaged by
the defendants' alleged fraud as a result of a sharp decline in
the Company's share price.

If you purchased shares of ServiceSource during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than September 8, 2015 to file a
motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action. If you have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact
Casey Sadler, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Lesley Portnoy, Esq
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
Fax: (310) 432-1495
info@glancylaw.com


SIRIUS XM: McKool Seeks to Extend Theory to Broadcast Stations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that one of the
originators of a ground-breaking copyright class action against
Sirius XM Radio is now seeking to extend the theory to broadcast
stations.

A plaintiffs team led by McKool Smith partner Robert Allen --
rallen@mckoolsmith.com -- sued Cumulus Media Inc., CBS Corp., and
iHeartMedia Inc. in Los Angeles federal court, claiming hundreds
of millions in unpaid royalties on music recorded before 1972 and
delivered over the airwaves as well as via the Internet.

The theory of the case tracks a class action against Sirius that
was certified in May, but lost much of its heft a month later when
record labels comprising some 80 percent of the class struck their
own settlement for $210 million.  Mr. Allen left the Gradstein &
Marzano team litigating that case last year and joined McKool
Smith in July.  On Aug. 18 his new firm and Chicago's Miller Law
LLC teamed up to file the new complaints.

"These lawsuits are an extension of Sirius, but they're taking it
to a whole new level," Mr. Allen said on Aug. 20

The complaints allege violations of California's copyright and
unfair competition law by the broadcast giants, which combined own
some 1,435 domestic radio stations.  McKool represents ABS
Entertainment, a company that owns rights to recordings by
Al Green, Willie Mitchell, Ann Peebles and others.  But the suit
proposes a class comprising all owners of music recorded before
1972 and played on the stations-everything from the big band era
and Frank Sinatra to Elvis Presley and The Beatles.

Although musical compositions have been protected under U.S.
copyright law since 1831, sound recordings were only added to the
federal copyright act in 1972.  That's meant that the holders of
copyrights to pre-1972 compositions -- largely music publishers --
have been paid royalties for public performances while those
holding the copyrights to recordings -- largely record labels --
have not.

Last year, however, U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez of
Los Angeles found that under California state law, the rights of
owners of pre-1972 recordings extend to public performances.

Judge Gutierrez sided with the owners of sound recordings made by
The Turtles during the 1960s in their lawsuit against Sirius.
That set off a wave of similar lawsuits against other streaming
media services.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Sirius'
bid for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order.

Mr. Allen was senior vice president for business and legal at
Universal Music Publishing Group for more than a decade before
starting his private practice about four years ago.  He contended
on Aug. 20 that older artists who recorded music in the 1950s and
'60s are especially reliant on royalties, given that "nobody's
really buying albums any more."  The litigation might pressure
Congress into broadening copyright protection for recording
artists, he said.

With the backing of firms like McKool Smith and Miller Law, he's
hopeful that the record labels will remain in the class this time
around.  "We're fully prepared for any contingency one way or the
other," he said.

Representatives of CBS, Cumulus and iHeartMedia could not
immediately be reached for comment on Aug. 20.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Faces Class Suit Over Earthquake Claim Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
3 News reported that disgruntled homeowners have started a class
action lawsuit against Government-controlled insurer Southern
Response.

The group's lawyer, Grant Cameron, said 47 policyholders had
officially filed a case in the High Court at Christchurch over
delays by the insurer in settling Canterbury earthquake claims.

He said Southern Response had failed in its duty, with some
homeowners still waiting nearly five years after the first of the
devastating quakes.

Parties to the action have joined on a "no win, no fee" basis and
Mr Cameron said the litigants were waiting on court approval to
allow any other interested claimants to join in the next three
months.

The legal case was first proposed in March following complaints
the company was taking too long in settling claims.

At the time, Mr Cameron said homeowners would also be claiming for
additional expenses over stress and anguish caused by delays.

But Southern Response blamed continuing aftershocks from the
deadly February 22, 2011 earthquake for its delay in starting
claims and aimed to resolve 90 per cent of them by 2016.

In July an individual policyholder won a $300,000 case against the
insurer after the Supreme Court ruled the initial payout for a
red-zoned house had been incorrect because of the way it had been
calculated.

Southern Response was set up by the Government to handle claims
for insurer AMI following its near-collapse.

Finance Minister Bill English said legal action over insurance in
Christchurch was not uncommon and he expected the company to act
in a "sensible, commercial way".

Southern Response said it would issue a comment shortly.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Booze Coupon Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Servce, reported
that replacing free-drink coupons Southwest Airlines no longer
honors is enough to settle class-action claims, the Seventh
Circuit ruled, sidelining claims that the deal is too generous to
class counsel.

Under its old policy, Southwest rewarded customers who bought
Business Select tickets with free-drink coupons that had no
expiration date.

After finding that its flexible policy was hurting its bottom
line, however, Southwest announced in August 2010 that Business
Select drink coupons had to be redeemed on the day of travel when
they were issued.

Adam Levitt and Herbert Malone filed a class action in November
2011 on behalf of all persons with unredeemed Southwest drink
coupons for alcoholic beverages obtained with the purchase of
Business Select tickets.

The parties soon reached a settlement agreement that entitled
class members to a replacement drink voucher for each unredeemed
drink coupon. Vouchers expire one year after their date of
issuance, and class members may sell the vouchers or give them
away if they do not desire to use them.

Southwest has also agreed that, if it issues any drink coupons in
the future without an expiration date, it must honor the coupons
on any Southwest flight at any time. For all coupons with an
expiration date, the airline agreed to include conspicuous
language indicating dates for which the coupon is valid to
customers.

Levitt and Malone meanwhile would take home incentive awards of
$15,000 each, and Southwest agreed not to oppose an attorneys' fee
request of up to $3 million, plus expenses of $30,000, subject to
court approval.

Two years after U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly granted final
approval of the settlement, the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

The ruling sidelines objections that the settlement awards class
attorneys $3 million, but does not include any monetary
compensation for class members.

"While this argument often has considerable force, it has little
force here," Judge David Hamilton wrote for the three-judge panel.
"What makes this settlement so distinctive, and what has eased
both the district court's and our concerns about the risk of self-
dealing by class counsel, is that the class members will receive
essentially everything they could have hoped for. As the district
court put it, 'the class members are getting back exactly what
they had before, an unexpired drink voucher.' It is an exceptional
settlement that actually makes the class whole."

The agreement contains "clear-sailing" and "kicker" clauses, which
the Ninth Circuit has called "subtle signs" of an unfair
settlement, and the Seventh has called signs of a "sell-out."

Southwest agreed not to contest a $3 million fee request (clear-
sailing), but any reduction of the requested fee will be to
Southwest's benefit, not the class's. The reduction in this case
was approximately $1.35 million.

The panel said these clauses were "troublesome," but ultimately
did not shake their faith in the fairness of the settlement.

"Like the Ninth Circuit, we have stopped short of holding that
clear-sailing and kicker clauses are per se bars to settlement
approval," Hamilton wrote. "We again stop short of that per se
rule. The possibility of exceptional cases like this one is
precisely what persuaded us to allow flexibility that a per se
rule would bar. At the risk of undue repetition, this settlement
makes the class whole, and the district court carefully
scrutinized -- and significantly reduced -- the fee request.

"Even if the court had rejected the settlement, it is hard to
imagine the class receiving any better result after further
negotiations or a trial."

The court did, however, make one significant alteration to the
agreement. It said that the undisclosed financial relationship
between lead class counsel Joseph Siprut and one of the lead
plaintiffs, Adam Levitt, required a modification.

Siprut and Levitt are co-counsel in a pending class action in
California against Apple, and did not disclose this relationship
to Judge Kennelly.

The panel therefore revoked Levitt's $15,000 incentive reward, and
reduced Siprut's fee award by the same amount.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Lawyer Won't Receive Incentive Award
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that prominent class
action attorney Adam Levitt has been stripped of the $15,000
incentive award he received as a lead plaintiff in litigation over
Southwest Airlines Co. drink coupons after he failed to disclose
he was co-counsel with his own lawyer in a separate case.

Mr. Levitt, who heads Grant & Eisenhofer's consumer practice group
out of Chicago, sued in 2011 after Southwest stopped honoring
coupons good for $5 alcoholic drinks that had no expiration dates.
He brought the class action as the plaintiff on behalf of more
than 2 million passengers who purchased business-select tickets.

After the case settled, two objectors represented by the Center
for Class Action Fairness in Washington raised a host of problems
with the deal but introduced a new issue on appeal: a conflict of
interest.  They said that Levitt and his lawyer, Joseph Siprut,
founding partner of Siprut P.C. in Chicago, failed to disclose
that they were co-counsel in a separate consumer class action over
defects in Apple Inc.'s MacBook Pro with Retina display.  The
objectors argued that Levitt and his lawyer's failure to disclose
that relationship led to "divided loyalties" that made Levitt an
inadequate representative of a settlement that, in the end,
benefited the lawyers over the class.

On Aug. 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
agreed that there was a potential conflict but rather than
dismantle the settlement, which it found was otherwise fair,
reversed a $15,000 incentive award granted to Mr. Levitt and cut
Mr. Siprut's fees by $15,000.

Incentive awards are granted to lead plaintiffs for serving as
representatives in class actions.

"If there were indications that the class had been adversely
affected by this failure to disclose, the consequences would be
more severe," Judge David Hamilton wrote.  However, he added, "Our
message to the class action bar is short and simple: when in
doubt, disclose."

Mr. Levitt declined to comment.  Mr. Siprut did not address the
conflict issue, either in court papers or an email, which said,
"We're very pleased the court affirmed the trial court's approval
of the settlement and found that the settlement constitutes an
'exceptional result' for the class."

H. Thomas Wells -- twells@maynardcooper.com -- founding
shareholder at Maynard, Cooper & Gale in Birmingham, who
represents Southwest, said he knew about the Apple case at the
time of Mr. Levitt's deposition but chose not to raise the issue
after the complaint was amended to include a second class
representative, Herbert Malone, who had no conflict.

"It was a little surprising to us that the objectors couldn't have
figured out the pretty obvious connection between Mr. Levitt and
Mr. Siprut prior to appeal," he said.  "With 20/20 hindsight,
perhaps Mr. Siprut might have advised the district court of that.
I'm sure he'll do that in the next case."

As to the other objections, the panel disagreed that the fees paid
to the lawyers outweighed the benefits to class members, who each
got a free drink voucher good for a year.  The objectors argued
that the deal was a "coupon settlement" under the Class Action
Fairness Act and, because of that, U.S. District Judge Matthew
Kennelly of the Northern District of Illinois should not have
approved $1.6 million in attorney fees by calculating the number
of hours the lawyers billed, rather than as a percentage of the
total value of coupons actually redeemed.

Plaintiffs lawyers, who were to get $3 million in fees based on
their initial agreement with Southwest and the settlement's
estimated value of $29 million, had argued that the deal wasn't a
coupon settlement.  They also sought additional fees.

But the Seventh Circuit agreed with Southwest that the deal was a
coupon settlement and declined to award more fees.

"Southwest entered into the settlement because we had some
customers who erroneously thought their business-select drink
coupons ought to be valid on other flights," Mr. Wells said.
"That was never the intent.  But Southwest being Southwest, we
don't like to upset customers."

Ted Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness, said
he was "surprised and disappointed" about the panel's decision to
uphold the settlement.  He filed a petition for rehearing on Aug.
27.

"The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly said that actual recovery to
the class, rather than maximum hypothetical potential recovery, is
what matters in evaluating settlement fairness," he wrote in an
email.


STARKIST INC: Settlement Plan Allocation Has Initial Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Patrick Hendrick filed motions for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement and the settlement plan of
allocation in the case, PATRICK HENDRICKS, Plaintiff, v. STARKIST
CO, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-00729-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed this action on February 19, 2013, in the Northern
District of California asserting claims under California Civil
Code, California Business and Professions, California Business and
Professions Code and for Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Breach of Implied Warranty of
Fitness for a Particular Purpose, Negligent Misrepresentation,
Fraud, and Unjust Enrichment. The parties participated in two
settlement conferences before Judge Corley and on May 14, 2015,
Plaintiff filed the request.

District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California in the
Order dated July 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/b9qDfOfrom
Leagle.com, granted Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement, concluding that the Settlement Agreement
fell within the range appropriate for preliminary approval; and
that the plan of allocation was in the best interests of the
class.

Plaintiff is represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Neal J. Deckant, Esq. --
ndeckant@bursor.com -- Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. --
swestcot@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor, Esq. -- sbursor@bursor.com
-- BURSOR & FISHER P.A.

Starkist, Co. is represented by J. Christopher Mitchell, Esq. --
chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com -- Robert B. Hawk, Esq. --
Robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- Michael J. Shepard, Esq. --
michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com -- Sarah Minchener Jalali, Esq.
-- sarah.jalali@hoganlovells.com -- Stacy R. Hovan, Esq. --
stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP, Gregg David
Michael, Esq. -- gmichael@eckertseamans.com -- John E. Hall, Esq.
-- jhall@eckertseamans.com -- Louis Anthony DePaul, Jr., Esq. --
ldepaul@eckertseamans.com -- ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN MELLOTT LLC


TAMKO BUILDING: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that derailing a would-
be class action against a company that makes roofing shingles,
lawyers from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom on Aug. 26
convinced a federal judge in Sacramento that the plaintiffs must
arbitrate their claims individually.

In 2006, homeowners Robert and Linda Hoekman bought shingles made
by Tamko Building Products Inc., persuaded by ads that promised
the roofing materials would be defect-free for 50 years.

But after seven years, the Hoekmans said they discovered the
shingles were severely cracked and blistered. They moved to file a
class action against Tamko, alleging that the company didn't use
enough asphalt to make the product properly, and that Tamko knew
or should have known about the defect.

The complaint was filed on behalf of the Hoekmans and all others
similarly situated.  Tamko has also been hit with suits by
individual consumers as well as would-be classes in jurisdictions
including the Middle District of North Carolina, the Southern
District of Illinois and the Western District of Kentucky.

Tamko, represented by Skadden mass torts, insurance and consumer
litigation group head John Beisner, partner Jessica Miller,
counsel Geoffrey Wyatt and associate Lauryn Fraas, successfully
argued that the dispute in California court must be arbitrated and
cannot be brought as a class.

U.S. District Judge Troy Nunley of the Eastern District of
California rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable because the Hoekmans didn't know about
it when they bought the shingles.  The notice was printed on the
shingle packaging, and the shingles were delivered to their
contractor.

Judge Nunley said the agreement to arbitrate was also referenced
on Tamko's website as part of the product warranty, and the
plaintiffs could have seen it there.

As for printing it on the shingle packaging, Judge Nunley compared
that to "shrinkwrap" licenses for software, where consumers agree
to the terms by opening the box.  "Courts have repeatedly upheld
arbitration provisions that come in the form of shrinkwrap
agreements," he wrote.  "In light of this precedent, the court
concludes that Tamko delivered the arbitration agreement in a
legally valid manner."

He also rejected the argument that because the plaintiffs did not
personally read the arbitration agreement on the shingles, it did
not bind them.  "Holding for the plaintiffs would mean that
purchasers can deny unwanted terms, as long as they avoid reading
them prior to purchase and then have the product delivered to
someone else," he wrote.

The plaintiffs were represented by Daniel Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com
-- and Scott Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- of Raleigh-based
Whitfield Bryson & Mason; Jordan Chaikin of Parker Waichman in
Bonita Springs, Florida; and David Birka-White --
dbw@birka-white.com -- of the Birka-White Law Offices in Danville,
California.

The win comes on the heels of another Skadden victory involving
New Jersey's bid to legalize sport gambling.  Skadden and
co-counsel Paul Clement of Bancroft prevailed before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on behalf of sports leagues
opposed to sports betting.


TARGET CORP: Plaintiffs Lawyers Balk at Data Breach Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers representing some banks and financial
institutions caught up in Target's 2013 data breach say the $67
million deal struck between the retailer and Visa Inc. leaves
their clients shortchanged.

The banks and credit unions are the only plaintiffs left in the
data breach litigation after Target paid $10 million in March to
settle more than 140 class actions filed by its customers.

The deal, made public on Aug. 18, is designed to reimburse banks
that issued Visa cards affected by the breach, which compromised
40 million credit and debit cards.

But plaintiffs lawyers representing those financial institutions
claim the Visa deal doesn't compensate them enough for costs
incurred in reissuing cards and reimbursing customers for
fraudulent charges.

In a statement on Aug. 20, lead plaintiffs lawyers Karl Cambronne,
a shareholder at Chestnut Cambronne, and Charles "Bucky" Zimmerman
(l-r), a founding partner of Zimmerman Reed, both in Minneapolis,
said the timing of the Visa settlement was no coincidence, noting
that the deadline to participate in the deal is Sept. 4 -- six
days before a hearing on their motion for class certification.
They claim the deal was Target's attempt to avoid higher damages
they are asking for on behalf of a class of thousands of banks and
credit unions.

"This eleventh-hour settlement is a clear attempt by Target to
prevent financial institutions from recognizing the extent of
Target's negligence and the strength of joining their claims
against the retailer," they said.  "We strongly recommend that
financial institutions not accept the optional alternative
recovery offers or sign any document containing a release against
Target."

Visa was not a plaintiff to a data breach lawsuit against Target
and the involvement of a third party such as the credit card
company is an unusual twist to the data breach litigation.  But it
could end up being a significant advantage for Target, which
fought to keep the class certification papers under seal, citing
the potential risk of another attack.

"It's best for Target not to be involved in the litigation because
they won't be in discovery giving away more information than
what's happened," said Michael Sussmann --
MSussmann@perkinscoie.com -- a partner in the privacy and data
security practice at Perkins Coie in Washington, who is not
involved in the deal.

An unsealed motion for class certification by the banks was filed
on Aug. 20.

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder declined to comment about the
litigation.

"Visa has worked to help Target reach a resolution for the
expenses incurred by financial institutions as result of the 2013
compromise," Visa spokeswoman Sandra Chu said in an emailed
statement.  "This agreement attempts to put this event behind us,
and increase the industry's focus on protecting against future
compromises with new technologies."

It's not the first time the plaintiffs lawyers have been sidelined
in the Target litigation.  In May, a $19 million deal Target
reached with MasterCard Inc. unraveled after fewer than 90 percent
of applicable card issuers participated.

Plaintiffs lawyers had sought a permanent injunction that would
have prohibited Target from requiring financial institutions to
release their legal claims as part of the MasterCard deal.

On May 7, U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in Minnesota denied
the injunction but agreed that "the terms of the settlement do not
appear to altogether fair or reasonable."

He wrote, "At the very least, the way this issue has arisen is
neither fair nor is it how the court expects attorneys to conduct
themselves in litigating matters before the court."

Unlike the MasterCard deal, the Visa deal doesn't require banks
and credit unions to drop their legal claims but offers additional
compensation to do so, according to sources familiar with the
deal. Target confirmed that many banks had already signed up.
Target also is working on a similar settlement with MasterCard.

"We have been working closely with Target on this from the start
and they have indicated to us that the same approach and
comparable terms are being made available to MasterCard issuers,"
MasterCard spokesman Seth Eisen wrote in an email.  "We will now
place the revised Target settlement offer in front of our
customers for their consideration."


TAYLOR ENERGY: Settles Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
New Orleans energy company said on Aug. 27 it has reached a
settlement agreement with environmental groups in a lawsuit
stemming from the company's failed efforts to stop a decade-old,
slow-motion oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

A federal court filing on Aug. 27 stated that an agreement had
been reached between Taylor Energy Company and the environmental
groups.  Taylor said in a news release it has agreed under the
settlement to make a $300,000 donation to a Louisiana marine
research consortium and to fund $100,000 in research on the
ecological effects of small, long term leaks in the Gulf.

Taylor also said it will host a public forum and publish a website
with information on the company's spill response.

Environmental groups led by the New York City-based Waterkeeper
Alliance said in a joint statement that they won't comment until a
final agreement is signed.

"We are very pleased about the progress of negotiations with
Taylor, and have come to a conceptual agreement that has not yet
been finalized.  As no final settlement agreement exists between
the parties at this time, we are not at liberty to discuss the
details of a potential settlement," they said on Aug. 27.

The groups sued Taylor Energy in 2012, accusing it of withholding
information about the leak's potential impact on the Gulf
ecosystem.  The groups also argued that the public was entitled to
know more about the company's government-supervised effort to stop
the leak, which was the subject of an Associated Press
investigation in April.

Their suit was scheduled for trial Oct. 5.

U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan, who refused to dismiss the suit
in July, would have heard testimony without a jury.  A court
record filed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby said the
agreement still needs approval from the U.S. Coast Guard and
federal offshore environmental officials.

The "citizen enforcement suit" asked the court to rule that the
company has violated the Clean Water Act and to impose civil
penalties payable to the U.S. Treasury.  The federal government
hasn't filed its own lawsuit against Taylor Energy.

Under settlement terms outlined in Taylor's news release, the
company will donate $300,000 to the Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium to purchase vessels, electronics and other equipment
that the company says will help the consortium compete for grants.
It also will fund $100,000 in research to study the "ecological
impact of long term, small, diffuse hydrocarbon discharges in the
Gulf of Mexico."


TEREX CORP: Deal Reached to Settle ERISA Suit for $2.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an agreement in
principle has been reached to settle the ERISA lawsuit for $2.5
million which will be funded primarily by insurance.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a
stockholder derivative lawsuit as follows:

* A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, District of Connecticut on September
20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA Litigation.

* A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

* A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.

The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints
all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate
a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these
matters.

Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the ERISA
lawsuit and the securities lawsuit. While these motions are
currently pending before the court, an agreement in principle has
been reached to settle the ERISA lawsuit for $2.5 million which
will be funded primarily by insurance. The proceeds of the
settlement (after deduction of legal fees) will be distributed to
putative class participants. The plaintiff in the stockholder
derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit
on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection
with the securities lawsuit.


TYSON FOODS: Case Presents Two Class Certification Issues
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy M. Creelan and David B. Diesenhouse, writing for New York
Law Journal, report that Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, a
case before the U.S. Supreme Court this upcoming term, presents
two related questions that could substantially limit class actions
brought under FRCP 23(b)(3).  May courts certify a class that uses
statistical averaging, sampling methods, or other representative
proof to overcome differences between class members and determine
liability and damages on a classwide basis? May a class be
certified when it includes members who have not been injured in
any respect by the defendant's conduct?

At bottom, these questions mirror the perennial debate over the
value of the class action mechanism itself.  That debate seeks to
find the appropriate line between the efficiency of a collective
litigation mechanism that avoids the transaction costs of many
separate cases and trials, on the one hand, and the need for
individualized proof of injury and causation that is required by
the Constitution (i.e., restrictions imposed by Article III
standing requirements and the Due Process Clause), on the other
hand.

Class Certification Issue

In Tyson Foods, the respondents are approximately 3,300 hourly
workers employed at Tyson's Storm Lake, Iowa, pork processing
plant. Several of these employees filed suit in 2007 on behalf of
a purported class, alleging that Tyson failed to compensate its
employees for overtime work, in violation of both the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law.
Tyson paid its Storm Lake workers under a "gang time" system for
the period they worked at their stations.  Tyson also paid for an
extra four minutes or other specified amounts of time each day to
account for time spent by workers donning or doffing various
protective gear, or walking to and from their stations.  The
workers contend that, even with these extra payments, they spent
time each workweek donning, removing, and cleaning protective
gear, and walking to their workstations, for which they were not
paid.

To support class certification, plaintiffs argued that Tyson's
"gang time" compensation system affected all proposed class
members and thereby predominated as a question of law,
notwithstanding that different employees wore different gear (and
thus spent different amounts of time readying themselves for work
or removing such gear) and, in some instances, were fully
compensated for their donning and doffing by the extra minutes'
pay added by Tyson.  The district court certified a class over
Tyson's objection pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3) and a collective
action under the FLSA.

Before trial, the Supreme Court issued its 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart
Stores v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), which tightened the
requirements plaintiffs must meet to demonstrate commonality under
FRCP 23(a)(2). Citing Dukes, Tyson moved to de-certify the
plaintiff class because plaintiffs had failed to show that
questions of liability or damages were "capable of classwide
resolution . . . in one stroke." Id. at 2551.

The district court -- and later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit -- upheld the certified class.  The circuit court
acknowledged the significant discrepancies amongst class members
regarding the times they required to don and doff their gear, and
even that some members had not been underpaid at all because they
either did not work a full 40-hour week or they took less than the
additional four or more minutes (for which they were compensated)
to complete these extra tasks.  Nevertheless, the court found the
combination of individualized and representative sampling
submitted by the plaintiffs' experts sufficient to create common
questions and answers regarding liability and damages.  In
particular, plaintiffs' first expert compiled actual times taken
by a representative sampling of Tyson Storm Lake employees to
complete their daily donning/doffing, and calculated an average
"all in" time for these activities.

Then, a second expert added that average time to each employee's
timesheets to determine the amount of damages, if any, each
employee would be entitled to receive, and then aggregated those
amounts into an overall damages figure.  After trial, the jury
found Tyson liable and awarded approximately $2.9 million to the
plaintiff class -- less than half of the amount calculated by
plaintiffs' expert.

Scaling Back

In the Supreme Court, Tyson seeks to undo that judgment, relying
on recent Supreme Court decisions that arguably scale back the
availability of class certification.  In two recent cases, Dukes
and Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), the court has
established the rule that certification requires a finding not
only of common questions, but also of a path to common answers to
such questions.  One common answer that the court has demanded is
a sound method to calculate damages on a classwide basis.

In Comcast, decided in 2013, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote,
rejected a class certification because the plaintiffs' proffered
damages model did not accurately measure the damages suffered by
all class members.  In the majority's estimation, a model that
correctly measured damages for the entire class was vital to class
certification; without one, questions of individual damages would
surely predominate over any questions common to the class.

The court determined that the damages model was too flawed to
serve that purpose, because it relied on three alleged antitrust
impacts that the district court had rejected.  According to the
court, the model was based on "factors unrelated to an accepted
theory of antitrust harm . . . in any sense relevant" to the
remaining claims and was, therefore, too arbitrary to justify
certification. 133 S. Ct. at 1435.

In the earlier Dukes case, the Supreme Court focused on the
importance of accuracy to any classwide determination of damages,
as well as liability.  The court, which was unanimous on this
point, observed that the plaintiff class could not avoid
individualized litigation of backpay claims by engaging in a
"Trial by Formula." 131 S. Ct. at 2561.  Under the process
envisioned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a
special master would determine liability and damages for a sample
of class members, and the class' total recovery would be
calculated by applying the percentage of valid claims in the
sample to the entire plaintiff class and then multiplying the
average backpay award against the estimated number of valid
claims.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach, finding that courts
could not extrapolate liability and damages for a diverse class
based on the experience of a few "average" class members.
"[F]urther individualized proceedings" on liability and damages,
where the defendant could contest individual claims, were
required. Id.

'Tyson' in Supreme Court

In the wake of Dukes and Comcast, it is clear that flaws in a
class' damages methodology can defeat certification.  A damages
model must accurately reflect the class' theory of liability and
the basis for its claim.  Class-based procedures also cannot elide
critical differences between class members and impute liability
and damages on the untested presumption that all class members are
identical to an average aggrieved plaintiff.  The Supreme Court
may use Tyson Foods as an opportunity to cement these developments
and further clarify (or at least address) which classwide damages
methodologies may be used.

Different members of the Supreme Court may find ample support in
the record in Tyson Foods to support or reject class
certification, even under Dukes' more stringent "common answers"
rubric.  On the one hand, the class expert's development of
average donning and doffing times arguably runs directly afoul of
the Dukes court's admonition against a "Trial by Formula" on
defendant's liability and the damages incurred.  In Tyson's view,
that expert analysis identified "common" average times only by
obscuring patently individualized evidence, i.e., each employee's
work schedule, gear and tools, and time taken to don and doff such
gear.

On the other hand, plaintiffs' second expert then applied those
averages to the individual timesheets of each class member to
determine whether and to what extent each employee had been
undercompensated by Tyson.  Moreover, the averages themselves were
based on observations of a large sample of actual employees'
behavior at work, rather than anecdotal evidence or secondary
sources.  In other words, the "common answers" reached by the
plaintiffs' expert with respect to the key questions in the
case -- did Tyson under-compensate each employee and by how
much? -- were arguably derived from substantially individualized
evidence from each employee in the purported class.

The court may have to decide whether the plaintiffs' methods of
proving liability and damages were sufficiently tethered to
individual employees' experience or instead based on over-reaching
classwide generalizations.  At the end of the day, Tyson Foods
involved a trial based in part on formula; the real question is
whether the formula was sufficiently limited in its role and
accurate enough in both its individual inputs and its methodology
for use on a classwide basis.

Impact in Second Circuit

Ultimately, the impact of Tyson Foods may not be that significant
in the Second Circuit because the court of appeals has
substantially anticipated the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence
on class certification. In McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., 522
F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit reversed Judge Jack
Weinstein's certification of a class of smokers of "light"
cigarettes seeking to bring RICO claims against the tobacco
industry.  In that opinion, Judge John Walker marched through the
key elements of a civil RICO claim -- causation, injury, and
damages -- and rejected the classwide approaches to proof of
liability adopted by the district court, leading to the panel's
finding that predominance did not exist as required by Rule 23.

With respect to damages, the same panel rejected the district
court's "class fund" created by multiplying an estimated
percentage of the class who was injured by an estimated average
loss amount for an injured member. Id. at 231 (internal quotation
marks omitted).  This method would have resulted in "an
astronomical damages figure that does not accurately reflect the
number of plaintiffs actually injured by defendants," a
"disconnect" that offends the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2072(b). Id. This and other opinions in this circuit thus
constrained the use of classwide methods to prove predominance on
questions of liability and damages even before Dukes.

Perhaps the clearer question ripe for clarification -- and the one
more likely to affect Second Circuit precedent -- is whether a
class may be certified even where it indisputably includes members
who have not been injured at all.  Some courts have determined
that the "case or controversy" requirements of Article III are
satisfied if even one plaintiff within the class has suffered a
cognizable injury in fact caused by the defendant's conduct and
redressable through the present suit.  The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit, for example, has opined that
demonstrating standing for each class member is neither necessary
under the Constitution nor practicable, given the difficulties in
policing the boundaries of a class at the certification stage.

Other courts, including the Second Circuit in its 2006 decision,
Denney v. Deutsche Bank, 443 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006), have stated
that a class may not be certified if it contains members who lack
Article III standing.  In the words of the Second Circuit, a class
"must -- be defined in such a way that anyone within it would have
standing." Id. at 264. Arguably, the Denney court conflated the
question whether an actual case or controversy exists (i.e., there
is a harmed plaintiff) with whether a class action is the proper
vehicle for the case under FRCP 23.

Even if Article III standing is not the proper rubric, however,
the Denney court's concern is critical.  If it is indisputable at
the class certification stage that certain members of the proposed
class have not been injured by the defendant's conduct, certifying
such a class raises substantial concern that the defendant will be
denied a meaningful opportunity to disprove such claims or to
limit damages appropriately, especially given the incentives to
settle large and expensive class actions.

This concern is often addressed by a showing at the certification
stage that, in later phases of the case, individual class members
will be required to demonstrate that they were, in fact, injured
by the defendant's conduct (and in what amount) via a pre-
established procedure of some kind.  The difficulty arises where
no such procedure has been presented to or determined by the court
at the certification stage.  In Tyson Foods, neither the Eighth
Circuit nor the district court made clear whether such a procedure
would be used to ensure that employees who had been adequately
paid would not receive unwarranted overtime compensation as a
result of the lawsuit.  And that may well be dispositive under
Rule 23.  The Supreme Court may find that Rule 23, rather than
Article III, requires decertification of the class in Tyson Foods
and that a key requisite at the certification stage is a
demonstration that some mechanism will ensure that no uninjured
class members receive compensation.


UNITED STATES: Visitors Seek Claims v. National Park Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that summer vacations have turned tragic this year at national
parks, with visitors killed by grizzly bears and falling tree
limbs, and campers sickened by an outbreak of the plague.

This year's misfortunes follow last year's total of 164 deaths at
national parks, most occurring while visitors were hiking,
swimming or from suicide, according to the National Park Service.

In fact, the number of deaths excluding suicides at national parks
rose to 185 in 2013 from 121 in 2007.  By comparison, however, the
national parks host more than 275 million visitors each year.

As the law would have it, the government can be held liable under
the Federal Tort Claims Act for deaths and injuries at national
parks and forests, but often those lawsuits fail, and visitors
have only themselves -- or nature's forces -- to blame when their
adventures go wrong.

Capturing much attention are attacks by wild animals.  During the
five years from 2007 to 2013, six people died from animal
attacks -- four from grizzly bears, one from a snake and one from
a mountain goat.  The mountain goat case was at the heart of a
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision last month
holding that the government was not responsible for the death of
hiker Robert Boardman, who was gored by the wild animal at Olympic
National Park.

"It's a horrible thing to be attacked by an animal," said
Paul Figley, who served as deputy director in the torts branch of
the U.S. Justice Department's civil division in Washington from
1991 to 2006.  "But if the government was going to be liable for
these types of cases, when they're doing everything they intended
to do and got their program and followed it, then there'd be a lot
of pressure to get rid of the animals.  You could have Yellowstone
without the bears, but you would have a different experience.
There's no way to have bears without the risk."

So far, no lawsuits have resulted from this summer's deaths of a
hiker by a grizzly bear at Yellowstone and of two young campers by
a falling tree limb at Yosemite.

In his years at the Justice Department, Mr. Figley, now associate
director of the legal rhetoric program at the American University
Washington College of Law, came across incidents of attacks from
bears, mountain lions, moose, buffalo and alligators.  Other cases
involved falling rocks, chuckholes or hot springs.  But the most
common, he said, involved people who fell -- usually from cliffs
or waterfalls -- or dove into water that was too shallow.

There are a host of legal defenses for the government, such as
comparative or contributory negligence -- basically that the
victim bore some responsibility for the accident.

Mr. Figley said he once got a case dismissed involving a bear that
bit the arm of a father who was driving through the park with his
kids.  "If you're around bears, you shouldn't have your arm out
the window," he said.

The Federal Tort Claims Act makes the government liable under the
same circumstances that a private defendant would be.  Plaintiffs
can bring claims against both national parks, which are
administered by the National Park Service within the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and national forests, run by the
Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service.

But the act carves out several limitations, most prominently the
discretionary function exception, which is a "very challenging
statute to get by," said Wayne Mitchell of Anderson & Mitchell in
Seattle, who sued the government on behalf of a woman who was
injured from a fall at Mount Rainier National Park in Washington
state.  "That's where most of the cases run aground."

The discretionary function exception immunizes the government when
its actions or inactions are found to be discretionary -- and not
based on a rule, statute or regulation -- and grounded in "social,
economic or political policy."

"The NPS has to balance visitor access and safety with wildlife
conservation and environmental protection," said Jennifer Shah, a
partner at Buffalo's Phillips Lytle who was a trial attorney in
the DOJ's torts branch from 2000 to 2004.

That leaves courts to make judgment calls.  In the July 27 Ninth
Circuit decision involving the 370-pound goat, the court upheld
dismissal of the case brought by Susan Chadd, Mr. Boardman's wife.
The suit alleged park officials were negligent in failing to kill
the goat, which had become a known nuisance for years.

Writing for the majority, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain concluded
that the public's interest in seeing the goats outweighed the need
to kill the animals.  Though concurring, Judge Marsha Berzon
agreed with dissenting Judge Andrew Kleinfeld that the law in this
area had "gone off the rails."

"There never was a park policy to leave dangerous animals alone
because 'the public desired to see the goats,' the policy reason
upon which the majority relies," Judge Kleinfeld wrote, noting
that park officials killed the goat hours after Mr. Boardman's
death.  "This case is analogous to the routine tort case, where a
homeowner has a fierce dog that has attacked people and bitten
one, but does not get rid of the dog until after it has torn some
child's face off."

Mr. Mitchell agreed.  "The courts have, unfortunately, in my mind,
really broadened in this policy idea to basically say if we can
come up with any conceivable policy consideration that would be
involved in this incident then the discretionary function
exception applies."

In the case Mr. Mitchell filed, the Ninth Circuit reinstated the
claims of his client, Donna Young, who suffered broken bones after
falling through a 12-foot-deep hole, landing on a transformer that
had melted the snow under her feet.  The Ninth Circuit found that
the exception shouldn't shield the government from being held
liable for a particular hazard that park officials not only failed
to warn about but actually created.

The case, which was set for trial on Sept. 8, settled last month
for an undisclosed amount.

In cases brought on behalf of 20 people who died in 2010 from a
flash flood at Ouachita National Forest, the Forest Service has
cited the Arkansas Recreational Use Statute in arguing for
dismissal. Recreational use statutes protect landowners, both
public and private, who let the public use their property free of
charge for recreational purposes.

But the Arkansas statute doesn't protect a landowner for
"malicious, but not mere negligent, failure to guard or warn
against an ultra-hazardous condition."  Plaintiffs lawyers claim
the Forest Service failed to follow its own regulations when
building a campsite on a 100-year floodplain near the Little
Missouri River.  The government said park officials believed the
campsite was outside the floodplain at the time they created it
and that, furthermore, a floodplain wasn't "ultra-hazardous."  The
government also insisted the area had no history of injuries
caused from floods.

Plaintiff Theresa Roeder had been going to the same Ouachita
campground every year since she was a child.  But that morning,
while on a family trip, she awoke under her tarp to find herself
knee-deep in water.  Ms. Roeder, then 50, managed to escape by
climbing up a mountain in pouring rain. Her mother and her step-
brother and his wife died when their RV was swept down river.

"When you have to think about a happy place, this was all our
family's happy place," Ms. Roeder said.  "We never had a sense of
flooding and never a sense you'd be trapped or washed away in any
way."


URANIUM ENERGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Uranium Energy Corp. ("Uranium
Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE-MKT: UEC), during the period
between October 14, 2014 and June 17, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Uranium Energy stock achieved an
unsustainable valuation by using paid stock promoters, yet failed
to disclose the use of such promoters in its regulatory filings
pursuant to Section 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933; and (2)
as a result of the foregoing, Uranium Energy's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

No Class has yet been certified in the action. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number. If you
suffered a loss in Uranium Energy you have until August 28, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
info@bgandg.com


VEMMA NUTRITION: Temporary Shut Down Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Federal Trade Commission
said on Aug. 26 that Vemma Nutrition has been temporarily shut
down for operating a pyramid scheme that promised college students
riches if they sold its nutritional drinks, but most ended up
losing money.

The consumer protection agency said that Vemma told recruits that
they could make as much as $50,000 per week selling its
nutritional beverage Vemma, energy drink Verge or protein shake
Bod-e.  An initial investment of $600 was paid for products and
business tools and $150 in Vemma products had to be bought each
month to receive bonuses.  The FTC said Vemma provided little help
on how to sell its products and instead rewarded them for
recruiting more people.

Vemma earned $200 million a year in 2013 and 2014, according to
the FTC.

A representative from Vemma, which is based in Tempe, Arizona, did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A federal court in Arizona temporarily seized the company's
assets.  Products on Vemma's website could not be bought on
Aug. 26.  The website said that products were "temporarily
unavailable at this time."

In the complaint, the FTC said Vemma employees visited college
campuses and told students that selling the beverages was an
alternative to a regular job.  Its marketing materials features
young people in luxury vehicles, jets and yachts, the FTC said.

Chris and Heidi Powell, two married stars from ABC's reality show
"Extreme Weight Loss," appear in promotional videos and packaging
of weight-loss drink Bod-e.  Representatives of the Powells and
ABC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Along with the company, Vemma CEO Benson Boreyko is also named as
a defendant in the complaint, as is Vemma promoter Tom Alkazin and
his wife Bethany Alkazin.


VIDEOTRON: To Pay $1.2MM in Internet Service Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Lau, writing for Global News, reported that videotron
extreme high-speed internet customers may soon receive a rebate
from the company.

Videotron has been ordered to pay at least $1.2 million to clients
of their high-speed internet service after a class-action lawsuit
was launched against the company in 2011.

Videotron implied that its extreme high-speed service allowed
unlimited downloading, but the company imposed a 100 gigabyte
limit soon after the original plaintiff signed his contract.

Anything over that limit cost $1.50 per gigabyte.

According to Quebec's consumer union, the change affected about
34,000 customers and violated Quebec's consumer protection act.

Videotron said it is reviewing the decision.

The company has 30 days to decide whether it will appeal or not.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Faces Class Suit Over 'AlphaSector' Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanders Wommack, writing for RIA Biz, reported that a potentially
explosive lawsuit was filed late against Virtus Investment
Partners, a Hartford, Conn. mutual fund company, and its officers.

The consolidated class action complaint filed in the Southern
District of New York alleges that company officers of mutual fund
company, Virtus, falsely marketed its flagship product based on a
purported blockbuster performance record that in reality never
existed.

"During and before the "Class Period", Virtus and its senior
executives told investors that the proprietary trading strategy
underlying its AlphaSector funds had an astounding historical
track record," the suit reads.

The suit further alleges that defendants knew the strategy
underlying the AlphaSector funds did not even exist prior to
September 2008, "and the funds' purported track record was
fabricated using back-tested hypothetical results that were not
only falsely presented to investors but were themselves grossly
inflated."

Until recently, many of Virtus's largest and most lucrative funds
were marketed based on the now disgraced AlphaSector investment
models provided by Wellesley, Mass.-based F-Squared Investments in
its capacity as subadvisor. See: Where Virtus stands after F-
Squared seemingly led it astray, to mutual benefit.

The complaint, Case 1:15-cv-01249-WHP Document 33, also accuses
two company officers of selling big portions of their Virtus
stakes after they learned of F-Squared's duplicity and raises
ethical questions about a September 2013 secondary offer organized
by Virtus in which the firm raised $167 million from the public
market.

New York law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LP is
leading the litigation against Virtus and filed the lawsuit, which
is the result of a lengthy investigation conducted by BLB&G
attorneys John C. Browne and David Schwartz. Among other cases,
the firm has led successful litigation efforts against Arthur
Andersen in 2002, WorldCom in 2005, and Tyco International in
2009.

Virtus Investment Partners, through a public relations
representative, declined to comment on the accusations put forth
in the la

F-bomb

On Dec. 22, 2014, F-Squared Investments settled accusations by the
Securities and Exchange Commission that it had marketed its
flagship AlphaSector line of indexes deceitfully by using returns
based on incorrectly calculated backtests, not real results.

Under the leadership of then CEO Howard Present, F-Squared
invented a fictional track record for its AlphaSector index that
showed it gaining 135% versus the actual 28% gain for the S&P 500
between April 2001 and September 2008. Present promulgated the
fiction -- that real clients had experienced these incredible
returns -- via marketing materials, presentations and private
communications. See: How Howard Present parlayed an intern's
algorithm into a small fortune -- and when the SEC says he knew of
a mega-disconnect.

The fraud began its inevitable unraveling in July 2013 when a
routine SEC examination at F-Squared's headquarters turned up
irregularities. By September 2013, Howard Present had informed
Virtus, his mutual fund partner, that F-Squared's historical
investment track records were under investigation. See: In reply
to SEC, Howard Present blames bad advice for any alleged
wrongdoing.

The BLB&G lawsuit alleges that Present personally delivered this
news to about 30 Virtus employees, including the leaders of
Virtus's national sales team, at a due diligence meeting in
Chicago in late September or early October 2013. Present's news
touched off a panicked reaction at Virtus, according to the
lawsuit, which goes on to allege that Virtus leadership then took
actions to hide what the company knew about the AlphaSector track
record.
Fire sale

The consolidated class action complaint reads, in part:

"After this announcement by F-Squared, according to this former
employee, 'all hell broke loose' and Virtus went into full damage
control mode. Indeed, shortly after the Chicago meeting Virtus
management organized an all-hands-on-deck conference call, which
included CEO George Alyward as well as [senior executives] [Jeff]
Cerutti, [Pete] Batchelar, [Paul] Cahill, and [John] McCormick.
According to a Virtus wholesaler who participated in the
conference call, management told Virtus's employees that they 'had
to do a scorched earth' and destroy 'any materials they had'
relating to AlphaSector's prior track record. This employee said
that he and others destroyed both hard copy documents and emails
because 'everything needed to be gone.'"

A lawyer for Virtus says in a letter sent to RIABiz after this
article was published that such a contention is implausible on its
face. "... as an SEC-regulated entity, Virtus is subject to and
implements document preservation requirements (including of
emails) relating to its business." The lawyer's letter goes on to
say: "Virtus did not destroy evidence related to F-Squared or
anything else."

The class action complaint continues:

"This former employee recalled that Virtus employees were
'shocked' by this order but many, including himself, complied by
deleting emails, PDFs, discarding hard copy documents, and
advertising materials -- anything that reflected the AlphaSector
2001 to 2008 track record. This employee recalled that '[i]f it
was internal between product research, salesforce, and management
-- there was quite a bit of that and that all had to go.'"

According to BLB&G, the orders to destroy evidence were given by
Virtus's executive vice-president and head of national sales, Jeff
Cerutti. He left Virtus in March 2014 to become CEO of AMG Funds
at Beverly, Mass.-based Affiliated Managers Group, a post he
currently occupies. AMG has not responded to a request for
comment. See: AMG is suddenly among the RIA roll-up elite after
the Baker Street deal pushes it past $25-billion of AUM.

Allegations

These allegations come in the wake of reports that suggested
Virtus management knew much more about the AlphaSector's fake
historical returns than they told clients. Research conducted by
attorneys at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann suggests that
Virtus management came clean to its salesforce -- but nobody else
-- regarding F-Squared's use of backtesting in a December 2012
meeting. That alleged occurrence was covered in RIABiz previously

The lawsuit quotes attendees at Virtus's 2012 wholesaler
conference at the Boca Raton Beach Resort in Florida who say they
can confirm that moments after Howard Present had given a talk
about his company and left the room, a senior executive in charge
of compliance, Batchelar, rose to tell everyone else not to listen
to Present when he spoke about F-Squared's supposedly live track
records. Batchelar then allegedly said that Virtus knew all of F-
Squared's returns were based on backtesting prior to September
2008. See: Where Virtus stands after F-Squared seemingly led it
astray, to mutual benefit

At least two officers of the company, Cerutti and Francis G.
Waltman, were in the room when Batchelar made this announcement,
the suit says. According to the complaint, CEO George Aylward,
while not physically in the room, was conferencing into the
meeting over the phone.

Based on SEC documents from the F-Squared settlement, it appears
possible that Virtus did not yet know that the backtested returns
were also incredibly inflated. According to publicly available
information, the earliest point at which Virtus knew that Howard
Present and F-Squared had mishandled the strategies' backtesting
in a way that boosted returns was May 2013.
Stock

Despite allegedly telling its salesmen the truth about F-Squared's
historical inception date in December 2012, Virtus Investment
Partners did not change its marketing materials for these
incredibly lucrative AlphaSector mutual funds for 10 months, the
suit contends. Prospectuses and fact sheets continued to list
April 2001 as the inception date for the AlphaSector funds.
Leadership at Virtus allegedly encouraged their wholesalers to
continue to push the false AlphaSector story.

According to an employee quoted in the suit filed against Virtus:
"[Virtus wholesalers] were instructed (or rather commanded) by
sales management, including Defendant Cerutti and others, that
'this is how it stands so go out and sell with it. So we did,
vehemently.' This employee said that while employees were
concerned by the comments at the Boca Raton meeting, their
complaints became a 'broken record' and eventually the truth was
'swept under the rug.'"

It continues:

"According to this former employee, the wholesalers were
'instructed to show what the funds did in 2001 to 2008' and
emphasize that they 'dramatically outperformed the S&P 500.' When
asked how important it was in client pitches to emphasize this
information, the employee stated that -'it closed the sale' and
'everything was built on the [2001-2008] track record.'"

Virtus, as a corporate entity, is also called out in the complaint
for selling its own shares while withholding material information
from investors. The lawsuit further alleges that during September
2013, nine months after the Boca meeting and weeks before its
officers allegedly ordered subordinates to destroy information
about F-Squared's returns, Virtus sold 1,129,000 shares of its
common stock to the public at $155 per share in a secondary
offering. This garnered Virtus net proceeds of approximately $167
million, according to SEC filings. Shares in the company later
rose to as high as $247 before falling dramatically as the SEC
investigation of F-Squared ended with the government's gun sights
on Virtus.

Shares traded for $114 on. On, shares dropped over 5% to close at
$108.32. The movements approximated general declines of stocks hit
in the recent correction.

Potential $60 million disgorgement

Virtus management continually downplayed the significance of the
SEC investigation into F-Squared, insisting to company employees
that this was an "F-Squared issue, not a Virtus issue." On
quarterly conference calls since news of the F-Squared
investigation broke, Aylward has been no more forthcoming,
frequently shutting down or brushing off questions about the
matter.

RIABiz confirmed there was an SEC investigation into Virtus
Investment Partners after filing a Freedom of Information Act
request with the SEC in March. See: SEC denies Freedom of
Information request by RIABiz related to Virtus funds as
Ameriprise and TD Ameritrade become latest biggies to cut ties

Virtus admitted the existence of an investigation May 11, the same
day it announced F-Squared would no longer be subadvising the
AlphaSector line of mutual funds. These funds were rebranded and
taken over by Dorsey Wright & Assoc. of Richmond, Va. See: Virtus
bites bullets with F-Squared firing, Dorsey Wright hiring and an
admission that it'll likely pay a $5-million-plus SEC settlement

Virtus has thus far set aside $16.3 million to settle with the
SEC, but analysts say the ultimate figure will probably be much
higher. The lawsuit notes that an analyst for Jefferies LLC, a
global investing firm, estimated in June that a potential SEC
penalty and disgorgement could rise as high as $60 million for the
mutual fund company -- assuming Virtus was at an "arms-length from
the source of the errors."
Back(test) story

CEO Howard Present built F-Squared into a $28 billion AUM company
between 2006 and 2014 by creating and marketing a line of ETF
portfolio indexes, which were designed to limit exposure to market
downturns. Unfortunately, Present created these "AlphaSector"
indexes by incorrectly backtesting a licensed, third-party
algorithm, a mistake that led to the AlphaSector indexes appearing
to have a return that was 350% higher than it should have been.
Despite being warned that the backtesting method F-Squared used
had created highly inflated historical returns, the SEC says
Present continued to market these world-beating indexes. See: Bean
Town Brahmins -- ex-Windhaven execs -- may pay as much as $100
million for F-Squared remains.

Also problematic was Present's insistence that the backtested,
historical returns he himself had invented actually represented
investment returns experienced by real clients. Present and F-
Squared claimed that the inception date for these strategies was
April 2001 and not September 2008 when F-Squared publicly launched
the indexes.

In the wake of the financial crisis, they practically sold
themselves. Investors stampeded into F-Squared products, the long-
term investment returns of which appeared to have crushed the S&P
500 and avoided practically all of the market's downturns.

Business boomed. Starting from nothing, F-Squared gained $28
billion assets in six years.

At its peak, $12.5 billion of these assets were in Virtus mutual
funds and at least another $1 billion in separately managed
accounts. Virtus collected commissions on these fund sales and
split ensuing management fees with F-Squared. AlphaSector SEC
filings show Virtus earned gross advisory fees of $137.5 million
in management fees from the five AlphaSector mutual funds in 2014
after collecting $71.5 million in 2013. This compares to total
revenue of $451 million in 2014 and $389 million in 2013.

The SEC uncovered the fraud during a routine examination in July
2013. Two months later, on Sept. 23, 2013, Present told F-Squared
staff to stop claiming that returns before September 2008 returns
were "live" and shortly thereafter told Virtus about the SEC
investigation into the AlphaSector track record.

F-Squared settled with the SEC on Dec. 22, 2014. F-Squared paid a
$5 million fine and disgorged profits of $30 million under the
settlement. Present did not settle with the SEC alongside his
former company, contesting all charges against himself. The trial,
currently in its discovery phase, is scheduled to go to. See: In
reply to SEC, Howard Present blames bad advice for any alleged
wrongdoing.

On the block

F-Squared's $35 million hit appeared small at the time in contrast
to its revenues, but in conjunction with mounting legal fees for
Howard Present, fleeing clients and a shattered reputation, it was
enough to kill the company in less than seven months. F-Squared
filed for bankruptcy in early July. At the time, it had just $5
billion in assets left under management. The company, or what's
left of it, is in the process of being purchased by Broadmeadow
Capital LLC, a Boston-based RIA with close to $16 million in
assets under management, according to its SEC ADV form.

New York-based Zamansky LLC filed the original class action
complaint against Virtus Investment Partners in February. It was,
essentially, a shorter repackaging of the SEC's Dec. 22, 2014
complaint against F-Squared. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement
System, which managed about $14 billion in 2014, is the lead
plaintiff of the new, consolidated class action complaint filed by
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, which has 49 lawyers. The
class action represents anyone who purchased Virtus shares between
Jan. 25, 2013 and May 11, 2015.


VOLVO CARS: 3rd Cir. Vacates Class Cert Ruling in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Volvo Cars et al. took an appeal from the order granting class
certification by the district court in New Jersey in the case
captioned, JOANNE NEALE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; KERI HAY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; DAVID TAFT; JEFFREY KRUGER; KAREN
COLLOPY; KELLY MCGARY; SVEIN A. BERG; GREGORY P. BURNS, v. VOLVO
CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC; VOLVO CAR CORPORATION, Appellants,
Case No. 14-1540 (3rd Cir.).

Plaintiffs were consumers from six states who filed a putative
class action against Defendants Volvo Cars alleging that certain
vehicles sold  had defective sunroof drainage systems. Plaintiffs
filed suit on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of
current and former Volvo vehicle owners and lessees. On March 26,
2013, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify a
nationwide class, granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify six
statewide classes, and denied Volvo's motions for summary
judgment. After the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426 (2013), Volvo moved for reconsideration of
the District Court's order granting class certification, which the
District Court also denied.

On appeal, Volvo argued that: (1) putative members of the class
have not suffered an injury and therefore lack Article III
standing; (2) the District Court failed to identify the class
claims and defenses in its certification order; (3) the District
Court erred in its analysis of the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
requirement; and (4) the Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp.
v. Behrend means that Plaintiffs must have class-wide proof of
damages in order for the class to be certified.

Circuit Judge Smith of the United States Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit in the Memorandum Opinion dated July 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/AHPoyxfrom Leagle.com, vacated the district court's
order and remanded the action for further proceedings so that the
District Court could define the class membership, claims, and
defenses, and so that it could rigorously analyze predominance in
the first instance.

Plaintiffs are represented by Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. --
BenJohns@chimicles.com -- Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. --
JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. --
MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS

Defendants are represented by:

Paul Daly, Esq.
HARDIN, KUNDLA, MCKEON & POLETTO
673 Morris Ave
Springfield Township, NJ 07081
Tel: (973)912-5222


WYNDHAM: Must Face FTC's Data Breach Claims, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal appeals court has ruled the Wyndham hotel chain and its
subsidiaries sued in a Federal Trade Commission action are still
on the hook for three data breaches into the corporation's
computer network that resulted in $10.6 million in fraudulent
charges to customers' credit cards.

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on
Aug. 24 stressed the FTC has the authority to protect consumer
rights in cybersecurity matters, allowing the commission to
determine what is considered an "unfair" practice.

The federal appeals court upheld the trial court's ruling that the
FTC's claims alleging "unfair" and "deceptive practices" against
the hotel chain should stand.  The FTC claimed Wyndham's lax
cybersecurity policies caused the card information of over 619,000
customers to be stolen.  The FTC further alleged that in its
privacy policy, Wyndham overstated its ability to protect its
customers' sensitive information.

According to the court's opinion, written by Judge Thomas L.
Ambro, the first issue Wyndham argued on appeal was that its
conduct was not unfair to its customers.  Wyndham claimed that
conduct is only unfair when it is "unscrupulous" or "unethical,"
but Judge Ambro said the chain's assertion wasn't backed up by any
case law.

Wyndham also turned to the dictionary definition of unfair,
contending that a practice is only unfair if it is "not equitable"
or "marked by injustice, partiality, or deception."  But Judge
Ambro rejected that interpretation as well.

"Whether these are requirements of an unfairness claim makes
little difference here," Judge Ambro said.  "A company does not
act equitably when it publishes a privacy policy to attract
customers who are concerned about data privacy, fails to make good
on that promise by investing inadequate resources in
cybersecurity, exposes its unsuspecting customers to substantial
financial injury, and retains the profits of their business."

Continuing its analysis of the definition of unfairness, Wyndham
argued a business does not treat its customers unfairly when it is
victimized itself by criminals.  However, Judge Ambro said the FTC
Act notes that a company's conduct can be considered unfair even
if it creates a likelihood of harm rather than actual harm.

"For good reason, Wyndham does not argue that the cybersecurity
intrusions were unforeseeable," Judge Ambro said.  "That would be
particularly implausible as to the second and third attacks."
Wyndham also argued if the FTC has the authority to determine what
is unfair in this case, then it also has the authority to
"regulate the locks on hotel room doors . . . to require every
store in the land to post an armed guard at the door" and to sue
supermarkets that are "sloppy about sweeping up banana peels."

Judge Ambro called the chain's argument "alarmist," reasoning "it
invites the tart retort that, were Wyndham a supermarket, leaving
so many banana peels all over the place that 619,000 customers
fall hardly suggests it should be immune from liability."

In its second argument, Wyndham claimed the FTC did not give it
fair notice as to the cybersecurity standards it was supposed to
follow.

But Judge Ambro said Wyndham's argument is at odds with its
position that the FTC has no clear standards on cybersecurity.

"Wyndham's position is unmistakable: the FTC has not yet declared
that cybersecurity practices can be unfair; there is no relevant
FTC rule, adjudication or document that merits deference," Judge
Ambro said.  "The implication of this position is similarly clear:
If the federal courts are to decide whether Wyndham's conduct was
unfair in the first instance under the statute without deferring
to any FTC interpretation, then this case involves ordinary
judicial interpretation of a civil statute, and the ascertainable
certainty standard does not apply.  The relevant question is not
whether Wyndham had fair notice of the FTC's interpretation of the
statute, but whether Wyndham had fair notice of what the statute
itself requires."

Simply put, the answer to that question was yes, according to
Judge Ambro, especially given that, "at least after the second
attack, it should have been painfully clear to Wyndham that a
court could find its conduct failed the cost-benefit analysis."

Additionally, in 2007, the FTC put out a guidebook on protecting
personal information in business.  While not providing specific
statutorily-mandated practices, Judge Ambro said, "it does counsel
against many of the specific practices alleged here," including
Wyndham's alleged lack of a firewall or encryption to protect
customer data.

FTC lawyer Joel R. Marcus deferred comment to the FTC's press
office.  FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said in a statement, "The
Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision reaffirms the FTC's
authority to hold companies accountable for failing to safeguard
consumer data.  It is not only appropriate, but critical, that the
FTC has the ability to take action on behalf of consumers when
companies fail to take reasonable steps to secure sensitive
consumer information."

After an email requesting comment was sent to an attorney for
Wyndham, Eugene Assaf of Kirkland & Ellis, a Wyndham spokesperson
responded with a statement in which he said, "While we are
disappointed by the opinion, we continue to contend the FTC lacks
the authority to pursue this type of case against American
businesses, and has failed to publish any regulations that would
give such businesses fair notice of any proposed standards for
data security.  It is important to note that the opinion was
decided solely upon our motion to dismiss the FTC's complaint,
which requires the Third Circuit to take the FTC's allegations at
face value."


                            *********

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 2015. 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  * * *