CAR_Public/150915.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, September 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 184


                            Headlines


ACME: New Jersey Court Dismisses Fraud Class Suit
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AIR CANADA: Opt-In Needed for Foreigners Joining Class Suit
ANGLOGOLD: TAC, Sonke Now Friends of the Court in Miners Suit
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit

BABYLON ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min. Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.C. Over Alleged Libor Manipulation
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing
BARCLAYS BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Libor Manipulation
BAYER: Faces Class Suit Over Xarelto Side Effects

BLUESTEM BRANDS: Fingerhut.com Faces Fraudulent Sales Class Suit
BOEING CO: Reaches Prelim Settlement Over 401(K) Class Suit
BRASKEM SA: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
BRENNTAG: Settles 2004 East Point Chemical Leak Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE: 11th Cir. Rejects Fair Debt Collection Class Suit

CBS RADIO: Facing Biocostal Demands to Stop Playing Pre-'72 Songs
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gilman Files Securities Class Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: TWC, TWC Board to Defend Merger Action
CITIGROUP INC: Parties in "BEACH" Case Executed MOU
CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs in FX Case Filed 2nd Amended Complaint

CITIGROUP INC: Amended Complaint Filed in NYPL v. JPMorgan
CITIGROUP INC: "Bakizada", "Teel" & "Robert Charles" Cases Filed
CITIGROUP INC: Defending "Allen v. Bank of America" Case
CITIGROUP INC: Defendants in "Gelboim" File Response Brief
CITIGROUP INC: 7 West 57th Case Plaintiff Filed 2nd Amended Suit

CITIGROUP INC: Sonterra Capital Class Action Filed
CITIGROUP INC: Motions to Vacate Settlement Approval Filed
COMMUNITY HEALTH: New Judge Continued Discovery Stay
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Consolidated Suit Filed Over Cyber Attack
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Bid for En Banc Review

CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Held in Hale Case
CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Held in Addison Case
CONSTANT CONTACT: Briscoe Firm Sues Officers and Directors
CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Liability in Class Action Fully Accrued
CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted in Part Motions to Dismiss

CYTRX CORPORATION: "Rajasekaran" Case Remains Stayed
DAIRY FARMERS: Lawyers Recommend New Settlement in Milk Suit
DOLE FOOD: CEO Must Pay $148-Mil. Over Unfair Buyout
DONORCOMMUNITY INC: "Pinilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
DWM PLLC: Worker Sues Chiropractic Clinics Over OT Pay Avoidance

EAGLE ROCK: Unitholders Filed Derivative and Class Action Suits
EMDEON INC: Social Service Coordinators Paid Full Amount in Deal
ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Gerges" Suit Claims
EVENTS & ADVENTURES: Faces Potential Class Suit On Memberships
FIREEYE INC: Oral Argument Heard, Final Court Ruling Pending

FIREEYE INC: Defending Against Stockholder Class Action in Calif.
FREDDIE MAC: Class Certification Bid in OPERS Case Pending
FREDDIE MAC: Defending Against Suits Over Stock Purchase Deal
GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio High Court Refuses to Certify Class Suit
GLOW NETWORKS: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GOOGLE INC: Illegally Scans and Catalogs Emails, Action Claims
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Faces "Kilpatrick" Suit Over ERISA Violation
HAYNE LIM: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HEWLETT PACKARD: Nov. 13 Fairness Hearing on $100MM Settlement
HSBC USA: Parties Settled Speedy Stop Food Stores v. Visa

HSBC USA: Hearing Held in "Ofra Levin" Case
HSBC USA: Expert Discovery in Debit Card Overdraft Fee Case
HSBC USA: Parties Settled Blackburn Lender-Placed Insurance Case
HSBC USA: Defendants Respond in Silver Fix Litigation
HSBC USA: Defendants Respond in Platinum and Palladium Fix Case

HSBC USA: Stephen and Leyla Hill Case Filed
HSBC USA: New Action Filed Against HSBC Entities by 2 Investors
INDEPENDENT BANK: To Pursue Insurance Coverage for New Claims
INFINITY BROKERAGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Has Stipulation to Resolve Class Action

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
JC PENNEY: Faces "Monteiro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JPMORGAN CHASE: Robbins Geller Inks $388-Mil. Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: More Class Suits Filed in SDNY v. FX Dealers
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motions to Dismiss US Dollar LIBOR Cases Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal Filed in Euroyen TIBOR, Yen LIBOR Actions
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Florida Action Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in Bear Stearns Suit Has Final Okay
JPMORGAN CHASE: Jan. 2016 Final Settlement Hearing Date Set
JRN INC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

K. HOVNANIAN: Construction Defect Class Suit Allowed to Proceed
KENTUCKY: Teacher Sues State Pension Over Private Equity Fees
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Restated Suit Fully Briefed
LEON FARMA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Birth Control Pills
LEWIS ENERGY: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide WARN Notice

LIFELOCK INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Suit
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Discovery in Class Actions Remains Stayed
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Defending 17 Individual Suits in Raleigh, W.Va.
MADISON ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MASTEC INC: Faces "Wrigley" Class Action Lawsuit

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger
MCCORMICK & CO: Faces "Jung" Suit Over Slack-Fill Packaging
MCG CAPITAL: Reached Agreement to Settle Stockholder Litigation
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Investors Class Actions Consolidated
MONROEVILLE INDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

NESTLE SA: Supports Slave Labor to Produce Fancy Feast, Suit Says
NETAPP INC: Faces "Broudy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NRG ENERGY: 2 TCPA Suits Filed Against NRG and NRG Residential
NTT DATA: Faces "Komatsu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ONTARIO, CA: Faces $1B Residential Hospital Abuse Class Suit

PALMETTO BANCSHARES: Plaintiff in "Underwood" Case Dismissed Suit
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
PIZZA HUT: Class Action Against Delivery Tax Moves Ahead
POLYCOM INC: Motions to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
PROCTER & GAMBLE: 6th Cir. Assesses Class Criteria in Align Suit

REALOGY HOLDINGS: Entered Into Settlement in "Bararsani" Case
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: Faces "Deville" Suit Over Data Breach
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Pending
RUSTY NAIL: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
SANDISK CORP: District Court Denied Motion for Summary Judgment

SANDISK CORP: Court Stayed Discovery in Suit v. SD-3C LLC
SANDISK CORP: Securities Action v. Fusion-io et al. Dismissed
SANDISK CORP: Union Asset and KBC Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs
SILVERCO ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Goldberg Files Securities Class Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Oct. 26 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Appeal in Class Action Remains Pending
STAPLES INC: Faces "Wesson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SUPER MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Parties in "Pittman" Case Finalizing Deal
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Sued in E.D. La. Over Defective Chinese Drywall
TENDER TRAP: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
TENET HEALTHCARE: Trial This Month in Antitrust Class Action

TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Motion to Re-open Discovery Granted
TENET HEALTHCARE: Paid $13.6MM to Settle Case v. Jo Ellen
TEXTURA CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action
TIMBO'S CONSTRUCTION: "Avalos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Bangoy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TRANSPORT DRIVERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
TURNBERRY HOTEL: "Villan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UNITED STATES: Faces "Robbeloth" Suit Over OPM's Cyber Breach
VENTURA RECOVERY: Sued Over Employee Health and Welfare Plans
VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Holy Stone Agreed to Indemnify

WORLD WRESTLING: Court Granted Motion to Transfer McCullough Case
WORLD WRESTLING: To Defend Against "Ganues" and "Swanson" Cases



                            *********

ACME: New Jersey Court Dismisses Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Juim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reported that a federal
judge has dismissed three lawsuits that allege supermarket chains
deceived shoppers in their bakery departments.

The proposed class-action suits, filed by three South Jersey
shoppers in December 2014, targeted the Acme, Wegmans and Whole
Foods chains.

The complaints claimed the grocers falsely advertised breads and
baked goods as being prepared in their stores, but that the items
actually "were frozen, delivered to (the) stores and then re-baked
or partially baked in store."

In his rulings, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas in Camden first
declined to approve the suits as class-action lawsuits, saying it
would be too difficult to identify eligible consumers.

Irenas then dismissed the complaints, saying they failed to
provide details needed to support a claim of consumer fraud.

Wegmans spokeswoman Jo Natale welcomed the decision. "We never
thought there was any merit to this lawsuit, because we have never
done anything to deceive or mislead our customers," she said.

But a lawyer for the shoppers declared a partial victory. "Despite
the court's opinion, the consumers won this time because the
(supermarkets) removed the misleading signs and advertisements,"
said attorney Aneliya Angelova of Marlton.

Representatives of Acme and Whole Foods could not be reached
immediately.

In three 39-page rulings, Irenas noted the suits made general
claims but did not identify specific baked products, the prices
paid for them, the ads linked to them, or any specific monetary
losses for shoppers.

For example, Irenas said, the lawsuits cited supermarket signs for
"store-baked rolls" but did not specify which shoppers "actually
saw this particular sign, in which store that occurred, or when
plaintiffs saw it."

The suits were brought on behalf of Martchela Mladenov and Mladen
Mladenov, both of Burlington County, and Chan Mao, a Camden County
resident. They were described in the suits as health-conscious
consumers who bought breads and baked goods at the supermarkets.

The suits sought to represent more than 10,000 people believed to
have purchased qualifying baked goods from the chains' New Jersey
outlets since December 2008. They sought damages of $100 per
customer, or potentially more than $1 million.

But Irenas said the lawsuits offered no process to identify such
shoppers. He noted cash-register receipts would fail to show
whether products had been falsely advertised as fresh-baked.

The steps needed to connect each receipt to an alleged fraud
"would trigger mini-trials for each person who purchased the
relevant products," Irenas said.


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan David Mejia v. Adventist Health System/West d/b/a Adventist
Health and Does 1 through 25, Case No. BC593862 (D. Cal.,
September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Adventist Health System/West operates a home care services
affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist church.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Perko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO
      26895 Aliso Creek Road, Suite B66
      Aliso Viejo, CA
      Telephone: (949) 390-4442
      Facsimile: (949) 916-1039
      E-mail: jackperko@hotmail.com


AIR CANADA: Opt-In Needed for Foreigners Joining Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Dias, writing for Legal Feeds, reported that plaintiffs'
lawyers pursuing a class action for a global price-fixing
conspiracy will have to get formal opt-in from class members
abroad, if jurisdictional decision stands in Airia Brands v. Air
Canada.

The class action, which names a host of international airlines
accused of fixing the price of air cargo to and from Canada since
2000, was certified by Justice Lynne Leitch at the Ontario
Superior Court -- the decision to certify, however, comes with one
important caveat.

Despite a possibly "real and substantial" connection to Canada --
the test established in the Supreme Court of Canada's Club Resorts
Ltd. v. Van Breda decision -- defence counsel successfully argued
that Ontario's courts had no jurisdiction to include in the
proceeding foreign class members who had not specifically opted
in, defined as "absent foreign claimants."

Armed with reams of expert opinions, lawyers for the airlines
convinced Leitch that foreign courts in many of the 100-plus
countries from which plaintiff class members derived would not
respect the Van Breda test giving Canadian courts jurisdiction.
As a result, nothing would prevent a class member in one of those
other countries from re-litigating the matter and subjecting the
defendants to double jeopardy.

As the decision states: "I am satisfied that jurisdiction over
class members can only be established if they are present in
Ontario or have consented in some way to the jurisdiction of this
court. I therefore, find that this court does not have
jurisdiction simpliciter over absent foreign claimants."
It's a decision that stands in sharp contrast to Van Breda, where
Canadian courts were able to claim jurisdiction, for a case
involving injuries on a Cuban resort, based on a test establishing
"real and substantial connection" to Canada.

Charles Wright, the Siskinds LLP lawyer who launched the class
action in Canada, says he disagrees with the court's analysis on
jurisdiction, which finds that the plaintiffs connection to Canada
is not strong enough to account for the possibility of double
recovery.

Wright says that the decision essentially shuts the door to the
most likely avenue for justice for foreign claimants on the off
chance they might pursue an alternative, and highly unlikely,
avenue for justice.

"We believe our courts in Canada follow the rules of law and
provide justice," he says, "and if other courts abroad, some other
day, choose to find that that's not so and won't respect the
judgment, that's really a decision for them to make and that
doesn't impact on whether this court properly takes jurisdiction."
Wright says the decision on jurisdiction will most likely be
appealed. Even if it's upheld, though, it will not prevent
plaintiffs' lawyers from sending out notices to potential foreign
claimants to get formal opt-in from them.

Jurisdictional issues aside, Wright suggests the defendants' real
strategy -- one that has proven successful so far -- is to drag
the case on and make it more difficult for class members to
participate, in the hopes of reducing liability for their clients.
"Our argument was that this was a fairly clear effort to avoid
liability to these people. It wasn't really about the potential
for double jeopardy or that they shouldn't have to face a
multiplicity of lawsuits. It was about the desire to not have to
compensate some people at all.

"The defendants hope is that maybe people won't see or understand
the notice and won't respond to it, and therefore won't opt in,"
says Wright. "So the real hope is -- which is what we argued and
what we will argue on appeal -- is that they will avoid any
liability to those people."

Ultimately, however, Wright says the court's decision on
jurisdiction may backfire on the defendants:.
"If, in fact, the result of this decision is a notice that goes
out that causes people to see them in 20 different jurisdictions,
and they have to obtain counsel in all of those places and defend
themselves, it's not actually a good result for them."

Charles Wright, Esq.
Siskinds LLP
680 Waterloo St, London, ON N6A 3V
Phone: 519.672.2121
Toll Free: 877.672.2121
Fax: 519-672-6065
www.siskinds.com


ANGLOGOLD: TAC, Sonke Now Friends of the Court in Miners Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
RDM News Wire reported that South Gauteng High Court has admitted
the Treatment Action Campaign and Sonke Gender Justice as friends
of the court (amici curiae) in the planned class action lawsuit
against South African gold mines.

The organizations welcomed the ruling by judges Phineas Mojapelo,
Bashier Vally and Leonie Windell, which enables them to join in
the case of Bongani Nkala and others v Harmony Gold and others,
which will be heard in October.

The case involves hundreds of thousands of mineworkers who
contracted silicosis and tuberculosis.  The ruling means the TAC
and Sonke can introduce evidence specifically that of Sonke's
executive director, Dean Peacock, which highlights the effect
mining-related occupational disability has on the women who care
for mineworkers with silicosis and TB.

The two organizations, represented by Section27, will present
evidence of how these mining companies have "fuelled epidemics,
impoverished communities and entrenched gender inequalities over
the past five decades", the TAC and Sonke said in a statement.

Eighteen of the 32 gold mining companies opposed the TAC and
Sonke's application.

The high court will hear arguments regarding the certification of
the class when the case resumes on October 12.

Nkala along with 68 other former mineworkers, all of whom
contracted silicosis as a result of their exposure to crystalline
silica dust while employed at the mines, seek the court's
permission to certify a class action against 32 gold mining
companies.

The mineworkers seek to undertake the litigation as
representatives of all current and former gold mineworkers who
contracted silicosis, and dependants of deceased mineworkers who
died after contracting the disease. The number of people who might
benefit from the lawsuit is estimated at 200 000.


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until September 8, 2015 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. (nasdaqgm:AAVL) if they
purchased the Company's securities between July 31, 2014 and June
15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including investors who
purchased shares between January 9 and 13, 2015 at $59 a share.
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Avalanche and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by September 8, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

Avalanche and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The lawsuit alleges that Avalanche made false statements and
omissions regarding its Phase 2a study of its lead product, AVA-
101, a single sub-retinal injection to treat an advanced form of
Age-Related Macular Degeneration, a progressive disease affecting
the region of the eye responsible for central vision.  These false
statements and omissions included, in part, that:  (i) the trial
was not designed to show statistically significant differences
between the active and control subjects in the secondary
endpoints; (ii) the drug showed little improvement in visual
acuity above baseline; (iii) retinal thickness actually increased
among the treatment group; and (iv) the trial was improperly
designed.

                    About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447
1-877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


BABYLON ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Min. Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teri Jordan, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Babylon Entertainment LLC d/b/a Illusions
and Shaya Yampolskiy, Case No. 605780 (D.N.Y., September 4, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment
located at 3A Saxwood Street, Deer Park, New York, 11729.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in N.C. Over Alleged Libor Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, f/k/a Dryden Core Investment
Fund, o/b/o Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and
Prudential Core Taxable Money Market Fund v. Bank of America
Corporation and Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 3:15-cv-00413
(W.D.N.C., September 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
alleged systematic and collusive manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate ("Libor").

The Defendants operate a federally chartered national banking
association headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross R. Fulton, Esq.
      James B. Gatehouse
      RAYBURN COOPER & DURHAM, P.A.
      227 West Trade Street, Suite 1200
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 334-0891
      Facsimile: (704) 377-1897
      E-mail: rfulton@rcdlaw.net
              jgatehouse@rcdlaw.net

         - and -

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      Daniel P. Cunningham, Esq.
      Steig D. Olson, Esq.
      Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010-1601
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
              danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com
              steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
              jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
      Chris R. Barker, Esq.
      865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 443-3000
      Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
      E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
              chrisbarker@quinnemanuel.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07006 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful collusion in and
manipulation of the market for U.S.
Treasury securities, including Treasury bills, notes, bonds,
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and floating rate notes,
and derivative instruments based on such securities, including
U.S. Treasury futures and options.

Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency is a New York-based branch of
a Canadian financial services and banking company with its
principal place of business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New
York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              vserra@rgrdlaw.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Libor Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Investment Portfolios 2, f/k/a Dryden Core Investment
Fund, o/b/o Prudential Core Short-Term Bond Fund and Prudential
Core Taxable Money Market Fund v. Barclays Bank PLC, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-07031 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged systematic and collusive manipulation of the
London Interbank Offered Rate ("Libor").

Headquartered in London, England, Barclays Bank PLC operates a
banking & financial services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      Daniel P. Cunningham, Esq.
      Steig D. Olson, Esq.
      Jacob J. Waldman, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010-1610
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
       E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
               danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com
               steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
               jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com


BAYER: Faces Class Suit Over Xarelto Side Effects
-------------------------------------------------
Ria Renouf, writing for CKNW News, reported that it's a blood
thinner taken by hundreds of thousands of people in Canada, and
was considered an advancement when it first launched two years
ago.

But Xarelto made by Bayer is now the subject of a class action
lawsuit -- with the alleged victims piling up.

Lawyer Daniel Bauch says blood thinner Xarelto has caused not only
health, but emotional damage for the loved ones of those who took
the drug, launched by Bayer.

Bauch says many clients feel the company didn't warn users about
the drug's side effects, which mostly involved internal bleeding.

"That ranges from on the low end bleeding that caused discoloured
stool, all the way to people who allege that they suffered very
serious injuries, including death, related to their use of these
new generation blood thinners."

Bauch says most Xarelto users are elderly.

At least two people from BC are involved in the class action case.

Bayer Canada has yet to respond to CKNW's request for comment.


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Fingerhut.com Faces Fraudulent Sales Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
customers of online retailer Fingerhut.com filed a class action
lawsuit in the District of Minnesota alleging that the company's
huge markups on electronics, household goods and other products
are actually finance charges in disguise.

The complaint alleges that Fingerhut.com (owned by Bluestem Brands
of Eden Prairie, Minn.), targets low-income consumers with damaged
credit to sell them extremely high-cost electronics and household
goods. Items sold on Fingerhut to low-income consumers come with
substantial markups. For example, Fingerhut currently sells an
iPad Mini 3 for $539.99, although its retail price is $399.
According to the complaint, this massive sales price markup is
actually a finance charge in disguise -- violating the Truth in
Lending Act, state consumer protection statutes and state usury
laws.

According to the complaint, virtually all purchases on
Fingerhut.com are made on credit that Bluestem arranges, and
virtually all purchases come from consumers targeted by Bluestem
as having a low income and a low FICO credit score. On the other
hand, Bluestem owns and operates another website, branded as
Gettington.com, which sells identical consumer goods -- at far
lower prices -- to higher income consumers with higher FICO credit
scores.

Plaintiff Jessica Parm seeks to represent all individuals who had
similar experiences on Fingerhut.com.

Melissa Wolchansky, an attorney at Halunen Law, says, "Consumers
deserve to know what finance charges Fingerhut is applying to
their purchases. When companies are honest and up front about
interest charges, consumers can make informed decisions."

Jeffrey Kaliel, a partner with Tycko & Zavareei, says, "Bluestem
charges higher prices to consumers with low incomes or damaged
credit, but offers the same products to those with better credit
and higher incomes for much less. If Fingerhut is going to charge
huge amounts of interest on low-income consumers, it should not
disguise that fact behind big price markups."

Tycko & Zavareei and Halunen Law represent Parm, and urge
consumers who made purchases on Fingerhut.com to learn more about
their legal rights. For additional inquiries, contact Wolchansky
at 612-605-4098 or Kaliel at 202-973-0900.

Case: 0:15-cv-03437, United States District Court, District of
Minnesota

Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
Halunen Law
80 South 8th Street, Suite 1650
IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 605-4098
Toll free: (866) 523-8533
Fax: (612) 605-4099
http://www.halunenlaw.com

Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq
Tycko & Zavareei
2000 L St NW #808, Washington, DC 20036
Phone:+1 202-973-0900
Fax: (202) 973-0950
www.tzlegal.com


BOEING CO: Reaches Prelim Settlement Over 401(K) Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reported that aerospace giant Boeing Co.
(BA) reached a preliminary settlement to resolve a long-running
lawsuit that charged it of mishandling its 401(k) plan to the
detriment of its employees.  Terms of the settlement were not
disclosed.

The settlement was reached on the day when the trial was scheduled
the begin. The law suit was initially filed nine years ago in
2006, and was granted class-action status in 2013 on behalf of
190,000 Boeing employees and retirees.

The class-action lawsuit charged Boeing of failing to uphold its
fiduciary duties to employees by allowing excessive 401(k) fees to
go unchecked. The employees claimed that Boeing chose higher-cost
retail mutual funds over cheaper options, and improperly made
401(k) plan decisions to benefit vendors receiving other Boeing
business.

However, Boeing has defended its 401(k) practices and rubbished
the claims of the employees. 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 two sides are expected to reach a final settlement soon and
seek the final approval of the courts over the settlement.

Employees and retirees throughout the U.S. are increasingly
concerned about their pension and retirement benefits. Employees
in plans such as 401k plans or 403b plans have an employer match,
and the employee in such plans bears the risk of excessive fees
and poor performing funds in the plan.


BRASKEM SA: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors with large financial interests that they have only until
August 31, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications in a
securities class action lawsuit against Braskem S.A. Investor
losses must relate to purchases of the Company's American
Depositary Receipts between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015. This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Braskem and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action by
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just
resolution, you must request this position by application to the
Court by August 31, 2015.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities class
action and shareholder derivative litigation with offices in New
York, California, and Louisiana. KSF's lawyers have significant
experience litigating complex securities class actions nationwide
on behalf of both institutional and individual shareholders.

Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
06 Covington Street Madisonville, LA  70447
toll free at 1-877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


BRENNTAG: Settles 2004 East Point Chemical Leak Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reported 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,
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 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 Orlando.

The evacuation order was canceled the next day.

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. It
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 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.

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 over 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 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 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, Currie said.

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

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.

The plaintiffs' initial demand was $19.7 million to settle the
case, Currie said, including $14.5 million in compensation and $5
million in attorney fees. 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 Currie.

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

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 Currie noted that none had ever tried to
return the money.

"This was a lot of work over a long period of time," 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."


CAPITAL ONE: 11th Cir. Rejects Fair Debt Collection Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reported 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. The 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 Davidson for a balance of $1,059.68 plus interest on
that account, and he had settled for the reduced amount of $500.
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.

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. 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.

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. 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 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.

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."

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."
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 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, 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.

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.


CBS RADIO: Facing Biocostal Demands to Stop Playing Pre-'72 Songs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reproter, reported that
CBS Radio, iHeartMedia and Cumulus -- the nation's three largest
radio station operators -- are now facing multi-million dollar
lawsuits both in California and New York over exploitation of pre-
1972 sound recordings.

The litigation campaign comes from ABS Entertainment, which owns
the recordings of Al Green and others, and aims to represent a
class that would include such iconic musicians as Elvis Presley,
Frank Sinatra and The Beatles. It's being demanded that radio
stations in two of the country's biggest states stop publicly
performing their works plus exploiting older songs in any matter
including linking to such recordings from websites.

Is this the last summer that The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations"
gets played on the radio?

Maybe not, but the lawsuits aren't coming out of nowhere.

Sound recording owners haven't traditionally been paid for radio
airplay, but until recently, no one had challenged what laws might
protect songs authored before recordings were put under federal
copyright protection.

That changed in August 2013 when a proposed class action lawsuit
from Flo & Eddie of The Turtles theorized that state laws
governing conversion, misappropriation and unfair competition
might interfere with uncompensated public performance of pre-72
works.

The following year, The Turtles scored success pursuing such
claims against SiriusXM, which led to a similar lawsuit against
Pandora. Legal observers predicted terrestrial radio would also
face lawsuits, and now they have.  Robert Allen, one of the
attorneys who represented The Turtles, is the lead plaintiff
lawyer.

The record giants filed their own lawsuit against SiriusXM and
then came to a $210 million settlement. This past week, Sony, UMG
and Warner opted out of the Turtles' class action against
SiriusXM, and we're not aware of any litigation they've filed just
yet against CBS, iHeartMedia and Cumulus.

"We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit," says a spokesperson
for CBS Radio.

Although the latest suits sound quite a fury with demands for a
temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunction, there's a
reasonable chance that the litigation will quickly pause. That's
because the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is set to address the key
threshold issue of whether pre-'72 sound recording owners have
public performance rights under state law.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Gilman Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gilman Law LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the transactions whereby
Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter") and its alleged
controlling shareholder, Liberty Broadband Corporation ("Liberty")
will merge with Time Warner Cable, Inc. ("TWC") and Bright House
Networks, LLC ("Bright House") to form a new entity, CHC I, LLC
("New Charter").

The complaint asserts breach of fiduciary claims against the Board
of Directors of Charter and Liberty, which owns approximately 26%
of Charter's outstanding stock. According to the complaint, in
connection with the proposed acquisition of TWC, Charter will
allow Liberty to acquire $4.3 billion of newly issued shares at a
price equivalent to $176.95 per Charter share, and in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Bright House, Charter will allow
Liberty to acquire $700 million in newly issued shares equivalent
to $173 per Charter share.

Liberty will also receive for no consideration from Liberty an
irrevocable five-year voting proxy for 6% of the outstanding
voting power of Charter, which would bring Liberty's total voting
power post transactions to 25%. Thus, the complaint alleges that
Liberty will be the only shareholder who can avoid significant
dilution as a result of consummation of the transactions.

The complaint alleges that Liberty and Charter's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Charter shareholders by
approving the unfair terms of the transactions. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the share issuances are unfairly priced
because, among other reasons, Charter's financial advisors project
that the combined company could be worth significantly more per
share post-closing, and that the terms of the transactions
unfairly favor Liberty. The complaint also asserts that Definitive
Proxy statement issued in connection with the proposed
transactions is materially incomplete.

If you are a shareholder of Charter Communications, Inc. common
stock and have concerns about these transactions then please
contact Gilman Law LLP, at 1-888-252-0048 or www.investment-
losses.com, to ensure your legal rights are protected.

                    About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading financial law firm, has been recognized
for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad
range of claims stemming from securities class actions and
derivative actions. For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of
highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on
behalf of their clients on many of most challenging and important
legal issues.

Kenneth G. Gilman Esq.
Gilman Law LLP
6363 Highcroft Dr, Naples, FL 34119
1-888-252-0048
www.gilmanlawllp.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: TWC, TWC Board to Defend Merger Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that TWC, the TWC board
of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries intend to defend
vigorously any litigation filed.

The Company said, "As described in our Preliminary Proxy Statement
filed June 26, 2015, as amended July 28, 2015, in connection with
the formerly proposed Comcast-TWC merger, eight putative class
action complaints were filed on behalf of purported TWC
stockholders in the New York Supreme Court (the "NY Actions") and
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These complaints
named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board of
directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The complaints
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the TWC
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC
stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into the
merger agreement and approving the merger, and that Comcast aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints
further alleged that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by
Comcast with the SEC on March 20, 2014 was misleading or omitted
certain material information. The complaints sought, among other
relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive
relief and costs and fees."

"The parties entered into a settlement agreement, conditioned on
the consummation of the Comcast-TWC merger. Now that the Comcast-
TWC merger agreement has been terminated, the settlement is no
longer operative, although the plaintiffs have the right to
petition the court for the award of attorneys' fees and TWC has
the right to oppose that application.

"Following the announcement of the mergers on May 26, 2015, on
June 29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a stipulation
agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), and dismissing
with prejudice Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub, Inc. After the
court so ordered the stipulation, the plaintiffs in the NY Actions
filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015. The Second
Amended Complaint names as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC
board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries. The
Second Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other things,
that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter merger
negotiations and by entering into the merger agreement and
approving the mergers, and that Charter and its subsidiaries aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
stockholder vote on the mergers, unspecified declaratory and
equitable relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and costs and fees."

TWC, the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries intend to defend vigorously any litigation filed.


CITIGROUP INC: Parties in "BEACH" Case Executed MOU
---------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on June 25, 2015, the
parties in BEACH v. CITIGROUP ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS LLC executed
a memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a tentative
class action settlement. On June 29, 2015, the court ordered that
the case be stayed pending the filing of final settlement papers.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 12-cv-7717
(S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs in FX Case Filed 2nd Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 20, 2015,
Citigroup announced that it has reached an agreement in principle
to settle the consolidated class action in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE
BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION for a payment of $394
million, subject to court approval. As contemplated by the
agreement, on July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second
consolidated amended complaint, asserting claims under the Sherman
Act and the Commodity Exchange Act based on allegations that
defendants colluded to manipulate various foreign exchange
benchmarks and engaged in other collusive conduct in connection
with the trading of currencies. Additional information concerning
this action is publicly available in court filings under the
docket number 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Amended Complaint Filed in NYPL v. JPMorgan
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 21, 2015, an
action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET. AL was brought
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Citigroup, as well as numerous other foreign
exchange dealers. An amended complaint was filed on June 11, 2015.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of "consumers
and businesses in the United States who directly purchased
supracompetitive foreign currency exchange rates" from defendants
for their end use. The plaintiff alleges violations of the Sherman
Act, and seeks injunctive relief and treble damages. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 3:15-cv-02290 (N.D. Cal.)
(Chhabria, J).


CITIGROUP INC: "Bakizada", "Teel" & "Robert Charles" Cases Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in June 2015, actions
captioned BAKIZADA v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., TEEL v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., and ROBERT CHARLES CLASS A,
L.P. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. were brought in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Citigroup and Related Parties, as well as numerous other
foreign exchange dealers. The respective plaintiffs each seek to
represent a putative class of investors who held foreign exchange
futures or options on foreign exchange futures, and whose daily
cash flows were calculated based on any key foreign exchange
benchmark rates or who transacted at or around the time of the
setting of key foreign exchange benchmark rates. The respective
plaintiffs each allege violations of the Commodity Exchange Act,
the Sherman Act, and/or the Clayton Act, and seek compensatory
damages, treble damages where authorized by statute, injunctive
relief, and/or disgorgement. Additional information concerning
these actions is publicly available in court filings under the
following docket numbers: 1:15-cv-4230 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.);
1:15-cv-4436 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); and 1:15-cv-4926
(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defending "Allen v. Bank of America" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on June 3, 2015, an
action captioned ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL. was
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Citigroup, as well as numerous other
foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
putative class of participants, beneficiaries, and named
fiduciaries of qualified Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) plans for whom a defendant provided foreign exchange
transactional services or authorized or permitted foreign exchange
transactional services involving a plan's assets in connection
with its exercise of authority or control regarding an ERISA plan.
The plaintiff alleges violations of ERISA, and seeks compensatory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, and declaratory relief.
Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-4285
(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defendants in "Gelboim" File Response Brief
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the January
21, 2015 United States Supreme Court's remand of the action
captioned GELBOIM, ET Al. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., ET AL. to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for
consideration on the merits of the plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of their antitrust claims, plaintiff-appellants
submitted their opening brief on May 20, 2015, and defendants-
appellees submitted their response brief on July 17, 2015.
Additional information concerning this appeal is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 13-3565 (2d
Cir.).


CITIGROUP INC: 7 West 57th Case Plaintiff Filed 2nd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the March 31,
2015 dismissal of the action captioned 7 WEST 57th STREET REALTY
CO. v. CITIGROUP, INC., ET AL., the plaintiff moved for leave to
file a second amended complaint on June 1, 2015. Additional
information concerning this action is publicly available in court
filings under the docket number 1:13-cv-981 (Gardephe, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Sonterra Capital Class Action Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 24, 2015, a
putative class action captioned SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD.
v. UBS AG was brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Citigroup and Related
Parties, as well as other bank defendants, alleging manipulation
of Yen LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR, and the prices of Euroyen-based
derivatives. The plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Act,
the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
compensatory damages, treble damages where authorized by statute,
injunctive relief, and/or disgorgement. Additional information
concerning this action is publicly available in court filings
under the docket number 1:15-cv-05844 (S.D.N.Y.).


CITIGROUP INC: Motions to Vacate Settlement Approval Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Interchange Fees
Litigation, various objectors to the class settlement filed on
July 28, 2015, motions in the U.S. District Court to vacate the
court's prior approval of the class settlement, alleging
improprieties by two of the lawyers involved in the Interchange
MDL.  Additional information concerning this matter, including the
district court proceedings and appeals related to the class
settlement, is publicly available in court filings under the
docket numbers 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d
Cir.).


COMMUNITY HEALTH: New Judge Continued Discovery Stay
----------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Class Action
Shareholder Federal Securities Cases, the new judge continued the
discovery stay pending her ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements
resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company's common
stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.

The Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed
and remains pending before the court.

"The original district court judge has recused himself; in an
order dated May 27, 2015, the new judge continued the discovery
stay pending her ruling on our motion to dismiss," the Company
said.

The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and
will vigorously defend this case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Consolidated Suit Filed Over Cyber Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a consolidated
complaint related to a 2014 cyber attack has been filed and the
Company had until August 31, 2015 to respond.

The Company said, "As previously disclosed on a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed by us on August 18, 2014, our computer network was
the target of an external, criminal cyber attack that we believe
occurred between April and June, 2014. We and Mandiant (a FireEye
Company), the forensic expert engaged by us in connection with
this matter, believe the attacker was a foreign "Advanced
Persistent Threat" group who used highly sophisticated malware and
technology to attack our systems. The attacker was able to bypass
our security measures and successfully copy and transfer outside
the Company certain non-medical patient identification data (such
as patient names, addresses, birthdates, telephone numbers and
social security numbers), but not including patient credit card,
medical or clinical information. We continue to work closely with
federal law enforcement authorities in connection with their
investigation and possible prosecution of those determined to be
responsible for this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough
investigation of this incident and continues to advise the Company
regarding security and monitoring efforts. We are providing
appropriate notification to affected patients and regulatory
agencies as required by federal and state law. We are offering
identity theft protection services to individuals affected by this
attack."

"We have incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate
this matter, and expect to continue to incur expenses of this
nature in the foreseeable future. In addition, multiple purported
class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive
information was unprotected and inadequately encrypted by the
Company. The plaintiffs claim breach of contract and other
theories of recovery, and are seeking damages, as well as
restitution for any identity theft. On February 4, 2015, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered
the transfer of the purported class actions pending outside of the
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. A consolidated
complaint has now been filed and we have until August 31, 2015 to
respond. At this time, we are unable to predict the outcome of
this litigation or determine the potential impact, if any, that
could result from this litigation, but we intend to vigorously
defend these lawsuits. This matter may subject the Company to
additional litigation, potential governmental inquiries, potential
reputational damage, and additional remediation, operating and
other expenses."


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Bid for En Banc Review
--------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Class Action
Shareholder Federal Securities Cases, the plaintiffs have filed an
application for an en banc review in the class action lawsuits
against Health Management Associates Inc.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against Health Management Associates, Inc. ("HMA") and certain of
its then executive officers, one of whom was at that time also a
director, were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida under the caption In Re: Health
Management Associates, Inc., et al. and three pension fund
plaintiffs were appointed as lead plaintiffs. On July 30, 2012,
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of stockholders who purchased HMA's common
stock during the period from July 27, 2009, through January 9,
2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i) alleges that HMA made
false and misleading statements in certain public disclosures
regarding its business and financial results and (ii) asserts
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Among other things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its
earnings by engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that
entailed admitting patients to observation status when they should
not have been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they
should have been admitted to observation status. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint.

On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to
the proposed amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which
asserted substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated
complaint.

As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead
facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was
fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision.

On May 22, 2014, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on
June 20, 2014 the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit,
where oral argument was heard on February 6, 2015.

On May 11, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the granting
of the motion to dismiss. On June 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed an
application for an en banc review.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit. We are unable to predict the outcome or determine the
potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution," the Company said.


CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Held in Hale Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court set aside
September 8 - 10, 2015 for a class certification hearing in the
Hale Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion
for Class Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company
filed its Opposition to same. The Court has set aside September 8
- 10, 2015 for a class certification hearing.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case, which accrual is immaterial to the
overall financial position of CONSOL Energy.


CONSOL ENERGY: Class Certification Hearing Held in Addison Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court set aside
September 8 - 10, 2015 for a class certification hearing in the
Addison Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the
United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative
class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict.
The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and damages based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed
to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion
for Class Certification, and on June 23, 2015 CNX Gas Company
filed its Opposition to same. The Court has set aside September 8
- 10, 2015 for a class certification hearing.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy.


CONSTANT CONTACT: Briscoe Firm Sues Officers and Directors
----------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the district of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact, Inc. ("Constant Contact") (nasdaqgs:CTCT) and several
officers and directors for acts taken during the period of October
23, 2014 to July 23, 2015 (the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of Constant Contact. If you are an affected
Constant Contact shareholder and want to learn more about the
lawsuit or join the action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe
Law Firm, PLLC via email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com,
Patrick Powers at Powers Taylor LLP via email at
shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or call toll free at (877) 728-9607.
There is no cost or fee to you.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that defendants 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. The complaint alleges
that these statements concerning the Company's operations and
prospects lacked a reasonable basis. After the market closed on
July 23, 2015, Constant Contact announced its earnings results for
the second quarter of 2015 with a weak third quarter outlook. CTCT
stock dropped significantly immediately following this
announcement.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC
Willie Briscoe, 877-728-9607
shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com
or
Powers Taylor LLP
Patrick Powers, 877-728-9607
shareholder@powerstaylor.com


CONVERGYS CORPORATION: Liability in Class Action Fully Accrued
--------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's liability
with respect to the proposed settlement in a class action lawsuit
was fully accrued at June 30, 2015.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America (Hyundai), tendered a contractual indemnity
claim to Convergys Customer Management Group Inc., a subsidiary of
the Company, relating to a putative class action captioned Brandon
Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of
similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange
County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-
BT-CJC. The lawsuit alleged that Hyundai violated California's
telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with
customer service representatives without providing a disclosure
that the calls might be recorded.

An amended settlement agreement was executed by the plaintiff,
Hyundai and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., and
received preliminary approval from the Court during the second
quarter of 2015. The Court will hold a hearing during the fourth
quarter of 2015 to determine whether to give final approval of the
settlement. The Company's liability with respect to the proposed
settlement was fully accrued at June 30, 2015, and did not have a
material impact on the Company's liquidity, results of operations
or financial condition.


CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Granted in Part Motions to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, CytRx
Corporation Securities Litigation, the Court has issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss filed
by the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters.

On June 13, 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, were consolidated in the matter of In re
CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx),
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On October 1,
2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly
traded securities of CytRx between November 20, 2013 and March 13,
2014, against CytRx, certain Company officers and directors, a
freelance writer, and certain underwriters. The complaint alleges
that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
in press releases, promotional articles, SEC filings and other
public statements. The complaint further alleges that certain of
the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making
materially misleading statements and omitting material information
in the shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC
on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement on Form 424(b)(2)
filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These allegations arise
out of the Company's alleged retention of The DreamTeam Group and
MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms
unaffiliated with the Company, as well as the Company's December
9, 2013 grant of stock options to certain board members and
officers. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages,
including interest, in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees, and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief
that the court may deem just and proper.  On December 5, 2014,
CytRx and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

The Court was scheduled to hear argument on this motion on March
2, 2015.  On February 25, 2015, the Court took this motion under
submission and took the hearing off calendar. On July 13, 2015,
the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the
motions to dismiss filed by us, the individual defendants and the
underwriters. The Court afforded the plaintiffs 30 days to amend
their complaint, if they elect to do so.


CYTRX CORPORATION: "Rajasekaran" Case Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and each of its
directors, as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v.
CytRx Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its
public offering that closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint
alleges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements in the Company's
filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs.
On October 14, 2014, the Court granted the parties' joint ex parte
motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motions to
dismiss in the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation
Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx).

No updates were provided in CytRx Corporation's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.


DAIRY FARMERS: Lawyers Recommend New Settlement in Milk Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mansfield, writing for Vnews, reported that a class action
lawsuit that accused two dairy groups of manipulating the
Northeast milk market and driving small farmers out of business is
one step closer to being settled.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit Allen v.
Dairy Farmers of America have asked U.S. District Court Judge
Christina Reiss to approve a new $50 million settlement to put the
case to rest.

Lawyers proposed a $50 million settlement, but Reiss denied it in
March because 35 farmers representing 28 farms objected to the
proposed settlement.

Reiss wrote in her March 31 denial that the court needed to make
sure that the settlement was procedurally fair and not the result
of collusion. Several farmers had alleged collusion between their
lawyers and defendants, Reiss wrote, and said they were concerned
about potential retaliation from Dairy Farmers of America for
accepting the settlement.

The class-action case has gone on for six years against Dairy
Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services. The plaintiffs
are 8,900 farms, which have largely agreed to end the dispute
without a trial. A little under 1 percent remain opposed.

The $50 million works out to about $4,000 per farm, which are
often owned by a single family. Farms would be allowed to leave
the Dairy Farmers of America and join another cooperative. The
settlement also requires the dairy cooperative to make its
business practices more transparent to members.

The antitrust case started in U.S. District Court in Burlington in
2009. Plaintiffs alleged that the nonprofit cooperative Dairy
Farmers of America Inc. conspired to become the sole seller of
Grade A milk in the Northeast. Farmers further alleged that the
cooperative used its closely affiliated for-profit company, Dairy
Marketing Services, to become the sole buyer of Grade A milk in
the Northeast.

The nonprofit cooperative, according to the lawsuit, is not
member-focused, and it forced small farmers to join in order to
avoid market pressures that would put them out of business.
Plaintiffs alleged that the two defendants violated federal
antitrust laws, and, when directed to take action to remedy the
situation, thwarted instructions by the U.S. Department of Justice
and several state attorneys general.

In the past six years, several other defendants in the lawsuit
have settled. Dean Foods settled for $30 million in 2011, and the
8,900 farmers across the Northeast all received small sums of
money. The Vermont Attorney General's Office filed two friend-of-
the-court briefs in 2011 but has not been involved since.

In June 2013, lawyers for the dairy farmers were preparing to go
to trial on the antitrust claims. But they reached a settlement
with Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing Services the
night before the trial would have started. They submitted the
first $50 million proposal July 1, 2013, to end the lawsuit and
avoid a trial. Reiss rejected it.

Six thousand farms had signed onto the new settlement as of June.
In July, 7,550 farms, or about 85 percent of farms represented in
the case, had filed claims under the settlement. A "tiny fraction"
of farms raised objections, according to the settlement.

"We think it's a fair and reasonable settlement, and we think it's
in the best interest of farmers," Kit Pierson, the lead attorney
on the case, said of the latest settlement proposal.

A spokesperson for the Dairy Farmers of America, Marjie Knust,
issued a statement saying the new settlement addresses the
"several concerns" that Reiss had with the original settlement.
"The attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants recently
discussed and agreed to certain amendments to the original
settlement . . . and we look forward to a final conclusion of the
matter."

In addition to the money and the transparency measures, the
settlement stops Dairy Farmers of America and Dairy Marketing
Services from participating in any illegal activity that limits
competition in the Grade A milk market. Some farmers oppose the
injunctive relief against illegal activity, but their attorneys
said the defense would argue that the activity is "legal and
beneficial" if the case went to trial.

The injunctive relief order is also more sweeping than the one
reached with Dairy Farmers of America in a similar case in the
Southeast milk marketing region, according to the settlement. The
settlement prohibits Dairy Farmers of America from making deals
with outside cooperatives that would prevent those organizations
from negotiating with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The settlement says those actions have been a "major" problem that
has held down milk prices for years.

Representatives for one of the lawsuit's four subclasses of
plaintiffs still oppose the settlement. Ralph Sitts, Garret Sitts,
Jonathan Haar, Claudia Haar and Richard Swantak, all of New York,
almost immediately filed documents reiterating their opposition to
the settlement.

"We wish to present evidence that has come up over the past few
weeks which shows that this renewed settlement is not eligible for
either preliminary or final approval," the documents from Sitts
and others say.

Those are the same parties who, in June, effectively put their
high-profile, class action lawyers on trial in Burlington court in
an effort to have them fired. The class representatives accused
lawyers of misconduct and said the lawyers were focused on a cash
settlement. Reiss declined that request on June 30.

Pierson, who works for Cohen Milstein in Washington, D.C.,
declined in an interview to discuss the allegations the farmers
made against his legal team. In June, he said the allegations
weren't true, but that he respects his clients.

"As attorneys, our responsibility is to make a decision that's
beneficial to the farmers as a whole," Pierson said in June. "The
subclass representatives are important, and we respect it, but our
obligation in the case is to the 8,900 farmers."


DOLE FOOD: CEO Must Pay $148-Mil. Over Unfair Buyout
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that the
billionaire chief executive of Dole Food Co and his top lieutenant
must pay $148.2 million of damages to shareholders they
shortchanged when the produce company went private in 2013, a
Delaware judge ruled on.

In a decision that may cast a pall on management-led buyouts, Vice
Chancellor Travis Laster said Dole Chief Executive David Murdock,
92, and former Chief Operating Officer C. Michael Carter were
liable for depressing the stock so that Murdock, who owned 40
percent of Dole, could buy the rest at a lowball price.

The judge said the $1.2 billion buyout undervalued Dole by 17
percent, letting Murdock pay $13.50 per share rather than the
$16.24 that Dole was worth.

Deutsche Bank AG, which advised Murdock on the buyout, was cleared
of liability because it did not knowingly participate in
wrongdoing. Murdock is worth $3.4 billion, Forbes magazine said.

Thursday's award is among the largest in a class action lawsuit
alleging that a company sold itself for too low a price, and
highlights conflicts that managers wanting to buy their own
companies may face in wanting to keep costs down.

"It will make it harder to do management buyouts, and it should
be," said Charles Elson, a governance specialist at the University
of Delaware. "The inherent conflicts are almost impossible to
resolve. The ruling sends a signal that Delaware courts will be
suspicious of these sorts of transactions."

More than half of U.S. publicly-traded companies are incorporated
in Delaware, whose courts hear many valuation-based challenges to
takeover bids.

JUDGE FINDS FRAUD

Shareholders accused Murdock and Carter of driving down Dole's
share price by downplaying the Westlake Village, California-based
company's ability to boost profit by cutting costs and buying
farms, and canceling a stock buyback.

In his 106-page decision, Laster saw Carter as the main engineer
of the scheme, calling him Murdock's "right-hand man" and saying
Carter "actually engaged" in fraud.

"Although facially large, the award is conservative to what the
evidence could support," Laster wrote.

A nine-day trial was held in February. Several hedge funds had
asked Laster to appraise Dole's value, but the judge said that
issue may be moot.

Dole declined immediate comment on behalf of the itself, Murdock
and Carter. Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Renee Calabro declined to
comment.

Objecting shareholders had sought higher damages, but their lawyer
Stuart Grant called the decision a "decisive" victory.

"It wakes insiders and investment banks on their proper roles in a
management-led buyout, and shows that management can't dictate the
terms and the flow of information," Grant said in an interview.
"It shouldn't be a Wild West."

NOT A "CONFUSED OLD MAN"

A high school dropout who made much of his fortune in real estate,
Murdock was Dole's chief executive from 1985 to 2007, and again
starting in 2013.

He had taken Dole private in 2003 and sold 60 percent in a 2009
initial public offering, in part to pay down debt as the U.S.
economy struggled.

Murdock said he hoped through the latest buyout to combine Dole
with his North Carolina research center, which seeks to unlock
secrets of health and longevity.

But shareholders called the move a power play. Laster appeared to
agree, calling Murdock "an old-school, my-way-or-the-highway
controller, fixated on his authority and the power and privileges
that came with it."

The judge said Murdock hurt himself during trial testimony, where
defense counsel portrayed him as both a "confused old man" and a
disengaged CEO.

"By dint of his prodigious wealth and power, he has grown
accustomed to deference and fallen into the habit of
characterizing events however he wants," Laster wrote.

"That habit serves a witness poorly when he faces a skilled cross-
examiner who has contrary documents and testimony," he added.

The cases are In re: Dole Food Co Inc Stockholder Litigation and
In re: Appraisal of Dole Food Co Inc, Delaware Chancery Court,
Nos. 8703, 9079.


DONORCOMMUNITY INC: "Pinilla" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos A. Pinilla, and other similarly situated individuals v.
DonorCommunity, Inc., David Blyer, and Sylvia Gastelbondo, Case
No. 0:15-cv-61880-JIC (S.D. Fla., September 4, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an online fundraising software, which helps
nonprofit organizations all over the world raise more money with
less effort.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flager St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


DWM PLLC: Worker Sues Chiropractic Clinics Over OT Pay Avoidance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that a
clinic worker is bringing a class action complaint against a
Houston consortium of chiropractic practitioners to recover unpaid
wages alleging unlawful evasion of overtime payment during the
last three years and in particular, beginning in 2014 for the
plaintiff.

Angel Martinez filed a lawsuit in Jefferson County District Court
on Aug. 20 against DWM, PLLC; Marion J. Danna, D.C.; Marion J.
Danna, D.C., P.A.; Chiropractic Management Inc.; and Chiropractic
Clinic of I-10 Ltd., claiming violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by allegedly failing to keep accurate time and pay
records for Martinez from February 2014 to January 2015, as well
as other similarly situated nonexempt employees.

Claiming that he and others were hourly employees who regularly
worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, Martinez alleges that
Danna Chiropractic Clinic and its affiliates showed a reckless
disregard for labor law when it purportedly neglected to
compensate them at one and a half times their regular hourly rate
for time in excess of 40 hours weekly.

According to the lawsuit, "Although the issue of damages may be
individual in character, there is no detraction from the common
nucleus of liability facts." The putative class is defined as all
hourly workers employed by the Danna Clinic during the last three
years.

Averring that he has retained counsel "who are well-versed in FLSA
collective action litigation and who are prepared to litigate this
matter vigorously," Martinez seeks liquidated damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, any class representative incentive awards,
attorney's fees, expenses, and costs. The plaintiff is represented
by Melissa Moore and Curt Hess of Moore & Associates in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case 4:15-cv-
02409


EAGLE ROCK: Unitholders Filed Derivative and Class Action Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in May
and June 2015, alleged Eagle Rock Energy unitholders filed two
derivative and class action lawsuits in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas (the "state lawsuits"). An additional class
action lawsuit was filed in June by another alleged Eagle Rock
Energy unitholder in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (the "federal lawsuit" and, together
with the state lawsuits, the "lawsuits").

The Company said, "The lawsuits name Eagle Rock Energy, Eagle Rock
Energy GP, L.P., our general partner, our board of directors,
Vanguard, and Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly owned indirect
subsidiary of Vanguard, as defendants. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits
allege a variety of causes of action challenging the Merger,
including alleged breaches of fiduciary or contractual duties and
alleged aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of duty. The
lawsuits allege that the Merger (a) provides inadequate
consideration to our unitholders, (b) is not subject to minority
unitholder approval due to (i) the absence of a majority-of-the-
minority vote requirement and (ii) the voting and support
agreement between Vanguard, Natural Gas Partners VIII, L.P., and
certain of its affiliates, (c) contains contractual terms (e.g.,
the no-solicitation, matching rights, and termination fee
provisions) that will dissuade other potential merger partners
from making alternative proposals and (d) does not include a
collar to protect our unitholders against declines in Vanguard's
unit price."

"The federal lawsuit also alleges that defendants have violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-
9 promulgated thereunder. In general, the federal lawsuit alleges
that the registration statement filed in connection with the
Merger fails, among other things, to disclose allegedly material
details concerning (a) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and
operational projections, (b) the analyses of the Merger conducted
by Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial advisors, and (c) the
background of the Merger. Based on these allegations, the lawsuits
seek to enjoin us from proceeding with or consummating the Merger.
To the extent that the Merger is consummated before injunctive
relief is granted, the plaintiffs seek to have the Merger
rescinded. The plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, and the plaintiff
in the federal lawsuit also seeks monetary damages."

The Partnership believes that the lawsuits are without merit.


EMDEON INC: Social Service Coordinators Paid Full Amount in Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emdeon Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, that two
separate collective class action complaints were filed on December
10, 2010 and February 4, 2013, against Social Service
Coordinators, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California alleging the Company refused to pay
overtime compensation and to provide other benefits required by
law. A mediation to settle all wage and hour related current and
future disputes was held on April 16, 2014. These two cases were
settled (subject to court approval) for a total of $4,900,000,
including Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The Company is
required to separately pay all employer-side payroll taxes
associated with the Class Fund. A total of $5,040,000, including
payroll taxes, was accrued as of December 31, 2013. The Company
paid the full amount during 2014, as agreed upon in the
settlement.


ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Gerges" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Gerges and Rafael Amin Rodriguez, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Enterprise Systems
Software, LLC d/b/a ESD, Case No. 3:15-cv-01816 (N.D. Ohio,
September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Enterprise Systems Software, LLC is a corporation providing
information technology and educational services for the healthcare
industry across the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Jill S. Kahn, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              jkahn@llrlaw.com

         - and -

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


EVENTS & ADVENTURES: Faces Potential Class Suit On Memberships
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reported that an
Oak Forest woman hopes to bring a class action against a dating
club she said improperly managed her account and refused to cancel
her membership.

On April 4, Judy Radusewicz opened a membership with the Chicago
branch of Events & Adventures, a dating service operated by
Adventures Northwest, a corporation based in Washington state. On
its Chicago area website, the company markets itself as an
"invitation-only club" promoting events like volleyball, skiing,
rock climbing, spelunking, paintball and whitewater rafting.

After agreeing to pay a $2,495 "initiation fee," Radusewicz made
an initial $500 payment and agreed to pay $141.25 monthly
installments for a year, and another $360 broken down as $30 in
monthly dues, her complaint states. Over 12 months, the total
amount paid would be $2,555.

Two days later, after deciding the membership was too expensive,
Radusewicz gave notice of intent to cancel. However, the complaint
alleges the company, which had already debited Radusewicz' account
for the $500, went ahead with collecting the initial installment
and dues payments, despite receiving the cancellation notice. She
said she never received a Truth in Lending disclosure, though any
agreement with a payment structure of more than four installments
is a credit extension subject to the federal Truth In Lending Act,
the complaint asserts.

Radusewicz filed her complaint on Aug. 26 in federal court in
Chicago.

Radusewicz argues the way Events & Adventures structured her
contract, requiring payment in monthly installments, amounts to a
loan, and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act prohibits lenders from
making preauthorized electronic debits a compulsory condition of
credit.

"By providing that membership shall cease upon cancellation of the
debit authorization," her complaint reads, "defendant (Events &
Adventures) improperly conditioned the extension of credit on
repayment by means of electronic fund transfers."

Radusewicz, who is represented by Daniel A. Edleman, of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner and Goodwin, of Chicago, alleges Events &
Adventures easily has enough customers to warrant the class
action. According to her complaint, Events & Adventures' own
website boasts 40,000 members in nine cities.

She argues anyone who has an Events & Adventures contract in which
their initiation fee was payable in more than four installments by
recurring debit would be eligible for the class action, provided
their contracts began either one year before or 21 days after the
filing of the complaint, noting well more than 40 people would
qualify as class members.

On behalf of the class, Radusewicz seeks a declaration the
contracts members signed are void and unenforceable, requests the
court award statutory and actual damages, legal fees and any
relief the deemed proper. The action includes five counts: class
violations of the EFTA, Truth In Lending Act and the Dating
Referral Services Act, as well Radusewicz's own individual breach
of contract claim and individual DRSA violation.

The individual DRSA claim is tied to a clause in the state law
requiring such companies to allow clients to cancel within three
business days after signing the contract and collect a full
refund. The class DRSA claim involves a different component of the
law, arguing the way Events & Adventures structures its contract,
with the substation initiation fee and allowing itself to enact
fee increases with 60 days' notice, amounts to an illegal long-
term contract.

A hearing on the case was scheduled for Sept. 3 in Chicago before
U.S District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr.


FIREEYE INC: Oral Argument Heard, Final Court Ruling Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court heard oral
argument on the demurrers and has yet to issue a final ruling in a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, current and former
members of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer,
and the underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering.
On July 17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the
same court against the same defendants. The actions were
consolidated and, on March 4, 2015, an amended complaint was
filed, alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for the follow-on public offering, and
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  On
April 20, 2015, defendants filed demurrers seeking that the
amended complaint be dismissed. On July 10, 2015, the court heard
oral argument on the demurrers and has yet to issue a final
ruling."

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.  Based on
information currently available, the Company has determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable.


FIREEYE INC: Defending Against Stockholder Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the stockholder class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On June 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between January 2,
2014, and November 4, 2014. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, the Company has determined that
the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not
reasonably estimable.


FREDDIE MAC: Class Certification Bid in OPERS Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
District Court has not yet ruled upon motions for class
certification or summary judgment in the case, Putative Securities
Class Action Lawsuit: Ohio Public Employees Retirement System
("OPERS") vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions.

The Company said, "The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements concerning our business, risk
management, and the procedures we put into place to protect the
company from problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff
sought unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees."

"On October 8, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On October 31, 2014, the Court granted defendants'
motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all
defendants, with prejudice. On November 25, 2014, plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of the appellate process; the inherent
uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event the case is
ultimately remanded to the District Court in whole or in part; and
the fact that the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions
for class certification or summary judgment.

"In particular, absent resolution of the appellate process, the
certification of a class, the identification of a class period,
and the identification of the alleged statement or statements that
survive dispositive motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any
possible loss or range of possible loss."


FREDDIE MAC: Defending Against Suits Over Stock Purchase Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company is defending against litigation concerning a stock
purchase agreement.

The Company said, "Since July 2013, a number of lawsuits have been
filed against us concerning the August 2012 amendment to the
Purchase Agreement, which created the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the senior preferred stock. The plaintiffs in the
lawsuits allege that they are holders of common stock and/or
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. (For
purposes of this discussion, junior preferred stock refers to the
various series of preferred stock of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
other than the senior preferred stock issued to Treasury.) It is
possible that similar lawsuits will be filed in the future.

Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations. This case is the result of the
consolidation of three putative class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle
and Bareiss vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013;
American European Insurance Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and FHFA,
filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA,
Treasury, Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on September 18, 2013. (The
Marneu case was also filed as a shareholder derivative lawsuit.) A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 3, 2013. In
the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among other
items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement
breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective contracts with
the holders of junior preferred stock and common stock and the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in such
contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney and
expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of
junior preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who
held stock prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu
lawsuit was filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of junior preferred stock and purchasers of common stock issued by
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.
Arrowood Indemnity Company vs. Federal National Mortgage
Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, FHFA and
Treasury. This case was filed on September 20, 2013. The
allegations and demands made by plaintiffs in this case were
generally similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the In re
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case. Plaintiffs in the Arrowood lawsuit
also requested that, if injunctive relief were not granted, the
Arrowood plaintiffs be awarded damages against the defendants in
an amount to be determined including, but not limited to, the
aggregate par value of their junior preferred stock, the total of
which they stated to be $42,297,500.

American European Insurance Company, Cacciapalle and Miller vs.
Treasury and FHFA. This case was filed as a shareholder derivative
lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a "nominal"
defendant, on July 30, 2014. The complaint alleges that, through
the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement, Treasury and
FHFA breached their respective fiduciary duties to Freddie Mac,
causing Freddie Mac to suffer damages. The plaintiffs asked that
Freddie Mac be awarded compensatory damages and disgorgement, as
well as attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses.
FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the
In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase
Agreement Class Action Litigations case and the other related
cases on January 17, 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the
same day. On September 30, 2014, the District Court granted the
motions and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. On October 9, 2014,
Arrowood filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's
decision. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations case filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision. The scope of this appeal includes the American
European Insurance Company shareholder derivative lawsuit.

Litigation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Reid and Fisher vs. the United States of America and Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation. This case was filed as a derivative
lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie Mac as a "nominal"
defendant, on February 26, 2014. The complaint alleges, among
other items, that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the
senior preferred stock constitute an unlawful taking of private
property for public use without just compensation. The plaintiffs
ask that Freddie Mac be awarded just compensation for the U.S.
government's alleged taking of its property, attorneys' fees,
costs and other expenses.

Rafter, Rattien and Pershing Square Capital Management vs. the
United States of America, Federal National Mortgage Association
and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. This case was filed as
a shareholder derivative lawsuit, purportedly on behalf of Freddie
Mac as a "nominal" defendant, on August 14, 2014. The complaint
alleges that: (a) the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the
senior preferred stock constitute an unlawful taking of private
property for public use without just compensation; and (b) the U.S
government breached an implied-in-fact contract with Freddie Mac.
The plaintiffs ask that they be awarded just compensation for the
U.S. government's alleged taking of their property, attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and that Freddie Mac be awarded damages
or other appropriate relief for the alleged breach of contract.
At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of the lawsuits discussed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
(including the outcome of any appeal) or any potential effect on
our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results of
operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse
judgment in the foregoing matters due to a number of factors,
including the inherent uncertainty of pre-trial litigation. In
addition, with respect to the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations case,
the plaintiffs have not demanded a stated amount of damages they
believe are due, and the Court has not certified a class.


GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio High Court Refuses to Certify Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brett M. Doran, writing for The National Law review, reported that
in a ruling in Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2013-1746,
2015 WL 5039233 (Aug. 27, 2015), the Ohio Supreme Court held that
a class action cannot be certified where the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate, through common evidence, that all putative class
members incurred damages resulting from the defendant's alleged
conduct. For claims under Ohio's Consumer Sales Practice Act
(OCSPA), this requires demonstrating that all class members
suffered actual damages.

The lawsuit involved allegations that the defendant, a car
dealership, violated the OCSPA by requiring purchasers of vehicles
to agree to an unenforceable arbitration provision. Plaintiffs
alleged they incurred actual damages following a dispute with the
defendant. Plaintiffs sought unspecified "monetary damages - where
appropriate" for the class, but did not seek actual damages for
class members. The trial court certified the proposed class under
Ohio's Civil Rule 23(B)(2) and (B)(3) (which are substantially
similar to FRCP Rules 23(B)(2)( and (B)(3)), and awarded $200 per
transaction to each class member based, not on any actual damages,
but rather on the trial court's "discretion."

The Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The Court first noted that the
OCSPA provides for statutory and treble damages only in individual
actions but not in class actions. Specifically, the Court stated,
"[p]roof of actual damages is required before a court may properly
certify a class action." Felix, 2015 WL 5039233 at Par.31. The
Court noted that the OCSPA's requirement is consistent with
various other state consumer protection statutes (including in
Illinois, California, and New York), which require aggrieved
consumers to plead and prove actual damages.

Second, following federal law, the Court noted that "[p]laintiffs
in class-action suits must demonstrate that they can prove,
through common evidence, that all class members were in fact
injured by defendant's action." Felix, 2015 WL 5039233 at Par.33.
Where a plaintiff fails to demonstrate that all class members were
damaged, such proposed class fails under the predominance
requirement of Ohio's Civil Rule 23(b)(3) (which is substantially
equivalent to FRCP Rule 23(b)(3)). Because no statutory damages
are available to the proposed class members under the OCPSA, and
plaintiffs neither alleged nor demonstrated that class members
incurred actual damages, the Court found that plaintiffs' proposed
class cannot be certified.

This decision demonstrates the necessity for class action
plaintiffs to allege cognizable damages to the purported class in
order to satisfy the predominance requirement. Where the
underlying cause of action -- in Felix, alleged violations of the
OCSPA -- require actual damages to sustain a class action, then a
class should be certified only where the plaintiff has
demonstrated that all the class members, based on common evidence,
can be shown to have suffered actual damages.


GLOW NETWORKS: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Reyes and William Shurett, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Glow Networks, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-02915-N (W.D. Mo., September 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Glow Networks, Inc. is a nationwide telecommunications company
incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Richmond, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      John Doyle, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

      Michael Hodgson, Esq.
      EMPLOYEE & LABOR LAW GROUP OF KANSAS CITY
      3699 SW Pryor Road
      Lee's Summit, MO 64082
      Telephone: (913) 890-3529
      E-mail: mike@elgkc.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Jess, Esq.
      John J. Ziegelmeyer III, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. JESS, LLC
      1600 Genessee, Suite 842
      Kansas City, MO 64102-5639
      Telephone: (816) 474-4600
      Facsimile: (816) 474-4601
      E-mail: mark.jess@employeerightslawfirm.com


GOOGLE INC: Illegally Scans and Catalogs Emails, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Matera, as an individual, and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Google, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-04062-NC
(N.D. Cal., September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to obtain consent prior to scanning and cataloging all
emails sent or received by its Gmail accountholders.

Google, Inc. is a California-based multinational corporation that
offers web-based services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      Nicole D. Sugnet , Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956.1008
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
              nsugnet@lchb.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Ray E. Gallo, Esq.
      Dominic R. Valerian, Esq.
      GALLO LLP
      1299 Fourth St., Suite 505
      San Rafael, CA 94901
      Telephone: (415) 257-8800
      E-mail: rgallo@gallo-law.com
              dvalerian@gallo-law.com


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Faces "Kilpatrick" Suit Over ERISA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gina M. Kilpatrick, individually and on behalf of a class of all
other persons similarly situated v. Great-West Life & Annuity
Insurance Company, Trustee Committee of GWL&A Financial Inc., and
Jane and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-01927 (D. Colo.,
September 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged breach
of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado, Great-West Life &
Annuity Insurance Company is an insurance and financial services
company that offers retirement plan and investment products and
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
              rjenny@baileyglasser.com


HAYNE LIM: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Mendoza, Anselmo Sanchez, Luis Palacios-Romero, and Juan
Cabrera, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Hayne Lim, Inc. d/b/a Sunrise Bagels Cafe and Deli, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-06676-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., September 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Hayne Lim, Inc. owns and operates Sunrise Bagels Cafe and Deli
located at 29 Watchung Plaza, Montclair, New Jersey 07042.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Nov. 13 Fairness Hearing on $100MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A summary notice on In Re HP Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-CV-
05980-CRB.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE HP SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 3:12-CV-05980-CRB,
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY
TRADED COMMON STOCK OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ("HP") BETWEEN
AUGUST 19, 2011 AND NOVEMBER 20, 2012, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS"). CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AS SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the litigation
captioned In re HP Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-cv-05980-CRB
("Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action for
the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement has been
proposed for $100,000,000 in cash. A hearing will be held in
Courtroom 6 -- 17th Floor before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer,
at the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102 at 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 to, among
other things: determine whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the
settlement proceeds should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
consider the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT,
AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you
have not yet received a copy of the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Fairness Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), with the enclosed Claim
Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator: In re HP Securities Litigation Settlement,
c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10224, Dublin, Ohio 43017-5724, (888) 985-9382.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.HPSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, or from Lead Counsel's
website, www.ktmc.com.

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked on or before October 31,
2015. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this
Action.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion such that it is received no later
than October 14, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound
by the judgment entered by the Court in this Action, including the
releases provided for in the judgment, whether or not you submit a
Claim Form. If you submit a request for exclusion, you will have
no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement and will have
to pursue any claims against the defendants independently. Lead
Counsel offers no advice and no opinion on whether you will be
able to maintain such claims.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses, must be submitted to the Class Action Clerk or filed
with the Court on or before October 14, 2015, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 400-3000
www.ktmc.com

Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(610) 667-7706
www.ktmc.com


HSBC USA: Parties Settled Speedy Stop Food Stores v. Visa
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in May 2015, the
parties settled the Speedy Stop Food Stores LLC v. Visa Inc. (Tex.
Dist. Ct., Victoria City, No. 13-10-75377-A) case. The settlement
was consistent with the allocation under the Interchange
settlement and judgment sharing agreements and within the
Company's reserves for these matters.


HSBC USA: Hearing Held in "Ofra Levin" Case
-------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that at a hearing held in
July 2015, the court in Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et
al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11) ("State Action") deferred a decision
on preliminary approval of the settlement and federal plaintiffs'
motion to intervene in the State Action. Another hearing date had
been scheduled for August 25, 2015.


HSBC USA: Expert Discovery in Debit Card Overdraft Fee Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the federal court
multidistrict litigation (In re HSBC Bank, USA, N.A. Debit Card
Overdraft Fee Litigation (E.D.N.Y. 2:13-MD-02451)), expert
discovery is proceeding, but plaintiffs' motion for class
certification remains stayed pending the court's ruling on the
settlement in the State Action.


HSBC USA: Parties Settled Blackburn Lender-Placed Insurance Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in May and June 2015,
the parties settled Blackburn v. HSBC Finance Corp., et al. (N.D.
Ga. 13-CV-03714-ODE) and Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage
Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074), respectively.
The settlements were within the Company's reserves for these
matters.


HSBC USA: Defendants Respond in Silver Fix Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in re London Silver
Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation)
Defendants' consolidated response to the second amended complaint
was filed in May 2015.


HSBC USA: Defendants Respond in Platinum and Palladium Fix Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Platinum and Palladium
Fix Litigation Defendants' consolidated response to the
consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2015.


HSBC USA: Stephen and Leyla Hill Case Filed
-------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in July 2015, the court
stayed Stephen and Leyla Hill, et al. v. HSBC Bank plc, et al.
(Case No. 14-CV-9745(LTS), which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against various HSBC
defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, by direct investors in Madoff
Securities, pending a decision in a related matter.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested and
ultimately pleaded guilty to running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee
was appointed for the liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered
broker-dealer and investment adviser. Various non-U.S. HSBC
companies provided custodial, administration and similar services
to a number of funds incorporated outside the United States whose
assets were invested with Madoff Securities. Plaintiffs (including
funds, funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have
commenced Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants
in a multitude of jurisdictions. Various HSBC companies have been
named as defendants in suits in the United States, Ireland,
Luxembourg and other jurisdictions. Certain suits (which include
U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC defendants knew
or should have known of Madoff's fraud and breached various duties
to the funds and fund investors.


HSBC USA: New Action Filed Against HSBC Entities by 2 Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in May 2015, a new
action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against HSBC entities, including HSBC Bank USA, by two
investors in the Hermes International Fund Limited who claim to
have lost their entire investments due to Madoff's fraud.
Plaintiffs assert claims against several HSBC entities for (i)
breach of fiduciary duty; (ii) aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty; (iii) aiding and abetting embezzlement; (iv)
aiding and abetting fraud; (v) negligent misrepresentations; and
(vi) unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek damages of not less than
$8 million. (Hau Yin To v. HSBC Bank plc, et al. (15-cv-3590)
There are many factors that may affect the range of possible
outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of the various
Madoff-related proceedings including, but not limited to, the
circumstances of the fraud, the multiple jurisdictions in which
proceedings have been brought and the number of different
plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings.

"For these reasons, among others, we are unable to reasonably
estimate the aggregate liability or ranges of liability that might
arise as a result of these claims but they could be significant.
In any event, we consider that we have good defenses to these
claims and will continue to defend them vigorously," the Company
said.


INDEPENDENT BANK: To Pursue Insurance Coverage for New Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends
to pursue insurance coverage for the new claims in the class
action.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with its acquisition of BOH
Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that
was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A.
Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.
Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things,
that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserts previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers. Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its
insurance carrier of the claim and the Company intends to pursue
insurance coverage for these new claims.

Independent Bank believes that the new claims are without merit
and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is complex
litigation involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As
such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may
be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate
outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case.


INFINITY BROKERAGE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Herrera Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Infinity Brokerage Co., Inc., United
Products International, Inc., and Alejandro Hernandez, Case No.
3:15-cv-00259-KC (W.D. Tex., September 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate logistics companies that provide
brokerage services to clients in El Paso, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Coyle, Esq.
      Christopher Benoit, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNN COYLE, P.L.L.C.
      2515 North Stanton
      El Paso, TX 79902
      Telephone: (915) 532-5544
      Facsimile: (915) 532-5566
      E-mail: lynn@coylefirm.com
              chris@coylefirm.com


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Has Stipulation to Resolve Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, that on
July 30, 2015, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") entered
into a stipulation and agreement of settlement ("Settlement") that
will resolve the federal securities class action lawsuit filed in
2011 against the Company and other defendants, captioned Wallace
v. IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:11-cv-08861-TPG
(the "Securities Class Action"), which is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"District Court"). The current and former officers, directors and
underwriters named as defendants in the Securities Class Action
have also entered into the Settlement. The Settlement provides for
the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities
Class Action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or
liability by the Company or the other defendants. The Company and
the other defendants continue to maintain that they have
meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class
Action. The Company and the other defendants agreed to the
Settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the
distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted
litigation.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $14.0 million
(the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all
claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company
or other defendants in the Securities Class Action.  The Company
currently expects that the full Settlement Amount will be paid for
and covered by the Company's insurers.  The Settlement is subject
to preliminary and final approval by the District Court and
certain other conditions.


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP reminds
investors that they have until October 5, 2015 to file a motion
seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff against Investment
Technology Group Inc. ITG, operates as an independent execution
and research broker. It offers trade execution services and
solutions for portfolio management, investment research, pre-trade
analytics and post-trade analytics and processing.

If you purchased ITG securities between February 28, 2011 and
August 3, 2015 (the "Class Period") we encourage you to contact
Johnson & Weaver (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com). The case is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Additional Information about the Lawsuit:

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, ITG's
subsidiary, AlterNet Securities, Inc., ran a proprietary trading
operation from 2010 through mid-year 2011 inside of IGT's POSIT,
an Alternative Trading System or "dark pool."

Additionally, the complaint accuses the Company of knowing that
the proprietary trading operation used information from customer
stock orders within ITG's dark pool, as well as information from
clients that used the firm's algorithms to execute trades on other
trading platforms.

These actions and conflicts of interests came to light on July 29,
2015 when ITG issued a press release announcing the underlying
misconduct of its employees and subsidiaries. After the
disclosure, ITG's stock price fell over 23%, or $5.64 per share,
to close at $18.36 on July 30, 2015.

Subsequently, on August 4, 2015, ITG's CFO announced that the
Company would report a material amount of legal fees due to
regulatory investigation into the Company's conduct. After this
revelation, ITG's share price fell over 5.00%, to close at $18.48
per share in the next trading session.

On August 12, 2015, the SEC announced a settlement with ITG and
its affiliate and released an order that included detailed
admissions of wrongdoing by ITG and imposed a civil penalty in the
amount of $18 million and other fines/interest exceeding $2
million.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ITG securities during the Class Period. If you wish to serve as a
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 5,
2015. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve
as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning
this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact lead
analyst Jim Baker ( jimb@johnsonandweaver.com ) at 619-814-4471.
If you email, please include your phone number.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com

Jim Baker, Esq
Johnson & Weaver, LLP
619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com


JC PENNEY: Faces "Monteiro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anabelle Monteiro, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JC Penney Corporation, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-00603 (E.D. Tex., September 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

JC Penney Corporation, Inc. is an apparel and home furnishing
retailer with its principal place of business located at 6501
Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew R. Scott, Esq.
      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Javier Perez, Esq.
      THE KENDALL LAW GROUP
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: mscott@kendalllawgroup.com
              jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jperez@kendalllawgroup.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Robbins Geller Inks $388-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Asummary notice on In Re: J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Securities
Litigation:

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO, PRIOR TO MARCH 12, 2009,
PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ANY CERTIFICATES1 IN ANY OF THE
OFFERINGS.

"Offerings" means J.P. Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-A2; J.P.
Morgan Alternative Loan Trust 2007-S1; J.P. Morgan Mortgage
Acquisition Trust 2007-CH3; J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust
2007-CH4; J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007-CH5; J.P.
Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A3; J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-A4;
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-S2; and J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust
2007-S3.

CERTAIN PERSONS AND ENTITIES, SUCH AS PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT
HAVE SEPARATELY ASSERTED AND/OR PURSUED CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS,
ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS, AS SET FORTH IN
DETAIL IN THE STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT (THE
"STIPULATION").  THE STIPULATION MAY BE FOUND AT
WWW.JPMORGANRMBSLITIGATION.COM.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (i) of the pendency
of this action asserting claims against J.P. Morgan Securities,
Inc. (now known as J.P. Morgan Securities LLC), J.P. Morgan
Acceptance Corporation I, Brian Bernard, Louis Schioppo Jr.,
Christine E. Cole, David M. Duzyk, William King, and Edwin F.
McMichael (collectively, "Defendants"), relating to the purchase
or other acquisition, ownership and/or disposition of certain
mortgage-backed securities (the "Action"), as a class action on
behalf of the persons and entities described above (the "Class
Members"), except for certain persons and entities who are
excluded from the Class by definition; and (ii) that a settlement
of the Action for a total of $388 million in cash has been
proposed.  A hearing will be held on December 4, 2015, at 2:30
p.m., before the Honorable J. Paul Oetken, at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY
10007, Courtroom 706:  (a) to determine whether the proposed
Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the
Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be
approved by the Court; (b) to determine whether the Order and
Final Judgment as provided for under the Stipulation should be
entered, dismissing the Action, on the merits and with prejudice,
and to determine whether the release by the Class Members of their
Released Claims against the Released Parties, as set forth in the
Stipulation, should be ordered; (c) to determine whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court;
(d) to determine whether the application by Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses incurred should
be approved; and (e) to rule upon such other matters as the Court
may deem appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY
BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing (the "Notice") and
Proof of Claim and Release Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator:

JP Morgan RMBS Settlement
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
Toll-free number: (877) 255-1145

Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.JPMorganRMBSlitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's website,
www.rgrdlaw.com.

If you are a Member of the Class, in order to be potentially
eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than December 16,
2015.  If you are a Member of the Class and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered
in the Action whether or not you make a Claim.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than October 7, 2015, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any
objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or
Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and Litigation
Expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no
later than October 7, 2015, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice.  If you are a Member of the Class and do
not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not share in the Net
Settlement Fund but you will nevertheless be bound by the Judgment
of the Court.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Daniel S. Drosman, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-3301
(800) 449-4900
DJR@rgrdlaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: More Class Suits Filed in SDNY v. FX Dealers
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that class actions have been
filed since November 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against foreign exchange
dealers, including the Firm, principally for alleged violations of
federal antitrust laws based on an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate foreign exchange rates reported on the WM/Reuters
service. In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
U.S. class action complaint; two other class actions were brought
by non-U.S.-based plaintiffs. The Court denied defendants' motion
to dismiss the U.S. class action and granted the motion to dismiss
the two non-U.S. class actions. In January 2015, the Firm settled
the U.S. class action, and this settlement is subject to court
approval. Since this settlement, a number of additional class
actions have been filed seeking damages for persons who transacted
FX futures and options on futures, consumers who purchased foreign
currencies at allegedly inflated rates, and participants or
beneficiaries of qualified ERISA plans.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motions to Dismiss US Dollar LIBOR Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that motions to dismiss are
pending in numerous individual actions and three additional
putative class actions related to U.S. dollar LIBOR.

The Firm has been named as a defendant along with other banks in a
series of individual and class actions filed in various United
States District Courts, in which plaintiffs make varying
allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or later,
defendants either individually or collectively manipulated the
U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR
and/or EURIBOR rates by submitting rates that were artificially
low or high. Plaintiffs allege that they transacted in loans,
derivatives or other financial instruments whose values are
affected by changes in U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, Swiss franc
LIBOR, Euroyen TIBOR or EURIBOR and assert a variety of claims
including antitrust claims seeking treble damages.

The U.S. dollar LIBOR-related putative class actions and most U.S.
dollar LIBOR-related individual actions were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("Multi-District Litigation"). In
March 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the claims in the three lead
putative class actions, dismissing with prejudice the antitrust
claims, and permitting certain claims under the Commodity Exchange
Act and common law. In September 2013, class plaintiffs in two of
the three lead putative class actions filed amended complaints,
which defendants moved to dismiss.

In June 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss, further limiting the subset of
Commodity Exchange Act and common law claims that may proceed.
Plaintiffs in the third putative class action appealed the
dismissal of the antitrust claims, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.

In January 2015, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that plaintiffs have the
jurisdictional right to appeal, and remanded the case to the Court
of Appeals for further proceedings. Motions to dismiss are pending
in numerous individual actions and three additional putative class
actions. Several other individual and class actions remain stayed.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal Filed in Euroyen TIBOR, Yen LIBOR Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the putative class
action alleging manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR,
plaintiff has moved for interlocutory appeal of the Court's denial
of the motion to amend, while discovery proceeds.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a putative class action
alleging manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR which was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of plaintiffs who purchased or sold
exchange-traded Euroyen futures and options contracts.

In March 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss, including dismissal of plaintiff's
antitrust and unjust enrichment claims. In June 2014, the
plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to include new claims,
plaintiffs and defendants.

In March 2015, the Court denied the request to add new claims and
plaintiffs, but granted the addition of new defendants. The
plaintiff has moved for interlocutory appeal of the Court's denial
of the motion to amend, while discovery proceeds.

The Firm is one of the defendants in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York relating to the interest rate benchmark EURIBOR. The case
is currently stayed. The Firm is also a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the interest rate
benchmark Swiss franc LIBOR.
The Firm is one of the defendants in a number of putative class
actions alleging that defendant banks and ICAP conspired to
manipulate the U.S. dollar ISDAFIX rates. Plaintiffs primarily
assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and Commodities
Exchange Act. In February 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint, which defendants have moved to
dismiss.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Dismiss Florida Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Firm has moved to
dismiss the Florida action, and that motion is pending.

A putative class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who
were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money
out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi
scheme and were not included in the previous class action
settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal
securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and
multiple common law and statutory claims including breach of
trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment,
conversion and commercial bad faith.

A similar action has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, although it is not
styled as a class action, and includes a claim pursuant to a
Florida statute. The Firm has moved to transfer both the Florida
and New Jersey actions to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Florida court denied the transfer motion in January 2015. In
March 2015, the New Jersey court granted the transfer motion, and
plaintiffs' appeal of that decision is pending. The Firm has also
moved to dismiss the Florida action, and that motion is pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in Bear Stearns Suit Has Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that JPMC is defending a
class action in which plaintiffs' motion for class certification
has been granted with respect to liability but denied without
prejudice as to damages. In this action, the parties have reached
a settlement that is subject to court approval. In April 2015, the
Firm finalized a settlement to resolve a putative class action
brought against Bear Stearns in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. In May 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final
approval to the settlement in a separate class action concerning
Bear Stearns.

In addition to class actions, the Firm is defending individual
actions brought against JPMC, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual
as MBS issuers (and, in some cases, also as underwriters of their
own MBS offerings). The Firm has settled a number of these
actions. Several actions remain pending in federal and state
courts across the U.S. and are in various stages of litigation.
Monoline Insurer Litigation. The Firm is defending two pending
actions relating to the same monoline insurer's guarantees of
principal and interest on certain classes of 11 different Bear
Stearns MBS offerings. These actions are pending in state court in
New York and are in various stages of litigation.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Jan. 2016 Final Settlement Hearing Date Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Firm is defending a
number of actions brought by trustees, securities administrators
or master servicers of various MBS trusts and others on behalf of
purchasers of securities issued by those trusts. These cases
generally allege breaches of various representations and
warranties regarding securitized loans and seek repurchase of
those loans or equivalent monetary relief, as well as
indemnification of attorneys' fees and costs and other remedies.
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, acting as trustee for
various MBS trusts, has filed such a suit against JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the
"FDIC") in connection with a significant number of MBS issued by
Washington Mutual; that case is described in the Washington Mutual
Litigations. Other repurchase actions, each specific to one or
more MBS transactions issued by JPMC and/or Bear Stearns, are in
various stages of litigation.

In addition, the Firm and a group of 21 institutional MBS
investors made a binding offer to the trustees of MBS issued by
JPMC and Bear Stearns providing for the payment of $4.5 billion
and the implementation of certain servicing changes by JPMC, to
resolve all repurchase and servicing claims that have been
asserted or could have been asserted with respect to 330 MBS
trusts issued between 2005 and 2008. The offer does not resolve
claims relating to Washington Mutual MBS. The seven trustees (or
separate and successor trustees) for this group of 330 trusts have
accepted the settlement for 319 trusts in whole or in part and
excluded from the settlement 16 trusts in whole or in part. The
trustees' acceptance is subject to a judicial approval proceeding
initiated by the trustees and pending in New York state court.
Certain investors in some of the trusts for which the settlement
has been accepted have intervened in the judicial approval
proceeding, challenging the trustees' acceptance of the
settlement. A final hearing date has been scheduled for January
2016.

Additional actions have been filed against third-party trustees
that relate to loan repurchase and servicing claims involving
trusts that the Firm sponsored.


JRN INC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edith D. Edwards, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. JRN, Inc., John R. Neal, David G. Neal, and
Tyrone K. Neal, Case No. 1:15-cv-00080 (M.D. Tenn., September 4,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate KFC and Taco Bell franchise
restaurants in several states across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
              jholt@jsyc.com
              rbryant@jsyc.com


K. HOVNANIAN: Construction Defect Class Suit Allowed to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence R. Phillips, Esq. -- laurence.phillips@dentons.com --
Andrew S. Azarmi, Esq. -- Andrew.Azarmi@dentons.com -- and
Stefanie Warren, Esq. -- stefanie.warren@dentons.com -- at
Dentons, wrote that in an unpublished decision on August 19, the
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, reinstated a class
action asserting construction defect claims against a nationwide
homebuilder.  The case is located at 2015 WL 4940630, at *1 (Cal.
Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015).  In reviving the class action, the court
of appeal reversed a lower court decision which had stricken the
class allegations from the plaintiff's complaint.

The court's decision to reinstate the class means that the class
action lawsuit will now proceed to discovery and an evidentiary
hearing on whether the class may be certified.  This is a
significant decision, as it effectively opens the door to class
claims against homebuilders (and potentially other service
providers employed in the homebuilding industry) arising out of
alleged construction defects on California residential development
and construction projects.

Class actions are commonly filed in California state and federal
courts, as California courts are often viewed by the plaintiff's
bar as favorable to class treatment.  Allowing class treatment of
claims can be a game-changer, as the potential liability may
increase exponentially, making even relatively trivial damages
claims serious as they are distributed among large classes of
plaintiffs.

Construction defect claims, while often pooled together for case
management purposes, were previously thought unsuitable for class
treatment in California because of the individual factual
questions that must be determined on a house-by-house basis.  The
defendant homebuilder made this argument, but the court rejected
it:

Despite defendant's attempts to confuse the issue, there is
nothing here based on the allegations of the complaint that
suggests that each house is so unique that common facts, such as
liability and defenses, cannot be considered as a class.

While the decision is, for now, unpublished, it could signal a
troubling trend for companies involved in the homebuilding
industry in California.  It is not yet clear whether the decision
will be appealed to the California Supreme Court.

The case is KENDALL BRASCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. K.
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents,
G050131 (Cal. App.).


KENTUCKY: Teacher Sues State Pension Over Private Equity Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Siedle, writing for Forbes.com, reported that Dr. Randy
Wieck, a Kentucky high school history classroom teacher with a
degree from the London School of Economics has already been lauded
in this column, as well as Bloomberg and the San Francisco
Chronicle, for single-handedly taking on the titans of private
equity.

Now Wieck has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court of the Western District of Kentucky claiming that
mismanagement of the investments of the Kentucky Teachers
Retirement Systems (KTRS) has resulted in the worst-funded state
teacher plan in the U.S - forcing teachers to  contribute more of
their salaries (up from 9% to 13%).

Wieck has no lawyer - he's representing himself - in a Herculean
effort to save his own and other Kentucky teachers' retirement.

You might expect that powerful, well-funded national and local
public unions would rally behind Wieck to hold Wall Street
accountable for undermining teachers' retirement security. To
date, in Kentucky and nationally, public sector labor
organizations have been mighty reluctant - even when pressed - to
recognize that how the money in a pension is managed is at least
as important as how much goes into it and is paid out in benefits.

Labor should be embracing a new role - providing meaningful
independent oversight of pension investments.  Every public
pension needs an outside Inspector General, in my opinion.
Organized labor could and should make it happen.

Private Equity firms mentioned in the Wieck complaint include
Blackstone, Carlyle and KKR.   Excerpts from the case referring to
Private Equity investments include:

"As late as 2007 KTRS had no alternative investment managers
listed in their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report; by 2013
there were 31 alternative managers listed and KTRS continued to
add alternative investments in 2014 and 2015 -- despite the filing
of a lawsuit against another Kentucky State Pension plan
challenging the legality of purchasing alternatives."

"KTRS has failed in their fiduciary duty by selecting investments
and investment managers not permitted by statute of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.  KTRS has invested in high-risk
alternative investments not appropriate for fiduciaries under the
common law.  Many of these alternative investment entities have
not documented in their contracts that they adhere to investment
ethics and disclosure rules as required by statute. KTRS Trustees
have allowed numerous alternative investment managers to violate
Kentucky state law on ethics and disclosure - which also
constitutes violations of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.
KTRS (in Fiscal Year 2014) admitted to paying $9.2 million to
alternative investment managers in secret no-bid contracts. KTRS
managers who have hired lobbyists in Frankfort include KKR, JP
Morgan (Highbridge) and Blackstone - which has 16 listings on the
executive branch lobbyist list (all affiliates and placement
agents combined)."

"KTRS has refused to provide the contracts of even a few of these
high-risk investments in answer to an October, 2014 open records
request by plaintiff  Randolph Wieck -- similar to refusals by the
other major  Kentucky pension and  requests in other states. KTRS
secret investment contracts with Wall Street Private Equity firms
are not only too secret for a teacher to see, they are too secret
for KTRS trustees to see;  too secret for the Kentucky State
Auditor to see; and too secret for the Kentucky Legislative
Contract review committee to see as well."

Federal intervention is required because the safeguards and
regulations put forth in Kentucky Law as checks and balances have
been ignored by KTRS, says Wieck.

It is often said that Americans are litigation-happy. Ironically,
the swift movement of a quarter of the trillions in our nation's
public pensions into the highest cost, highest-risk, most-
secretive investment schemes ever devised by Wall Street --
investments that have and will continue to dramatically
underperform - has even the plaintiff's bar and big labor
wondering who has legal standing and what to do about the
fleecing.

Until they, or others, get come up with answers, it's up to the
little guys -- like Wieck -- to keep public attention on this
slow-moving, damages-mounting train wreck.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Restated Suit Fully Briefed
--------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended and restated complaint in a class action
lawsuit has been fully briefed.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015. The complaint alleges violations
of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment,
and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and
intends to defend itself vigorously. On April 24, 2015, the
Company moved to dismiss the amended and restated complaint. The
motion has been fully briefed. The Company is unable to reasonably
estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred
in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in
their early stages.


LEON FARMA: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Birth Control Pills
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that an Alberta court has agreed to hear a
class-action lawsuit brought by women who claim to have become
pregnant due to defective birth control pills.

The women claim that certain packages of Alysena-28 contained an
insufficient number of active tablets, resulting in unwanted
pregnancies despite being used as directed.

The suit covers specific lots of the prescription birth control
pills packaged in Spain by Laboratorios Leon Farma SA and sold in
pharmacies across Canada between Nov. 19, 2012, and April 15,
2013, until they were withdrawn from the market.

Leon Farma denies any wrongdoing, but lawyer Tony Merchant is
determined to make the company pay.

"It wasn't a made-in-Canada mistake, but it was a mistake visited
upon us alone," he said.

Apotex, the Canadian distributor of Alysena, recalled several lots
of birth control pills as a precautionary measure in 2013.

There were concerns the packages may have contained two weeks of
placebo sugar pills instead of one -- an error that could raise
the possibility of unplanned pregnancy.
At least 40 women affected

"Fourteen active, 14 placebo -- this caused many people taking
Alysena-28 to get pregnant," Merchant said, adding at least 40
women were affected, but that number could be much more.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench will also hear from the
biological fathers of children born to the women, according to a
statement from Trilogy Class Action Services, the court-appointed
administrator.

Merchant says compensation could be anywhere from $100,000 to
$150,000 for both the mothers and fathers.

Women who didn't get pregnant, but were put at a high risk of
getting pregnant, are expected to get a smaller settlement.

Anyone who may be affected by the suit can obtain additional
information on this website.


LEWIS ENERGY: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Provide WARN Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Martinez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Lewis Energy Group, L.P. a/k/a Lewis Resource
Management, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00775 (W.D. Tex., September 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to give the
required Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN)
Act written notice to Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
in connection with recent a mass layoff and plant closing at the
Defendant's Encinal, Texas site of employment and operational
units.

Lewis Energy Group, L.P. owns and operates an oil and gas
exploration and production company with a principal place of
business located at 10101 Reunion Pl, Suite 1000, San Antonio,
Texas 78216.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


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. ("LOCK" or the "Company").  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 it 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' personal
information.  On this news, shares of the Company fell nearly 50%
from $16.06 to $8.15.  A complaint has been 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' 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 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


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Discovery in Class Actions Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has entered
an order granting the requested stay of discovery in two class
action lawsuits.

The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of
the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and
certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named
defendants in 28 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014,
and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit
Court of Dallas County, Alabama.  These lawsuits allege that
patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center received improper
interventional cardiology procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure.

The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6,
2015, seeks certification of a class of individuals that underwent
an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically
necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This action asserts, among
other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in
the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the
RICO violation and attorneys' fees.

In March 2015, the Company removed this action to the U.S.
District Court in Mobile, Alabama and filed a motion to dismiss
and for summary judgment, as well as a stay of discovery pending
resolution of these motions. On April 17, 2015 the court entered
an order granting the requested stay of discovery.


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Defending 17 Individual Suits in Raleigh, W.Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 31, 2015,
the Company, and two of its subsidiaries, including Raleigh
General Hospital, as well as Dr. Kenneth Glaser, have been named
in 17 individual lawsuits filed in the circuit court of Raleigh
County, West Virginia.  These lawsuits allege that patients at
Raleigh General Hospital received unnecessary interventional
cardiology procedures.  Through July 31, 2015, 23 additional
patients have notified Raleigh General Hospital that they intend
to file lawsuits against the hospital.


MADISON ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Louisdhon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Madison Entertainment Associates LLC d/b/a Lavo NY,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07010 (S.D.N.Y., September 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Madison Entertainment Associates LLC owns and operates a
restaurant and nightclub located in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      Denise A. Schulman, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
              denise@jhllp.com


MASTEC INC: Faces "Wrigley" Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on May 7, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), Wrigley v. MasTec,
Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R. Mas, and
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as
defendants. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a
shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained
in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the SEC and other statements, in each case with
respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the
independent internal investigation being conducted by the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The Lawsuit seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The
Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in July 2015, a
purported class action lawsuit asserting claims challenging the
proposed merger of MPLX LP and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.
("MWE") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by a purported unitholder of MWE. The lawsuit alleges
that the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest
Energy GP, L.L.C. the general partner of MWE, breached their
fiduciary and/or contractual duties to the unitholders of MWE and
that MPLX, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a subsidiary of MPLX,
aided and abetted those breaches. The complaint seeks to enjoin
the proposed merger or, if the merger is consummated, to rescind
the transaction or recover rescission damages. The lawsuit also
seeks an accounting and recovery of attorneys' fees, experts'
fees, and other litigation costs.

"We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit,"
the Company said.


MCCORMICK & CO: Faces "Jung" Suit Over Slack-Fill Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seung-Ho Jung, individually on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McCormick & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01448 (D.
Col., September 4, 2015), arises from the Defendant's deceptive
business practices in selling substantially under-filled black
peppercorn grinders and pure ground black pepper tins in a non-
functional slack-fill packaging.

McCormick & Company, Incorporated is a Maryland corporation that
manufactures spices, herbs, and flavorings for retail, commercial,
and industrial markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW LLP
      401 Center St., Suite 111
      Healdsburg, CA
      Telephone: (707) 820-4247
      Facsimile: (212) 202-6364
      E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com


MCG CAPITAL: Reached Agreement to Settle Stockholder Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MCG Capital Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, that on July
30, 2015, MCG Capital Corporation (the "Company"), solely to avoid
the costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation, and
without admitting the validity of any allegations asserted by
plaintiffs, reached an agreement to settle all outstanding
stockholder litigation in connection with the Company's pending
merger with PennantPark Floating Rate Capital Ltd ("PFLT").
On April 28, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
PFLT, PFLT Panama, LLC ("Merger Sub One"), PFLT Funding II, LLC
("Merger Sub Two") and, solely for certain limited purposes under
the Merger Agreement, PennantPark Investment Advisers, LLC. The
Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub One with
and into the Company and, immediately thereafter, the merger of
the Company with and into Merger Sub Two (together, the "Merger").
As previously described in the registration statement on Form N-14
filed by PFLT with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC"), which includes a joint proxy statement of the Company and
PFLT and a prospectus of PFLT (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), between May 6, 2015 and May 18, 2015, a
number of putative class action lawsuits were filed by
stockholders of the Company, and a consolidated class action
complaint challenging the Merger was filed on June 10, 2015 in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Action"). The consolidated
complaint alleged that the Company's directors violated their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to take steps to
maximize the consideration to be received by the Company's
stockholders in the Merger, and failing to disclose purportedly
material information to stockholders in connection with the
Merger. The consolidated complaint also alleged that PFLT, Merger
Sub One, Merger Sub Two and PennantPark Investment Advisers, LLC,
aided and abetted the Company directors' purported breach of
fiduciary duties.

On July 30, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement
of the Action. The MOU contemplates that the Company will make
certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Merger. Although
the defendants deny the allegations in the Action and believe that
no supplemental disclosure is required, in order to avoid the
burden and expense of further litigation, the Company and PFLT
agreed to make such supplemental disclosures in accordance with
the terms of the MOU.

The proposed settlement of the Action is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Delaware Court of Chancery will consider
the fairness of the proposed settlement. If the proposed
settlement is finally approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery,
it will release all claims based on state law that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger or
the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, under terms that will be disclosed to stockholders
before final approval of the proposed settlement. There can be no
assurance that the court will approve the proposed settlement
contemplated by the MOU. In such event, the proposed settlement
may be terminated and the defendants would defend vigorously
against the allegations in the Action.


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Investors Class Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class action
lawsuits filed against Kraft and Mondelez Global by investors were
consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois.

The Company said, "In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods
Group, Inc. ("Kraft") that it was investigating activities related
to the trading of December 2011 wheat futures contracts that
occurred prior to the Spin-Off of Kraft. We cooperated with the
staff in its investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a
complaint against Kraft and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez
Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint
alleges that Kraft and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated or
attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of 2011;
(2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3)
engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of
exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The
CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary
gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act")
or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or
9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of
the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent
injunction prohibiting Kraft and Mondelez Global from violating
specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of profits; and
costs and fees."

"On June 1, 2015, Mondelez Global and Kraft filed a motion to
dismiss the CFTC's claims of market manipulation and attempted
manipulation.

"Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat futures and
options on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The
complaints make similar allegations as those made in the CFTC
action and seek class action certification; an unspecified amount
for damages, interest and unjust enrichment; costs and fees; and
injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified relief.

"On June 4, 2015, these suits were consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. It is not possible to predict the outcome of
these matters; however, based on our Separation and Distribution
Agreement with Kraft dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to
predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in
connection with the CFTC action."


MONROEVILLE INDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Vance, Tristan A. Stoll, and David E. Williams v.
Monroeville Industrial Moldings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01807-JGC (N.D. Ohio, September 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, minimum wages, and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Monroeville Industrial Moldings, Inc. owns and operates a plastic
shock absorber manufacturing facility in Norwalk, Huron County
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leslie O. Murray, Esq.
      John T. Murray, Esq.
      Michael Stewart, Esq.
      MURRAY & MURRAY CO., L.P.A.
      111 East Shoreline Drive
      Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
      Telephone: (419) 624-3000
      Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
      E-mail: leslie@murrayandmurray.com
              jotm@murrayandmurray.com
              mjs@murrayandmurray.com


NESTLE SA: Supports Slave Labor to Produce Fancy Feast, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A nationwide class of pet food purchasers filed a lawsuit against
Nestle SA (VTX:NESN) alleging that the pet food manufacturer
knowingly supports a system of slave labor and human trafficking
to produce its Fancy Feast cat food, while hiding its involvement
with human rights violations from the public, according to
attorneys at Hagens Berman.

The lawsuit alleges that Nestle works with a Thai partner, Thai
Union Frozen Products PCL, to import more than 28 million pounds
of seafood-based pet food for top brands sold in America -- some
ingredients of which were obtained through slave labor.

Individuals who have purchased Fancy Feast cat food may contact
Hagens Berman by emailing petfood@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-
623-7292. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against
Nestle.

Often trafficked from Thailand's poorer neighbors such as Cambodia
and Burma, men and boys are sold to fishing boat captains needing
crews to man their fishing boats, according to the complaint. The
work is dangerous and exhausting with shifts lasting up to 20
hours a day with little or no pay, with refusal or failure to work
to a supervisor's satisfaction resulting in beatings or even
death.

"By hiding this from public view, Nestle has effectively tricked
millions of consumers into supporting and encouraging slave labor
on floating prisons," said Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman. "It's a fact that the thousands of purchasers of
its top-selling pet food products would not have bought this brand
had they known the truth -- that hundreds of individuals are
enslaved, beaten or even murdered in the production of its pet
food."

The 29-page complaint filed on Aug. 27, 2015, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California alleges that Thai
Union oversees canneries, "mothership" fishing vessels, and
smaller fishing boats. This structured pyramid of fishing fleets
ensures that individual fishing boats operate at great distance
from any port, without oversight. Deckhands operating Thai Union's
fishing boats work as modern day slaves, according to a recent New
York Times article, "Sea Slaves: The Human Misery that Feeds Pets
and Livestock."

The nationwide class action seeks to deliver reimbursement to
consumers who would not have purchased these products had they
been aware of these human rights violations, and also seeks
injunctive relief requiring Nestle to end its deceptive marketing.

The suit accuses Nestle of violating the California Unfair
Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act and False
Advertising Law.

"Instead of true employment, men and boys are sold as slaves by
brokers and smugglers to fishing captains in Thai ports in need of
labor. Once sold, these men and boys (hereafter 'Sea Slaves')
enter a modern form of indentured servitude where they are
required to work to pay off the price the captains paid to
purchase them," the complaint states. "These Sea Slaves are
frequently resold to other fishing boats while out at sea, often
at higher prices than their price at port. As a result, Sea Slaves
are involuntarily forced into longer and longer periods of
servitude as their debt grows and the price of their freedom
becomes ever more elusive."

The complaint also states that despite protection of human rights
listed as one of Nestle's Corporate Business Principals, the pet
food giant has failed to live up to its own ideals. According to
the suit, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs of the United
States Department of Labor confirms that fish and shrimp from
Thailand are likely the product of forced labor.

"Nestle had the resources to combat this and could have -- should
have -- chosen not to support these egregious human rights
violations," Berman said. "Nestle has failed to uphold its
responsibility to ensure the absence of slave labor in its supply
chains -- and even worse, Nestle not only supported these human
rights violations, but forced consumers to unknowingly do the
same."

Hagens Berman has been a pioneer in consumer rights litigation, as
well as lawsuits filed to ensure human rights for groups of people
around the world.

Reed Kathrein, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101
Tel. (206) 623-7292
Fax. (206) 623-0594
http://www.hbsslaw.com/


NETAPP INC: Faces "Broudy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Elton Broudy v. NetApp, Inc. and Heritage Global Solutions, Case
No. 115-cv-285309 (D. Cal., September 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

NetApp, Inc. is a computer storage and data management company
headquartered in Surmyvale, California.

Heritage Global Solutions is a labor contractor, specializing in
Infonnation Technology consultation services, and providing
trained and certified technology and project management resources
to other businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


NRG ENERGY: 2 TCPA Suits Filed Against NRG and NRG Residential
--------------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two purported class
action lawsuits have been filed against NRG and NRG Residential
Solar Solutions, LLC in California and New Jersey.  The plaintiffs
generally allege misrepresentation by the call agents and
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, claiming that
the defendants engaged in a telemarketing campaign placing
unsolicited calls to individuals on the "Do Not Call List." The
plaintiffs generally seek statutory damages of up to $1,500,
actual damages and equitable relief. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits.


NTT DATA: Faces "Komatsu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Towaki Komatsu v. NTT Data, Inc., Credit Suisse AG, a/k/a Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Case No. 15-cv-7007 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for a workweek longer than 40 hours.

Headquartered in Piano, Texas, NTT Data, Inc. is a provider of
technology services to both private and government firms.

Headquartered in New York, New York, Credit Suisse AG operates a
financial services holding company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Max Folkenflik, Esq.
      FOLKENFLIK & MCGERITY
      1500 Broadway, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone:  (212)757-0400
      E-mail: MFolkenflik@fmlaw.net

         - and-

      Leon Greenberg, Esq.
      LEON GREENBERG, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      633 South 4th Street Suite 4
      Las Vegas, NV 89101
      Telephone: (702)383-6369


ONTARIO, CA: Faces $1B Residential Hospital Abuse Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Times reported that a Superior Courtroom decide just lately
gave the go-ahead to a $1-billion class motion lawsuit involving
about eight,800 individuals with developmental disabilities who
have been housed for many years in 12 provincial amenities till
they have been closed.

Following the success of the Huronia Regional Centre survivors'
lawsuit, it's by far the most important class-action introduced
towards the federal government for widespread bodily abuse and
neglect skilled by former residents of residential hospitals.

"We hope this motion will present recognition of the experiences
of former residents and finally compensation for what they needed
to endure," stated David Rosenfeld, one of many legal
professionals who introduced the go well with.

Some 1,705 Huronia survivors settled their go well with for and
can within the coming weeks. An extra 1,728 former residents of
the Rideau and Southwestern Regional Centres shortly afterward for
$32.7 million.

Claims within the newest lawsuit, which haven't been confirmed in
courtroom, embrace allegations that the federal government was
negligent in failing to stop abuse within the wards, regardless of
being repeatedly warned about their deplorable situation by
successive authorities research.

The lawsuit covers individuals who have been surrendered by their
households or who have been legally remanded into the Crown's care
at greater than a dozen amenities throughout Ontario between the
early 1960s and their closure within the 1980s and 1990s.

"The province of Ontario did not correctly look after and shield
individuals who lived on the establishments," states a pamphlet
produced for members of the category motion. "Residents of the
establishments have been emotionally, bodily, and psychologically
traumatized by their experiences."

The Ministry of Group and Social Providers didn't return a request
for remark.

The lawsuit was filed by Marlene McIntyre, who was admitted to in
Cobourg in 1963, when she was solely 13 years previous. She lived
beneath lock and key there and at one other facility for the
subsequent 17 years, the place she says she was frequently bodily
abused and noticed different youngsters being handled the
identical approach.

"Residents have been left to aimlessly stroll or crawl across the
Amenities at occasions, typically with none clothes," in response
to the lawsuit, and "have been organized into work gangs to carry
out the routine and odd duties of operating such an
establishment."

"For his or her bodily labour in and across the establishment,
residents have been both paid nothing in any respect or have been
paid minimal and utterly unrealistic wages."

McIntyre's legal professionals have 4 months to attract up an
inventory of former residents to be included within the go well
with. Notices might be posted in authorities businesses, long run
care amenities and Group Care Entry Centres throughout the
province. Advertisements will probably be positioned in quite a
few newspapers, pointing to a toll-free quantity.


PALMETTO BANCSHARES: Plaintiff in "Underwood" Case Dismissed Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
case, Underwood v. Erwin et al., has voluntarily dismissed the
complaint without prejudice.

A putative shareholder class action lawsuit, referred to as the
merger litigation, was filed in connection with the Merger
Agreement. Underwood v. Erwin et al., Case No. 2015-CP-23-03206,
was filed on May 19, 2015 and amended on June 26, 2015, in the
Court of Common Pleas of the State of South Carolina. This action
generally alleged, among other things, that the members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's shareholders by failing to maximize shareholder
value and by failing to disclose certain information with respect
to the proposed merger between the Company and United. The
complaint also alleged claims against United for aiding and
abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff
sought injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the merger
and, in the event the merger is consummated, sought rescission and
restitution, an accounting, and attorneys' fees and costs. The
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint without prejudice on
July 6, 2015. At this stage, it is not possible to predict whether
any additional lawsuits will be filed and, if one is, the outcome
of any such proceeding or its impact on United, the Company or the
merger.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Pier 1 Imports, Inc. ("Pier
1" or the "Company") shares from December 19, 2013 through
February 10, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action seeks
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pier 1 is a retailer of decorative home furnishings and gifts
imported from countries around the world. Pier 1 maintains over
1,000 stores in the United States and Canada and operates as one
segment consisting of the retail sales of decorative home
furnishing, furniture, gifts and related items.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and 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 the truth
regarding the Company's business prospects and financial
condition.

Approximately two weeks prior to its year end, on February 10,
2015, the Company surprised investors by reducing its financial
guidance for the fiscal year ending February 28, 2015. Pier 1
blamed the sudden change in its outlook on softer than expected
sales in January and February 2015 and "unplanned" expenses,
primarily related to incremental supply chain costs. Pier 1 also
announced that the Company's Chief Financial Officer Charles H.
Turner -- a 23 year veteran with the Company -- had "retired". On
this news, shares of Pier 1 plummeted to $12.84, or approximately
25%, on trading of over thirty-six million shares.

If you purchased Pier 1 stock during this time period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court
no later than October 26, 2015. Any member of the class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the
Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-
scott.com.

There is no cost or fee to you.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide and has
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of their
clients.

Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
Scott & Scott LLP
The Chysler Building
405 Lexington Ave.
40th Flr New York, NY 10174-4099
Phone: (800) 404-7770
Fax: (646) 582-0121)
scottlaw@scott-scott.com
http://www.scott-scott.com


PIZZA HUT: Class Action Against Delivery Tax Moves Ahead
--------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, writing for Law360, reported that a Florida judge
refused to dismiss a putative class action against Pizza Hut of
America Inc. alleging it unlawfully collected sales tax on
delivery fees, saying sufficient facts were alleged to support
claims including deceptive and unfair practices and negligence.

"It should be noted the court is not passing on the merits of this
class action in denying the motion to dismiss," Judge Jack Tuter
wrote in his order.


POLYCOM INC: Motions to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Polycom and the
individual defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint are pending.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially
captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On
December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel.

On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20,
2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding
the Company's business, operational and compliance policies,
including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's
expense submissions and the Company's internal controls. The
lawsuit further alleged that the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom
and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed a
second complaint on May 4, 2015.  Polycom and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June
26, 2015.  Those motions are pending.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of
reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: 6th Cir. Assesses Class Criteria in Align Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre H. Bergeron, writing for The National Law Review, reported
that the importance of class definition was on display at the
Sixth Circuit, in a case producing three separate opinions.

In Rikos v. The Procter & Gamble Company, a divided court affirmed
the certification of classes covering five states and nearly half
a decade of purchasers P&G's digestive health drug Align, and in
the process added to the (somewhat confusing) map of the post-
Dukes and Comcast class action landscape.

Early, the plaintiffs sought -- and the district court certified -
- five single-state classes led by three plaintiffs who purported
to represent the purchasers of P&G's digestive bacterial
fortification drug Align. The plaintiffs alleged violations of
various state laws on unfair competition and deceptive trade
practices on the basis that the drug did not comport with P&G's
marketing claims about its efficacy. On appeal, P&G's primary
challenges to class certification included arguments regarding the
commonality and typicality requirements of 23(a), the predominance
requirement of 23(b)(3), and the developing doctrine of
ascertainability.

The court rejected P&G's claim that "[Wal-Mart v.] Dukes requires
that named plaintiffs present evidence proving that class members
suffered an actual common injury to establish commonality,"
holding rather that the issue was "whether Plaintiffs have shown .
. . that they can prove -- not that have already shown -- that all
members of the class have suffered the 'same injury.'" Finding the
plaintiffs' claim that Align simply did not work for anyone was a
common question with a common answer and was adequate in light of
Dukes, the court turned to typicality. On this point, the court
concluded that some consumers' satisfaction with Align was
irrelevant to class certification. The court held that the
typicality requirement was satisfied by the district court's
conclusion that the appropriate inquiry was "'whether the
purchaser received the product that was advertised.'"

In its analysis, the Sixth Circuit declined to follow Carrera v.
Bayer, the recent Third Circuit case overturning class
certification due to the class's "unascertainable" nature, citing
criticism of the case by other circuits, the Third Circuit's own
subsequent limitation of the case, and the ready ascertainability
of the Rikos classes. It also distinguished Carrera on its facts.

Judge Cohn penned a short concurrence, encouraging bifurcation of
the case in order to assess Align's health benefits on the merits
as soon as possible and so dispose of the case. However, Judge
Cook dissented from certification overall, arguing that the
plaintiffs had merely pleaded, not proven, Rule 23's requirements,
in contravention of Comcast, Amgen, and Dukes. This is a key issue
that has engendered much confusion in the caselaw in the wake of
these Supreme Court decisions. Finally, the dissent found that the
district court impermissibly shifted Rule 23's burden to P&G to
disprove commonality, and that an examination of the drug's
efficacy was a necessary intrusion into the merits of the case in
line with the Supreme Court's "rigorous analysis" jurisprudence.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Entered Into Settlement in "Bararsani" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
the Company entered into a settlement in the case, Bararsani v.
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including one for
failing to reimburse the plaintiff and purported class for
business related expenses and a second for failing to keep proper
records.  The amended complaint also asserts an Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates.  The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with applicable law, and
longstanding, widespread industry practice for many decades.

"Between 2012 and 2015, the parties engaged in motion practice
before the Court. To avoid further litigation expense, we entered
into a settlement at the first mediation session on May 5, 2015.
The settlement requires court approval and was accrued for as of
June 30, 2015," the Company said.

In entering into this settlement, CBRBC made no admission of
wrongdoing or liability, and is not obligated to change its
business structures.  The Company continues to believe it properly
classified the sales associates as independent contractors and
would have significant defenses to the claims asserted in this
action.


REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY: Faces "Deville" Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Deville, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Regents of The University of California,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC593527 (D. Cal.,
September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to properly safeguard and protect the Plaintiffs and Class
Members' personally identifiable information and medical records
and private health information.

The Regents of The University of California administers various
medical facilities within the University of California system,
including the various components of UCLA Health such as the
Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, the UCLA Medical Center, Santa
Monica, the Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel
Children's Hospital UCLA, and the UCLA Medical Group.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip E. Cook, Esq.
      THE COOK LAW FIRM, P.C.
      707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA90017
      Telephone: (213)988-6100
      Facsimile: (213) 988-6099
      E-mail: pcook@cooklawfirm.la

          - and -

      Daniel E. Selarz, Esq.
      SELARZ & SARBAZ LLP
      9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1030
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310)651-8685
      Facsimile: (310) 975-6972
      E-mail: dselarz@ss-firm.com

         - and -

      Martin J. Foley, Esq.
      MARTIN J. FOLEY, a PLC
      601 S Figueroa St., Suite 2000
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 248-0577
      Facsimile: (323)663-1635
      E-mail: martin@mjfoleylaw.com


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Defendants' motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint remain under consideration
by the Court.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and shareholders (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September
2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings.

On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint also added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive. On January
26, 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs sought and
were granted leave to file an amended complaint.

On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
were filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed
on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants' reply was filed on July 13,
2015. The motions remain under consideration by the Court. The
Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
intends to defend against the litigation vigorously.


RUSTY NAIL: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teri Jordan, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Rusty Nail, Inc. d/b/a Temptations, Thomas
Murray and Jacob Gutierrez, Case No. 605777 (D.N.Y., September 4,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, illegally retained
tips, and improperly withheld wages pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment
located at 10 Carlough Road, Bohemia, New York, 11716.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


SANDISK CORP: District Court Denied Motion for Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in the Ritz Camera
Federal Antitrust Class Action, the District Court has denied the
Company's motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refile
its motion once the class notice has been approved and the period
for class members to opt out has expired.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court.

On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to
substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz
bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1,
2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc.
and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a
cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a
named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims.

On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015,
the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class
notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt
out has expired.


SANDISK CORP: Court Stayed Discovery in Suit v. SD-3C LLC
---------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in the federal
antitrust class action against SanDisk, et al., the District Court
has stayed discovery until after completion of the pleading stage.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.
The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to
pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to,
and incorporate by reference the complaint in Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North
America; and SD-3C LLC.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the
District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing
and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District
Court.

On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme
Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On
February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
is under submission. The District Court has stayed discovery until
after completion of the pleading stage.


SANDISK CORP: Securities Action v. Fusion-io et al. Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the District Court has
dismissed with prejudice the federal securities class action
against Fusion-io et al.

Beginning on November 19, 2013, Fusion-io and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Denenberg v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Miami Police
Relief & Pension Fund v. Fusion-io, Inc. et al.; Marriott v.
Fusion-io, Inc. et al.). Two of the complaints are allegedly
brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Fusion-io's common
stock between August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013, and one is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers between
January 25, 2012 and October 23, 2013. The complaints generally
allege violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
alleged misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the
alleged class periods. The complaints seek, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
the putative class.

On June 10, 2014, the Court consolidated the cases, appointed a
lead plaintiff, and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended
consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2014, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Fusion-io common stock between October 25, 2012 and October 23,
2013, inclusive. The consolidated complaint generally alleges
violations of the federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged
class period and seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.

On February 12, 2015, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs did not file an
amended complaint, and the Court dismissed the case with prejudice
on May 27, 2015.


SANDISK CORP: Union Asset and KBC Appointed as Lead Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in the federal
securities class action against SanDisk et al., the District Court
has consolidated the cases and appointed Union Asset Management
Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as lead plaintiffs.

Beginning on March 30, 2015, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015;
Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. SanDisk
Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015,
and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15,
2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions
by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints
seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed
Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as
lead plaintiffs.


SILVERCO ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Silverco Enterprises, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
BC593738 (D. Cal., September 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Silverco Enterprises, Inc. operates a vehicle rental company with
multiple locations within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818)991-8080
      Facsimile: (818)991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com

         - and -

      Omid Khorshidi, Esq.
      Roxana Sadighim, Esq.
      KHORSHIDI LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 W. Olympic Blvd.
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      E-mail: omid@khorshidilaw.com
              roxana@khorshidilaw.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased The Spectranetics Corporation ("Spectranetics" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:SPNC) securities during the period between
February 19, 2015, and July 23, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The Complaint charges the Company and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
Company was being negatively impacted by increasing competition;
(2) that the Company's sales force optimization efforts were
inadequate; (3) that, as a result, the Company was performing
below expectations; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On April 23, 2015, the Company reported disappointing earnings
results and lowered its forecast for the rest of the year. The
Company attributed much of the lowered forecast to increased
competition from other drug-coated balloon products. Following
this news, shares of the Company declined $8.18 per share, over
23%, to close on April 24, 2015, at $26.52 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.

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, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
Gainey McKenna & Egleston
95 NJ-17, Paramus, NJ 07652
Phone:+1 201-225-9001
www.gme-law.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Goldberg Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Spectranetics Corporation ("Spectranetics" or the
"Company") for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
February 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm.

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 23, 2015, Spectranetics
reported its financial results for the second quarter of 2015. The
Company lowered its prior revenue guidance, which it claims was
affected by competitive drug-coated balloon launches and ongoing
sales team optimization. When this news reached the investing
public, the stock dropped nearly 35% 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
800-977-7401
info@goldberglawpc.com
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against The Spectranetics Corporation
("Spectranetics" or the "Company") . Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between February 19, 2015, and July 23,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the
Firm immediately to discuss their legal options.

If you purchased shares of Spectranetics during the class period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von
Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

Spectranetics manufactures and sells medical devices used in
cardiovascular surgery. The complaint against Spectranetics
alleges that: (1) increasing competition had adversely affected
the Company; (2) that Spectranetics' sales force optimization
efforts were not adequate and caused the Company to perform below
expectations; and (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls. On July 23, 2015, Spectranetics reported results that
fell below Wall Street's expectations. The Company attributed the
lowering of its guidance to competitive drug-coated balloon
launches and ongoing sales team optimization. When this news was
revealed to investors, shares fell by approximately 34%, to close
at $24.83 per share.

If you purchased shares of Spectranetics during the Class Period
you have until October 26, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or
if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com.

Joon M. Khang, Esq.
KHANG & KHANG LLP
18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: 949-419-3834
Facsimile: 949-225-4474
joon@khanglaw.com


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Oct. 26 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of The Spectranetics
Corporation("Spectranetics" or the "Company") securities during
the period between February 19, 2015 and July 23, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until October 26, 2015 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Spectranetics
securities purchased on or after February 19, 2015 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period, as described below, and would like to
learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a
lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit
our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  No class has yet been certified in the action.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period.  Brower
Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company was
being negatively impacted by increasing competition and its sales
force optimization efforts were inadequate, such that the Company
was performing below expectations.

According to the Complaint, following the Company's April 23, 2015
reporting of disappointing earnings results and a lowered forecast
for the rest of the year (due in large part to increased
competition from other drug-coated balloon products) and a July
23, 2015 announcement that the Company was lowering its guidance
for the remainder of 2015 and revelation that competitive pressure
from the rapid adoption of drug-coated balloons and ongoing sales
force optimization efforts were causing its AngioSculpt franchise
to perform below expectations, the value of Spectranetics shares
declined significantly.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

Charles J. Piven, Esq.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, Maryland 21153
Telephone: 410-415-6616
hoffman@browerpiven.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Appeal in Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2015, that
plaintiffs' appeal in a class action lawsuit against the Company,
Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson remains pending.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June
11, 2015, which is pending.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
allegations, and management believes the resolution of this matter
will not materially affect the Company's financial position,
results of operations or liquidity.


STAPLES INC: Faces "Wesson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Wesson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Staples, Inc., Staples The Office Superstore, LLC, and
Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. BC593889 (D. Cal., September 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq.
      Daria Dub Carlson, Esq.
      MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON, LLP
      17383 West Sunset Blvd., Suite A-380
      Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
      Telephone: (310) 454-5900
      Facsimile: (310)454-5970
      E-mail: icompton@mzclaw.com
              dcarlson@mzclaw.com

         - and -

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard St., Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 340-5400
      Facsimile: (818)340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la


SUPER MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dale Deason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., Charles Liang, and Howard
Hideshima, Case No. 5:15-cv-04049-EJD (N.D. Cal., September 4,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Super Micro Computer, Inc. develops and provides high performance
server solutions based on modular and open-standard architecture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc C. Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              mgorrie@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Parties in "Pittman" Case Finalizing Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Pittman et
al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank, the parties are in
the process of finalizing the settlement.

The Bank is a defendant in two putative class actions, and
defending a third-party in a third putative class action, alleging
claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on
their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to
them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed
calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or
using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their
consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of
damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified. Abdeljalil et al.
v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August 22, 2012 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California, originally
naming GECC as the defendant.

In August 2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion
to dismiss the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed
and the plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the
defendant.

On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (for
damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief). The Bank is
seeking reconsideration of the order. Hofer et al. v. Synchrony
Bank was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri. "Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., for which we are defending the defendant, was filed
on February 27, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois," the Company said.

In addition to the Abdeljalil, Hofer, and Dubanoski actions, the
Bank has resolved four other putative class actions that made
similar claims under the TCPA on an individual basis with the
class representative. Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank
and Allied Interstate LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
dismissed on October 9, 2014. Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc.
and GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina and dismissed on
October 20, 2014. Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May
14, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut and dismissed on July 8, 2015.  Pittman et al. v. GE
Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on July 29, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama; the
parties are in the process of finalizing the settlement and having
the case dismissed.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Sued in E.D. La. Over Defective Chinese Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen and Diane Brooke, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. f/k/a Shandong
Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04127-EEF-JCW
(E.D. La., September 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
owners and residents of real property containing problematic
Chinese manufactured drywall that was designed, manufactured,
imported, distributed, delivered, supplied, marketed, inspected,
installed, or sold by the Defendants.

Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. is a foreign corporation that
manufactures and distributes Chinese drywalls.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
      E-mail: Ldavis@hhklawfirm.com

         - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Fred S. Longer, Esq.
      Matthew C. Gaughan, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: Alevin@lfsblaw.com


TENDER TRAP: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teri Jordan, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. The Tender Trap, Inc. d/b/a Blue Rhino,
Vicent E. Bolger, Case No. 605774 (D.N.Y., September 4, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and damages pursuant to the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment establishment
located at 1850 East Jericho Turnpike, Huntington, New York,
11743.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


TENET HEALTHCARE: Trial This Month in Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Cason-
Merenda, et al. v. VHS of Michigan, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Medical
Center, et al., is now set for trial to commence in September
2015.

In Cason-Merenda, et al. v. VHS of Michigan, Inc. d/b/a Detroit
Medical Center, et al., filed in December 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, a certified
class composed of the registered nurses (exclusive of supervisory,
managerial and advanced practical nurses) employed by eight
unaffiliated Detroit-area hospital systems allege those hospital
systems, including Detroit Medical Center ("DMC"), violated
Section Sec.1 of the federal Sherman Act by exchanging
compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that
has reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to such
nurses.

The Company said, "A subsidiary of Vanguard acquired DMC in
January 2011, and we acquired Vanguard in October 2013. All of the
defendant hospital systems, other than DMC, have settled. The
matter is now set for trial to commence in September 2015. Absent
settlement of this matter, we will continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against the plaintiffs' allegations. We cannot predict
with any certainty the terms of any potential resolution of this
matter."


TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs' Motion to Re-open Discovery Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case,
Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a Baptist
Health Systems, et al., the court has granted plaintiffs' July
2013 motion to lift the stay and re-open discovery in this matter.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The lawsuit was filed by the same group of class
action attorneys who filed several similar cases around the
country in the same time frame, including one against DMC in
Detroit, as discussed in the Cason-Merenda proceeding. The suit
seeks unspecified damages (subject to trebling under federal law),
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The parties have engaged in discovery related to the issue of
class certification, and the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify
the class in April 2008. The case has been stayed since that time.

On July 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' July 2013 motion
to lift the stay and re-open discovery in this matter.

"Because these proceedings are at an early stage, it is impossible
at this time to predict their outcome with any certainty; however,
we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations. We will continue to seek to defeat class
certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the
plaintiffs' allegations," the Company said.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Paid $13.6MM to Settle Case v. Jo Ellen
---------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation paid $13.6 million in total to settle
the case, Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "in October 2014, we received court approval of
a final agreement to settle a previously disclosed class action
lawsuit captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical
Foundation, which was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997. The plaintiffs
pursued a claim for tortious invasion of privacy due to the fact
that in April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric
hospital we closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure
location while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The court
certified a class of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight
individuals (in addition to the two plaintiffs) were identified in
the class certification process. The plaintiffs asserted each
member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory
of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any
members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the
incident."

"To avoid protracted litigation, the parties settled this matter
in June 2014 for a maximum potential payment of $32.5 million,
subject to the number and type of claims asserted by the class
members. The payment for all undisputed common damages claims was
made in April 2015, and a payment representing a portion of the
attorneys' fees was paid in June 2015. The payment for the
remaining attorneys' fees and administrative costs, as well as the
undisputed individual damages claims, was made on August 3, 2015.

"We had made an initial deposit of $5.5 million into an escrow
account in late November 2014 and, based on low class
participation as of March 31, 2015 (the end of the claims period),
management reduced the reserve for this matter from $11.5 million
at December 31, 2014 to $8.0 million, recorded in discontinued
operations, to reflect its then-current estimate of probable
remaining liability. In total, we paid $13.6 million to settle
this matter."


TEXTURA CORPORATION: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company iled a
motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit.

On October 7, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its executive officers. An
amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2015. The amended
complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act  of
1934 by the Company and its executive officers for making
allegedly materially false and misleading statements and by
failing to disclose allegedly material facts regarding its
business and operations between June 7, 2013 and September 29,
2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend the
case vigorously. We filed a motion to dismiss on May 4, 2015," the
Company said.


TIMBO'S CONSTRUCTION: "Avalos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Avalos, and others similarly situated v. Timbo's
Construction, Inc. and Jimmy Sandifer, Case No. 4:15-cv-00118-DMB-
JMV (N.D. Miss., September 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company at 3853
Highway 61 North, Cleveland, Mississippi 38732.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Simpson, Esq.
      Kirk A. Caraway, Esq.
      John R. Hensley II, Esq.
      SUMMERS, SIMPSON, LILLIE & GRESHAM, PLLC
      80 Monroe Avenue, Suite 650
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 763-4200
      E-mail: jsimpson@allensummers.com
              kcaraway@allensummers.com
              jhensley@allensummers.com


TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Bangoy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine D. Bangoy, individually and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Total Homecare
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00573-SSB-SKB (S.D. Ohio,
September 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Total Homecare Solutions, LLC operates a home care staffing agency
with its principal place of business in the Southern District of
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 949-1181
      Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

         - and -

     Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
     MANSELL LAW LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Telephone: (614) 610-4134
     Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
     E-mail: greg.mansell@ohio-employmentlawyer.com


TRANSPORT DRIVERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Barbosa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Transport Drivers, Inc., d/b/a TDI Nationwide and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC593794 (D. Cal., September 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Transport Drivers, Inc. owns and operates a logistics company
doing business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN& ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


TURNBERRY HOTEL: "Villan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Villan, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Turnberry Hotel Group of Miami, Inc. d/b/a Turnberry Associates
d/b/a Turnberry Isle Miami, Case No. 1:15-cv-23354-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
September 4, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
             jsheskin@saenzanderson.com



UNITED STATES: Faces "Robbeloth" Suit Over OPM's Cyber Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Robbeloth, Eric W. Edgar and John Raber, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. United States of
America, Office of Personnel Management and Keypoint Government
Solutions, Case No. 1:15-cv-01449-ABJ (D.C., September 4, 2015),
arises out of multiple cyber-breaches of OPM's systems that
compromised the security of more than 20 million individuals,
including current, former, and prospective employees and
contractors of the U.S. government, as well as family members or
other contacts of federal applicants.

Office of Personnel Management is a U.S. agency that handles many
aspects of the federal employee recruitment process, including
managing federal job announcements, conducting background
investigations and security clearances, overseeing federal merit
systems, managing personal retirement and health benefits,
providing training and development programs, and developing
government personnel policies.

Keypoint Government Solutions describes itself as a leading
provider of investigative and risk mitigation services to
government organizations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Jonathan Schraub, Esq.
      Paige Levy Smith, Esq.
      SANDS ANDERSON PC
      1497 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Mclean, VA 22101
      Telephone: (703) 893-3600
      Facsimile: (703) 893-8484
      E-mail: plevy@sandsanderson.com
              jjschraub@sandsanderson.com

         - and -

      Joel H. Bernstein, Esq.
      Garrett Bradley, Esq.
      Corban S. Rhodes, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: jbemstein@labaton.com
              gbradley@labaton.com
              crhodes@labaton.com


VENTURA RECOVERY: Sued Over Employee Health and Welfare Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and Cigna Health and
Life Insurance Company v. Ventura Recovery Center, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07034 (C.D. Cal., September 4, 2015), seeks to recover
overpayments that were made in connection with employee health and
welfare benefits that fall within the scope of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Ventura Recovery Center, Inc. operates a treatment center with its
principal place of business in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Humiston, Esq.
      Robert C. Bohner, Esq.
      SEDGWICK LLP
      801 South Figueroa Street, 19th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-5556
      Telephone: (213) 426-6900
      Facsimile: (213) 426-6921
      E-mail: david.humiston@sedgwicklaw.com
              robert.bohner@sedgwicklaw.com


VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Holy Stone Agreed to Indemnify
------------------------------------------------------
Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that Holy Stone has
agreed to indemnify Vishay and VPC for any losses.

Vishay and Vishay Polytech Co., Ltd. ("VPC"), which is a
subsidiary of Vishay purchased from Holy Stone Enterprises Co.,
Ltd. ("Holy Stone"), in June 2014, amongst other unrelated
parties, were named as defendants in purported antitrust class
action complaints in the United States and Canada.  The complaints
allege restraints of trade in aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors, and in some cases, film capacitors, by Vishay, VPC and
other manufacturers, and seek injunctive relief and unspecified
joint and several treble damages.

The complaints in the United States have been consolidated into
complaints from direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and one
individual plaintiff.  In the consolidated U.S. complaints, Vishay
and VPC were only named in the direct purchaser complaint, In Re:
Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  In December 2014,
Vishay and VPC, along with the other defendants, filed motions to
dismiss the putative direct purchaser class action complaint.  In
May 2015, the court dismissed Vishay and certain other defendants,
without prejudice.  In an amended direct purchaser purported class
action complaint, filed on June 16, 2015, the plaintiffs agreed
not to name Vishay.

Holy Stone has agreed to indemnify Vishay and VPC for any losses,
including penalties and expenses, that arise from the acquisition
of VPC or the actions of VPC prior to its acquisition by Vishay.
Notwithstanding this indemnity obligation, the Company intends to
defend vigorously against the complaints.


WORLD WRESTLING: Court Granted Motion to Transfer McCullough Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court
granted a motion to transfer to Connecticut the lawsuit, Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers.

On March 31, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint in its entirety or, if not
dismissed, to transfer the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut. Without addressing the merits of the
Company's motion to dismiss, the Court transferred the case to
Connecticut on June 25, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an objection to
such transfer, which was denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes. On February
27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs and that
motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a scheduling
conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to cure
various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 15, 2015. On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes. The Company again moved
to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due to forum-selection
clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs, which the
California court granted on July 10, 2015.

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.


WORLD WRESTLING: To Defend Against "Ganues" and "Swanson" Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company intends to defend itself against the lawsuits: Warren
Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
Vincent K. McMahon and George A. Barrios, and Curtis Swanson, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios.

On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic
television license.  The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages.

A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon and George A. Barrios. Both lawsuits are purported
securities class actions subject to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On September 23-24, five putative plaintiffs filed motions to be
appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases pursuant
to the PSLRA. Following a hearing on October 29, 2014, the Court
issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin Ansari as
lead plaintiff and consolidating the two actions.

On January 5, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon
Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants. The Company
has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety. The Company believes the claims are without merit and
intends to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.


                            *********

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  * * *