CAR_Public/150916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 185


                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Scandal
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Motion Due January 4
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Court Approved Class Action Settlement
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 22
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Class Action Trial Scheduled for May 2016

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Remaining Two Trials Set for 2015 Q4
AMR CORPORATION: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Pilots' Class Suit
ANZ: Farmers Fight Back from Foreclosure by Bank
ATLANTA, GA: Cops, Firefighters Resigning Over Pay
BLUE CROSS: Faces Models Suit Over Plan Assets Misappropriation

BOLLMAN HAT: Faces "Ashford" Suit Over Age Discrimination
CAPITAL ONE: Merchant Plaintiffs to Settle Canadian Matters
CAPITAL ONE: Settlement Now Final in TCPA Litigation
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Sprenger" Suit Over Product Misbranding
CIGNA HEALTH: Illegally Denies TMS Therapy Coverage, Suit Says

CONCORDIA PHARMA: Settles Illegal Non-Compete Suit with FTC
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COUNTER-CUSTOM: Ex-Employee Files Wage Class Suit
DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Process Ongoing in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit
DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Ongoing in Former Employee's Suit

DZ INDUSTRIES: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Action by Scranton
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Action by City of Providence
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending v. American European Insurance Suit
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Against Suit by James J. Flynn

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Against Suit by Ty Rayner
EL POLLO: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
EXPAND INCORPORATED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
F & R SCAFFOLDS: "Pomo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Sued in Nev. Over Ticket-Price Fixing

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Execs Face Two Class Suits Over Mismanagement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Sought in NY Securities Class Actions
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Action by Purchasers of Asset-Backed Certs
GOLDMAN SACHS: Summary Judgment Bid Filed in Hudson CDOs Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Force-Placed Insurance Action Sought

GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Share of Settlement Amount in RALI Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Amended Suit Filed in GTAT Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants' Demurrers in FireEye Case Overruled
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Cobalt Securities Litigation Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Solazyme Securities Litigation

GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Intervene in Employee Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Treasury Securities Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants in Commodities-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Suit Filed in Zinc Storage Facilities Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Platinum Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settled Currencies-Related Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against FX Benchmark Rates Suit in SDNY
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against ERISA Employee Benefit Plan Suit
GRADY EMC: Review Committee Assigned in Class Suit

GRAMBLING STATE: Sued Over Termination of Nursing Program
HAIR THERAPY: Faces "Mankin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
I3 GROUP: Made Unsolicited Calls, Stephan Zouras' Suit Claims
ILLINOIS HIGH: Judge Weighs Bid to Drop Concussions Suit
JIREH AMERICA: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

KANSAS: Parents to Sue DCF Over Foster Care Policies
KEMET CORP: NEC TOKIN Has Not Changed Estimated Accrual
KENTUCKY: Class Suit Filed to Prevent Hearings on Benefits Review
MASTERCARD INC: Attys' Offstage Actions Threaten Antitrust Pact
MARTHA STEWART: Filed Motion to Dismiss Case by R.R. Donnelley

MARTHA STEWART: Stockholder Class Actions Filed Related to Merger
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Cyber Data Breach
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Insurance Benefits
MINNESOTA: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of $1B in Public Funds
MONTARA OIL: Victims Still Seeking Compensation from Oil Spill

MOUNTAIN STATE: Payouts from $11.3MM Class Settlement Begin
NEW ZEALAND: Health Ministry Sued Over Midwives' Payments
ONE SOURCE: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Stephan Suit Says
PERU GOURMET: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RADIOSHACK CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached Over GC Dispute

SEASONS HOSPICE: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SIRIUS XM: Faces "Sheridan" Suit Over Copyright Infringement
SIRIUS XM: Faces 2nd "Sheridan" Suit Over Copyright Infringement
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 7th Cir. Upholds Fee Award to Class Counsel
SPECTRANETICS CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

STARKIST: Settles Class Suit Over Canned Tuna False Advertising
SUN PHARMA: Faces Class Suit Over 2009 Plant Closures
SUNSET GAS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TARGET CORP: Law Firms Seek Class Cert. of Data Breach Suit
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Preretirement Spousal Annuity

THORATEC CORP: Class Suit Challenges Merger with St. Judge
TINLEY PARK: Faces Class Suit on Overcharging Water Meter
TWIN STONE: "Mancia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TYSON FOODS: Doesn't Have to Pay OT, 8th Circ. Rules
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Arbitrator Decides on Class Issue

US MONEY: Faces Class Suit Over 'Deceptive Trade Practices'
VASCO DATA: Faces "Rossbach" Class Action in N.D. Ill.
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett's Tobacco Product Liability Legal Expenses
VECTOR GROUP: 21 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
VECTOR GROUP: 52 Individual Actions Pending Against Liggett

VECTOR GROUP: $3.4MM Annual Payments in Engle Progeny Deal
VECTOR GROUP: Four Class Actions Pending Against Liggett
VECTOR GROUP: Suit by Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Pending
VIVUS INC: Securities Related Class Action Now Concluded
VIVUS INC: New Pleadings Due in "Jasin" Action

WAEL AHMAD: Sued by Immigrants for Fraud
WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI: Sued to Make Sidewalks ADA-Compliant
WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over FCRA Violation


                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Faces Class Suit Over Wage Scandal
--------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, Sarah Danckert, and Klaus Toft, writing for The
Sydney Morning Herald, reported that 7-Eleven Australia and its
American parent faces a class action brought on behalf of
underpaid workers and disgruntled franchisees.

The action is being prepared by Levitt Robinson principal Stewart
Levitt following explosive revelations of a massive cover-up of
employee exploitation being run out of 7-Eleven's corporate
headquarters by a joint investigation between BusinessDay and Four
Corners.

The investigation has also revealed a database containing extracts
of store reviews that shows rampant underpayment of staff and
other illegal behaviour by franchisees.

Mr Levitt, who ran the successful Storm Financial class action,
said he would look to join the Dallas-based 7 Eleven Inc to the
class action.

"Nothing's given me more encouragement than reading the store
management agreement in the last few days and the specific
reservation of ultimate power to Dallas over everything in the
Australian franchise agreement.

"So one could easily argue that Dallas is a party that's knowingly
concerned in the all of the provisions of this concept or scheme,"
he said.

Mr Levitt said he believed 7-Eleven Australia was acting as an
agent for its American parent.

"Well that means that in my view we could probably take this all
the way to the States and we can hold them accountable for
American activity on Australian soil," Mr Levitt said.
7-Eleven Inc is yet to respond to questions regarding the
potential class action.

In earlier correspondence, 7-Eleven Inc told the joint media
investigation and outraged twitter followers it was confident 7-
Eleven Australia "will take the appropriate steps to address this
situation".

7-Eleven Australia launched an independent review of underpayment
of workers at its stores. It also announced a store buy-back for
disgruntled franchisees.

A 7-Eleven insider has described the company as being in panic
mode and that the "franchisees are furious".
The company insider has estimated that 100 per cent of the
company's store would be found to be exploiting workers if all
stores were reviewed. Documents detailing store financials also
show the financial plight of more than a third of 7-Eleven's 620
stores in Australia.

7-Eleven's review coincides with a major investigation by Fair
Work into wage abuse at the company's stores. It is Fair Work's
third major investigation into 7-Eleven in the past seven years.
For its part, 7-Eleven Australia says it is working with Fair
Work.

"What has happened, has happened on our watch, and we are a
company with a proud heritage and a strong reputation, we cannot
allow the few to taint the achievements of the many," 7-Eleven
chief executive Warren Wilmot said.

"We are seeking the co-operation of the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO),
and today reached out to them, inviting them to assist in
establishing the terms of reference of the independent panel and
its mode of working."

Labor senator Deborah O'Neill, who is a member of the Senate
committee into working visas and wage fraud, said she was deeply
concerned about the revelations of systemic wage abuse of 7-
Eleven's workers.

"The structures that are available to the Fair Work Ombudsman at
the moment or the way they're being used, don't seem adequate to
prevent the practices that are being uncovered, " she said.
"So if that means legislative change, then that may well be what
the committee recommend," Senator O'Neill said.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Cert. Motion Due January 4
-------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit must file a motion for class
certification by January 4, 2016.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. The plaintiff must file a motion for
class certification by January 4, 2016. No trial date has been
scheduled.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Court Approved Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court
has approved the settlement in a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On May 2, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against us; Glen Tullman, our former Chief Executive Officer; and
William Davis, our former Chief Financial Officer, by the Bristol
County Retirement System for itself and on behalf of a purported
class consisting of stockholders who purchased our common stock
between November 18, 2010 and April 26, 2012."

"In April 2015, the Court granted a motion for preliminary
approval of the class settlement in this lawsuit and on July 21,
2015, the Court approved the settlement and entered a final
judgment binding on members of the class, minus stockholders who
excluded themselves from the settlement, including certain
entities affiliated with HealthCor Management, L.P. We do not
believe we will incur a material loss in excess of a recorded
accrual with respect to this matter."


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 a final settlement
hearing is scheduled to be held September 22, 2015.

Allstate is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in Montana state
court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.

In January 2012, the court certified a class of Montana claimants
who were not represented by attorneys with respect to the
resolution of auto accident claims.  The court certified the class
to cover an indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990's.
The certified claims include claims for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
Injunctive relief may include a claim process by which
unrepresented claimants could request that their claims be
readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of the
class.  The Company appealed the order certifying the class.

In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial.
The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied.

In January 2014, the Company timely filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Montana Supreme Court's decision.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.  The
case continued in Montana state court.  The state trial court
scheduled trial for November, 2016 and ordered the parties to
mediation by May 15, 2015.

On June 15, 2015, the Montana District Court preliminarily
approved a settlement of this class action. A final settlement
hearing is scheduled to be held September 22, 2015. The costs
associated with the settlement are not expected to be material.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Class Action Trial Scheduled for May 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 a class action case is
scheduled for trial in May 2016.

The Company is litigating two class action cases in California in
which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.
One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007.  In this case, one
class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in
the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments.  The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until
January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which
allegedly did not comply with California law.  The other case was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California in September 2010.

In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, and Allstate
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On September 3,
2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to
certify the class, and Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en
banc.  Allstate's motion for rehearing en banc was denied and on
January 27, 2015, Allstate filed a petition for a Writ of
Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.

On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court denied Allstate's petition for
a writ of certiorari. The case is scheduled for trial in May 2016.

In addition to off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case
allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from
purported unpaid overtime.  The class in this case includes all
adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters,
from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.  Plaintiffs in both
cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In addition to the California class actions, a case was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly
classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case was filed in April 2011, and
the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On September 16, 2014, the court certified a
class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused
to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault
adjusters. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Remaining Two Trials Set for 2015 Q4
----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 the remaining two
trials for the original Romero I and II plaintiffs are scheduled
to occur in the fourth quarter of 2015.

The Company is defending certain matters in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the
Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  The
current focus in these matters relates to a release of claims
signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose employment
contracts were terminated in the reorganization program.  These
matters include the following:

Romero I: In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on
behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee
agents, filed a putative class action alleging claims for age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a
claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims
constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

Romero II: A putative nationwide class action was also filed in
2001 by former employee agents alleging various violations of
ERISA ("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero
I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole"
or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result
of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor
status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's
initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

Romero I and II consolidated proceedings: In 2004, the court ruled
that the release was voidable and certified classes of agents,
including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the release,
for purposes of effectuating the court's declaratory judgment that
the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated its ruling
and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on all
claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in the Company's favor, remanded the case to the
trial court for additional discovery, and instructed the trial
court to first address the validity of the release after
additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery
limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the
release.

On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and the
Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that the
question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily
signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed
issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the
court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims
in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a
class as to certain issues relating to the validity of the
release. The court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion
on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that individual
factors and circumstances must be considered to determine whether
each release signer entered into the release knowingly and
voluntarily.

The court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that
the court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to
release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to
the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class
certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's
October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of
limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge
the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015,
the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order
and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the
release would resume running on March 2, 2015.

Since the Court's January 7 order, a total of 459 additional
individual plaintiffs have filed separate lawsuits similar to
Romero I or sought to intervene in the Romero I action. Trial
proceedings have commenced to determine the question of whether
the releases of the original named plaintiffs in Romero I and II
were knowingly and voluntarily signed. The first trial of ten
plaintiffs was completed on June 17, 2015, with the jury reaching
verdicts finding that two plaintiffs signed their releases
knowingly and voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not sign their
releases knowingly and voluntarily. This result is not yet final
and may be subject to further proceedings.

The remaining two trials for the original Romero I and II
plaintiffs are scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter of 2015.
No other trials are currently scheduled and the Court has not yet
addressed a schedule for deciding the validity of the release
signed by the new plaintiffs.

Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and
II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the
Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or
other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. If the validity of
the release is decided in favor of a plaintiff, further
proceedings with respect to the merits of that plaintiff's claims
relating to the reorganization would have to occur before there
could be any determination of liability or award of damages in
either Romero I or Romero II. The final resolution of these
matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities
including how individual trials, post trial motions and possible
appeals with respect to the validity of the release will be
resolved. Depending upon how these issues are resolved, the
Company may or may not have to address the merits of plaintiffs'
claims relating to the reorganization and amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.


AMR CORPORATION: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss Pilots' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the motion filed by American Airlines, Inc. to dismiss its pilots'
modified supplemental class action complaint.

In April 2001, American acquired the assets of former airline TWA,
including its unionized employees.  At American, the plaintiffs,
who are American's pilots who previously worked at TWA, enjoyed
special job opportunities at the St. Louis hub until those
opportunities ended when the pilots' collective bargaining
agreement was abrogated in American's bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs alleged that their union -- the APA -- breached its
duty of fair representation in ten ways regarding plaintiffs' loss
of those special opportunities, including failing to fairly
represent the plaintiffs in an arbitration to provide job
protections.  The plaintiffs sought a declaration voiding the
arbitrators' award, among other things.

In its motion to dismiss, American argued that some of the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Section 1113 process
before the court or already rejected by a prior decision issued in
the adversary proceeding.  American also contended that the
plaintiffs cannot challenge the results of the arbitration by
filing a duty of fair representation claim but must instead seek
to directly vacate the arbitration award.

Judge Lane dismissed the first four claims in light of the prior
proceedings before the court to abrogate the pilots' collective
bargaining agreement under Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code and
the court's subsequent approval of a new agreement.

Judge Lane, however, denied the rest of the motion.  The judge
found that the plaintiffs have stated claims regarding the conduct
of the arbitration, the merits of which require further factual
development.

The bankruptcy case is In re: AMR CORPORATION, et al., Chapter 11,
Reorganized Debtors, CASE NO. 11-15463 (SHL)(Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).

The adversary proceeding is JOHN KRAKOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, ADV. PRO. NO. 13-
01283 (SHL)(S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of Judge Lane's September 3, 2015 memorandum of
decision is available at http://is.gd/YK3yKtfrom Leagle.com.

John Krakowski is represented by:

          Allen P. Press, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C.
          168 North Meramec Avenue Suite 150
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Tel: (314) 899-9789
          Email: press@archcitylawyers.com

            -- and --

          Allen P. Press, Esq.
          GREEN JACOBSON, P.C.

American Airlines, Inc. is represented by:

          Jennifer Baldocchi, Esq.
          Todd C. Duffield, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS
          515 South Flower Street 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Tel: (213) 683-6000
          Fax: (213) 627-0705
          Email: jenniferbaldocchi@paulhastings.com

          Neal D. Mollen, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS
          875 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Tel: (202) 551-1700
          Fax: (202) 551-1705
          Email: nealmollen@paulhastings.com

            -- and --

          Stephen Karotkin, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153-0119
          Tel: (212) 310-8000
          Fax: (212) 310-8007
          Email: stephen.karotkin@weil.com

            -- and --

          David H. Luce, Esq.
          CARMODY MACDONALD P.C.
          120 S. Central Avenue Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Tel: (314) 854-8600
          Fax: (314) 854-8660
          Email: dhl@carmodymacdonald.com

Allied Pilots Association is represented by:

          Darin M. Dalmat, Esq.
          Steven K. Hoffman, Esq.
          Edgar N. James,Esq.
          JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
          1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 950
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Tel: (202) 496-0500
          Fax: (202) 496-0555
          Email: dmdalmat@jamhoff.com
                 skhoffman@jamhoff.com
                 ejames@jamhoff.com

            -- and --

          George O. Suggs, Esq.
          SCHUCHAT, COOK & WERNER
          1221 Locust Street, Ste 250
          Saint Louis, MO 63103
          Tel: (314) 732-1127
          Fax: (314) 621-2378

            -- and --

          Joshua R. Taylor, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Tel: (202) 429-3000
          Fax: (202) 429-3902
          Email: jrtaylor@steptoe.com

Garden City Group, Inc may be reached at:

          Angela Ferrante, Esq.
          GARDEN CITY GROUP, LLC
          1985 Marcus Ave.
          Lake Success, NY 11042
          Tel: (800) 327-3664
          Email: angela.ferrante@gardencitygroup.com

                   About American Airlines

AMR Corp. and its subsidiaries including American Airlines, the
third largest airline in the United States, filed for bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 11-15463) in Manhattan
on Nov. 29, 2011, after failing to secure cost-cutting labor
agreements.

AMR, previously the world's largest airline prior to mergers by
other airlines, is the last of the so-called U.S. legacy airlines
to seek court protection from creditors.

American Airlines, American Eagle and the AmericanConnection
carrier serve 260 airports in more than 50 countries and
territories with, on average, more than 3,300 daily flights.  The
combined network fleet numbers more than 900 aircraft.

The Company reported a net loss of $884 million on $18.02 billion
of total operating revenues for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2011.  AMR recorded a net loss of $471 million in the year 2010, a
net loss of $1.5 billion in 2009, and a net loss of $2.1 billion
in 2008.

AMR's balance sheet at Sept. 30, 2011, showed $24.72 billion
in total assets, $29.55 billion in total liabilities, and a
$4.83 billion stockholders' deficit.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP serves as bankruptcy counsel to the
Debtors.  Paul Hastings LLP and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP Groom Law
Group, Chartered, are on board as special counsel.  Rothschild
Inc., is the financial advisor.   Garden City Group Inc. is the
claims and notice agent.

Jack Butler, Esq., John Lyons, Esq., Felecia Perlman, Esq., and
Jay Goffman, Esq., at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
serve as counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
in AMR's chapter 11 proceedings.  Togut, Segal & Segal LLP is the
co-counsel for conflicts and other matters; Moelis & Company LLC
is the investment banker, and Mesirow Financial Consulting, LLC,
is the financial advisor.


ANZ: Farmers Fight Back from Foreclosure by Bank
------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reported that farmers across Australia
are mobilising and fighting back against what one has described as
the "biggest land grab" in Australian history.

Social media is playing a lead role in helping rural land owners
unite and take on the banks, which they accuse of predatory
banking, unconscionable conduct and deceptive practices.

In recent years, hundreds of families have been evicted from their
properties and with their homes and livelihoods gone, there's been
a steep rise in suicide, family breakdown and stress related
illness.

But by acting together, the farmers are now becoming a force to be
reckoned with.

In Western Australia a class action against the ANZ is likely go
ahead unless the bank is prepared to come to the table.

An ANZ spokesman said: "Taking possession of a farm is always the
last option after all other avenues, including farm debt
mediation, have been exhausted and we work with farming customers
over several years to try and resolve their financial situation".
But Sydney lawyer Stewart Levitt said the damage had already been
done and class action was "inevitable".

"It is a bit like war preparations at the moment," he said.

"If we can't cut a deal we will litigate."

The farmers' troops are led by Rodney Culleton who was evicted two
years ago from his 2500  acres of prime wheat growing land in
Williams, 160 kilometres from Perth.

Mr Culleton was one of many farmers who had loans with Landmark,
an investment scheme set up by the Australian Wheat Board, which
held long-term agricultural mortgages and which was taken over by
ANZ.

He said farmers who signed new contracts with ANZ found that the
terms and conditions of their loans had changed and they were
forced to default and suffered foreclosure, sometimes by tactical
response teams.

But Mr Culleton refused to sign with the ANZ, preferring to
refinance elsewhere.

"They virtually obstructed every effort to get payout figures or
to refinance elsewhere," Mr Culleton said. "We had the capital to
actually go and pay it all out."

Mr Culleton said that he told his bank he was going to be in the
UK and while he was there, "the pricks put me court and sued me
and got me for non-appearance. We actually had the court shut us
out and we have only just been able to get back into the court to
have our case heard after two years which is fantastic. All the
orders were set aside".
And even though the Culletons say they put notice and caveats over
the property it was sold off.

"Any time we tried to go out there they would get the police to
handcuff us or Taser us. The properties have been stolen 100 per
cent. There is no innocent party. We were never ANZ clients," Mr
Culleton said.

In recent days, however Mr Culleton said there has been a
breakthrough, with ANZ  "admitting that there has been
wrongdoing", he said.

In its statement ANZ said: "While Mr Culleton's claims have been
tested in court many times and found in ANZ's favour on each
occasion, we have recently met with Mr Culleton at his request
seeking to find an amicable solution to his outstanding issues."


ATLANTA, GA: Cops, Firefighters Resigning Over Pay
--------------------------------------------------
AJC.com, reported that talk to union leaders for Atlanta's cops
and firefighters, and they'll tell you that long-standing
unhappiness over pay is driving people away -- a morale problem
that only got worse in recent weeks after public safety workers
were left out of raises given to nearly 3,000 other Atlanta
employees.

Nearly 100 officers have resigned from the Atlanta Police
Department so far, according to APD. The number is on pace to
exceed the average of nearly 130 resignations in 2013 and 2014.

Data from Atlanta Fire Rescue show that resignations have doubled
in the past two years, with 20 firefighters leaving in fiscal year
2014 and 43 in fiscal year 2015. That's about 10 percent of the
force's 409 firefighters.

"Everyone's trying to get out. If you're a good officer, you're
leaving," said Joe Layman, a former APD officer who is now in
police academy with his wife, another former APD officer, in
Aurora, Co.

The problem has put Mayor Kasim Reed in the hot seat, but he's not
been shy about taking public safety union leaders to task for
their complaints.

Reed, who points out he's previously given a number of raises to
public safety workers, says he won't approve additional pay bumps
as long as the unions continue to support a class-action lawsuit
against his 2011 pension reform.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Models Suit Over Plan Assets Misappropriation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Models & Tools, Inc. and Models & Tools, Inc. Employee Benefit
Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-
13168-DML-MJH (E.D. Mich., September 8, 2015), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's alleged misappropriation of
Plan assets.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit health
care corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health Care
Corporation Reform Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Perrin Rynders, Esq.
      Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
      Kyle P. Konwinski, Esq.
      VARNUM LLP
      Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
      Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
      Telephone: (616) 336-6000
      Facsimile: (616) 336-7000
      E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com
              amphelps@varnumlaw.com
              kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com


BOLLMAN HAT: Faces "Ashford" Suit Over Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Ron W. Ashford v. Bollman Hat Co., Case No. 5:15-cv-00264-DCR
(E.D. Ken., September 8, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
alleged discriminatory practices on the basis of age.

Bollman Hat Co. is engaged in the business of manufacturing men's
and women's hats.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Morris, Esq.
      MORRIS & MORRIS, P.S.C.
      217 North Upper Street
      Lexington, KN 40507
      Telephone: (859) 281-6981
      Facsimile: (859) 233-7876
      E-mail: info@m-mlaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Merchant Plaintiffs to Settle Canadian Matters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial 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 the
merchant plaintiffs and Capital One have agreed to settle all
matters filed in Canada as to Capital One, subject to court
approval.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada. In March 2014, the court granted a
partial motion for class certification. Both parties appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which heard
oral argument in December 2014. In April 2015, the merchant
plaintiffs and Capital One agreed to settle all matters filed in
Canada as to Capital One, subject to court approval.


CAPITAL ONE: Settlement Now Final in TCPA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial 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
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, the Seventh Circuit
has terminated appeals of the settlement in June 2015, and the
settlement is now final.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was
created as a result of a transfer order issued by the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"), which
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class
actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles
C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois) and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the
putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint alleging that COBNA
and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to
do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief.

In June 2014, the parties filed a settlement agreement resolving
the litigation. The court granted preliminary approval of the
class settlement in July 2014, and granted final approval in
February 2015. The Seventh Circuit terminated appeals of the
settlement in June 2015, and the settlement is now final.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Faces "Sprenger" Suit Over Product Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Sprenger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01991-BAS-
KSC (S.D. Cal., September 8, 2015), arises out of the unlawfully
labeling of the Defendant's consumable consumer packaged goods
such as dietary supplements and over the counter pharmaceutical
products with the false designation and representation that they
are "Made In The USA".

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is an American conglomerate that
manufactures and distributes various products, including
consumable consumer packaged goods such as dietary supplements and
over the counter pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


CIGNA HEALTH: Illegally Denies TMS Therapy Coverage, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Weil, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company,
Cigna Health Management, Inc., Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc., and
MCMC, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-07074 (C.D. Cal., September 8, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' unlawful denial of coverage for
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) therapy for all Cigna-
administered plans.

The Defendants operate a health insurance service company in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meiram Bendat, Esq.
      PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
      8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 598-3690
      Facsimile: (310) 564-0040
      E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

         - and -

      D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
      Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 704-9600
      Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
      E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
              jcowart@zuckerman.com


CONCORDIA PHARMA: Settles Illegal Non-Compete Suit with FTC
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce D. Sokler, Esq. -- BDSokler@mintz.com -- and Farrah Short,
Esq. -- FShort@Mintz.com -- at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, wrote
that Federal Trade Commission's ("FTC" or "Commission") ever-
expanding list of enforcement actions to preserve competition for
generic pharmaceuticals just grew in a new direction.

Two generic pharmaceutical companies entered into a Consent Order
with the FTC settling charges that they violated Section 5 of the
FTC Act by agreeing not to compete in the sale of generic versions
of the branded Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD")
drug Kapvay. In the Matter of Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Concordia Healthcare Corp., Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Par
Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. and TPG Partners VI, L.P. (FTC File
No. 151 0030) (August 18, 2015).  Unlike the well-known reverse
payment cases initiated by the FTC, this matter did not grow out
of the resolution of patent litigation, but instead resulted from
a non-compete contained within a more complex licensing agreement.
The proposed settlement is subject to public comment and final
approval.

The drug Kapvay received Federal Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval for the treatment of ADHD in 2010.  Par Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Par") was the "first filer" of an Abbreviated New Drug
Application ("ANDA") to market a generic version of Kapvay.  In
May 2013, Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Concordia") acquired
the rights to the branded Kapvay.  A few months later, Concordia
and Par entered into a License Agreement (the "Agreement") under
which Par was permitted to begin marketing its generic version of
Kapvay just one week prior to the expiration of the branded
patent.  Par then received FDA approval of its ANDA to market the
generic version.

In its complaint filed simultaneously with the Consent Order, the
FTC alleged that under the Agreement, Concordia also agreed not to
market its own generic Kapvay product and not to authorize any
other third party to do so.  In exchange, Par agreed to share with
Concordia a substantial portion of the profits Par would earn on
the sales of its generic product.  This Agreement protected Par's
position as the only seller of a generic Kapvay product -- with
both volume and pricing implications -- until the FDA approved
another ANDA (which did not occur until May 2015).   In December
2014, after learning of the FTC's investigation, Concordia began
selling its own generic Kapvay product.  Neither company has
admitted to the allegations.

The FTC asserted that Par's secured position as the only seller of
the generic version of Kapvay "likely" resulted in supra-
competitive prices because of the lack of price competition from
any other generic.  As explained in the Commission's Analysis to
Aid Public Comment, branded pharmaceutical companies will commonly
introduce an "authorized" generic of its branded product upon
entry of the first generic to stem losses resulting from a shift
of sales from the branded drug to the lower-priced generic
version.  The FTC further argued in the complaint that the
agreement not to compete was not reasonably necessary to achieve
any efficiency-enhancing purposes, thus it could not be justified
under the antitrust rule of reason analysis. While a naked
agreement not to compete would often be subject to a per se
condemnation, the FTC's analysis suggests that in this context,
with the agreement embedded in a more complex licensing agreement,
a rule of reason analysis would be appropriate.  Presumably,
however, if the matter had gone to litigation, the FTC would
likely have pursued both per se and rule of reason theories.

The Consent Order prohibits enforcement of the anticompetitive
provisions in the Agreement, including the profit-sharing clauses
and the restrictions on Concordia's ability to sell an authorized
generic version.  The Consent Order also prohibits both parties
from entering into agreements with any other party that bar or
delay entry of an authorized generic, and it requires them to
notify the FTC of any patent settlements that restrict entry of
authorized generics.  It further obligates both parties to
establish an antirust compliance program.  The FTC is accepting
comments on the proposed Consent Order through September 17, 2015.

This settlement reinforces the FTC's long-standing interest in
preserving generic competition as a centerpiece of its broader
focus on health care competition.  As stated by FTC Chairwoman
Ramirez earlier before the House Judiciary Committee on Antitrust
Enforcement, a top priority for the agency has been and continues
to be "combating efforts to stifle generic competition." (The
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice also has an
ongoing price fixing investigation involving generic
manufacturers.)  While much of the FTC's work in this area has
been around "reverse payment" cases, it has also challenged or
required divestitures in many pharmaceutical mergers that would
allegedly have harmed generic competition.  The agency also is
concerned with other strategies adopted by branded pharmaceutical
companies that may harm entry by or competition from generic
drugs.  For example, the FTC has been considering potential abuses
by branded pharmaceutical companies of REMS safety protocols and
so-called product hopping.  The matter here was unusual in that it
did not arise out of a pending or threatened patent litigation
like reverse payment cases, as nearly the entire five-year non-
compete term in the Agreement covered the period after expiration
of the Kapvay patent.

Pharmaceutical companies -branded and generic- that undertake any
action or strategy that is designed to or has the effect of
limiting generic competition remain at risk of a potential
antitrust challenge by the FTC.  Furthermore, settlements with the
FTC such as these potentially make the parties possible targets of
private party challenges and class action suits.


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Cruz, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. ConocoPhillips and ConocoPhillips Company, Case No.
:15-cv-02573 (S.D. Tex., September 8, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in crude oil and natural gas production
activities in the United States and around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South, 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      E-mail: lukas@nka.com
              abaggio@nka.com


COUNTER-CUSTOM: Ex-Employee Files Wage Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Adam Clark, writing for NJ.com, reported that a former bartender
at a restaurant and bar in New Brunswick says she was paid below
minimum wage and received paychecks that bounced, according to a
federal lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed by Taniesha Freeman, accuses The Counter-Custom
Built Burgers, 341 George St., of violating federal and state wage
and hour laws by paying employees as little as $2.13-an-hour by
factoring in a "tip credit" to their overall payout without
informing them at the time of hire.

Freeman's lawsuit was filed as a class action in the hopes of
representing other employees who received similar treatment, the
lawsuit claims. A similar suit was filed against World of Beer, a
sports bar on the same block. Both suits were filed by the same
attorney, Mitchell Schley, of East Brunswick.

Mangers at The Counter-Custom Built Burgers could not immediately
respond to the lawsuit.

The suit says that Freeman, of New Brunswick, worked 75 hours a
week between January and April. She did not receive minimum wage
or overtime pay and had a tip-credit applied to work she was
required to do after closing, such as cleaning the bathrooms and
taking out the garbage, according to the lawsuit.

Freeman's paychecks were not accompanied by pay stubs or pay
statements showing what deductions were taken, the amount of the
deductions, gross pay, rate of earned pay or the hourly rate of
pay or hours worked, the suit alleges.

The Counter-Customer Burger is a franchise with more than 40
locations, according to the lawsuit.


DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Process Ongoing in Cal. Wage & Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that the discovery process
is ongoing in a California Wage and Hour Litigation.

The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or
about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear
business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution
facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and
unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods,
compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks
to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and
certain former employees within California who are or were non-
exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and
compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-
judgment interest. The discovery process in this matter is ongoing
and the issue of class certification remains pending."


DELTA APPAREL: Discovery Ongoing in Former Employee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that the discovery process
is ongoing in a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee of
Junkfood and two former employees of Soffe.

The Company said, "On or about August 22, 2014, we were served
with an additional complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, by a former employee of
Junkfood and two former employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe
Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices the
same or substantially similar to those alleged in the Complaint
and seeking the same or substantially similar relief as sought in
the Complaint. This complaint is brought as a class action and
seeks to include all current and certain former employees of
Junkfood, Soffe and a Soffe independent contractor within
California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and
hour laws. The discovery process in this matter is ongoing and the
issue of class certification remains pending."


DZ INDUSTRIES: "Adams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Adams, Nick Debravo, and William Hewitt, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. DZ Industries, Inc.,
d/b/a Home Elevator of Texas, Donand L. Zimmerman, Douglas F.
Zimmerman, and Roman Pena, Case No. 5:15-cv-00779 (W.D. Tex.,
September 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a residential elevator installation
and maintenance company, with its principle place of business
located in San Antonio, Bexar County Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 Basse, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Class Action by Scranton
---------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company will
continue to defend itself vigorously in the putative class action
filed by John Scranton.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the
California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was
held on September 13, 2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to
strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20,
2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.
The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014.

By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final
order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims
with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27,
2015. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Action by City of Providence
---------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class
action was filed on April 18, 2014, by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island against forty-one high frequency trading firms, stock
exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers, including the
Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The Complaint alleges that the high frequency trading
firms, certain broker-dealers managing dark pools, and the
exchanges manipulated the U.S. Securities markets, and that
numerous market-makers and broker-dealers participated in that
manipulation by doing business with the high frequency traders. As
to the Company, the Complaint alleges violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending v. American European Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class
action was filed on May 2, 2014, by American European Insurance
Company against forty-two high frequency trading firms, stock
exchanges, market-makers, and other broker-dealers, including the
Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The action filed by American European Insurance Company
made allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the
City of Providence complaint.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Against Suit by James J. Flynn
-----------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class
action was filed on June 13, 2014, by James J. Flynn and Dominic
Morelli against twenty-six firms including the Company in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The Flynn Complaint made allegations substantially similar
to the allegations in the City of Providence Complaint. The
consolidated amended complaint does not identify the Company as a
defendant or make any allegations regarding the Company.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Defending Against Suit by Ty Rayner
------------------------------------------------------
E*Trade Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a putative class
action was filed on March 26, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California by Ty Rayner, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, naming E*TRADE
Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as defendants. The
complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a fiduciary duty and
unjustly enriched itself in connection with the routing of its
customers' orders to various market-makers and exchanges.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory relief,
restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the Company, and
attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend
indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim. The Company
will defend itself vigorously in this matter.


EL POLLO: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of El Pollo Loco
Holdings, Inc. ("El Pollo Loco") (NASDAQ: LOCO) common stock
during the period between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

El Pollo Loco shareholders may, no later than October 23, 2015,
move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.
If you purchased shares of El Pollo Loco and would like to learn
more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters
and have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or to sign up online, visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/loco.

The complaint charges El Pollo Loco, certain of its officers and
directors and certain of its controlling shareholders with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  El Pollo Loco
develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information about El Pollo Loco's business and prospects,
including that traffic at El Pollo Loco stores had declined
substantially due to the removal of the value items from the
restaurants' menu boards, and that as a result, comparable store
sales were not growing at 3%, much less the 3% to 5% the
defendants had led investors to believe they would grow in the
second quarter of 2015.  As a result of these false and misleading
statements and/or omissions, El Pollo Loco securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with the
Company's stock price reaching a high of $25.37 per share.

After the close of trading on August 13, 2015, the Company issued
a release announcing its second quarter 2015 results for the
three-month period ended July 1, 2015.  El Pollo Loco disclosed
that contrary to defendants' prior claims of being on track to
achieve 3%-5% comparable store sales increases, second quarter
2015 "[s]ystem-wide comparable restaurant sales [had grown] 1.3%,
including a 0.5% decrease for company-operated restaurants, and a
2.6% increase for franchised restaurants."  On this news, the
price of El Pollo Loco's shares declined by 20% from its closing
price of $18.36 per share on August 13, 2015, to $14.56 per share
on August 14, 2015.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October
23, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.  To learn more about the
class action process, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com.

Richard A.Maniskas, Esq.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Rd, Wayne, PA 19087
Phone:+1 877-316-3218
www.rmclasslaw.com/


EXPAND INCORPORATED: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McClain, Tanja Dillard, Stefon Eickhoff, Wendy Shipe, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Expand
Incorporated d/b/a SoftRock, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01464-GAP-DAB
(M.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Expand Incorporated operates an online marketing company located
at 5728 Major Boulevard, Suite 232, Orlando, Florida 32819.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karina S. Xart, Esq.
      Nathan McCoy, Esq.
      WILSON MCCOY, PA
      711 N. Orlando Ave., Suite 202
      Maitland, FL 32751
      Telephone: (407) 803-5400
      Facsimile: (407) 803-4617
      E-mail: kxart@wilsonmmccoylaw.com
              nmccoy@wilsonmmccoylaw.com


F & R SCAFFOLDS: "Pomo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Odelme Pomo and other similarly-situated individuals v. F & R
Scaffolds, Inc. and Rosa G. Jorge, Case No. 1:15-cv-23374-MGC
(S.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

F & R Scaffolds, Inc. is a supplier of scaffolding products and
accessories for the construction industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE: Sued in Nev. Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicki Palivos and George Kleanthis, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. Federation Internationale
Football Association a/k/a "FIFA", et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01721-
JCM-CWH (D. Nev., September 8, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
and others' alleged unlawful collaboration, price fixing scheme,
and conspiracy to inflate ticket prices.

Federation Internationale Football Association is an international
body that is composed of as many 209 member associations, each
representing organized football in a particular nation or
territory.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin A. Little, Esq.
      Michael R. Ernst, Esq.
      JOLLEY URGA WOODBURY & LITTLE
      3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1600
      Las Vegas, NV 89169
      Telephone: (702) 699-7500
      Facsimile: (702) 699-7555
      E-mail: mal@juww.com
              mre@jjuww.com

         - and -

      Will A. Lemkul, Esq.
      MORRIS SULLIVAN LEMKUL & PITEGOFF
      3770 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 170
      Las Vegas, NV 89169
      Telephone: (702) 405-8100
      Facsimile: (702)405-8101
      E-mail: lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Execs Face Two Class Suits Over Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reported that in
the face of recent losses and a dwindling stock price, two
shareholders of Genworth Financial are taking the West End firm's
top brass to task.

A pair of lengthy lawsuits was filed in Richmond federal court
against a dozen Genworth executives and directors, alleging that
the insiders mismanaged the company and "devastated its
credibility" by misleading investors and putting out false
financial information over the last three years.

The first suit, filed on Aug. 7 by Genworth shareholder David
Pinkoski, alleges several counts of breaches of fiduciary duty and
unjust enrichment related to the company's handling of its
Australian mortgage unit and its long-term care insurance.

The 87-page case names as defendants CEO Thomas McInerney, CFO
Martin Klein, directors William Bolinder, G. Kent Conrad, Melina
Higgins, Nancy Karch, Christine Mead, David Moffett, Thomas
Moloney, James Parke, James Riepe and former CEO Michael Fraizer.

It claims that they caused and allowed the company to make false
statements and report false financial results between Nov. 3, 2011
and Nov. 5, 2014, particularly related to the health of its
Australian market leading up to an IPO of its operations there and
deficiencies in the calculations of reserves for claims in its
long-term care business.

"These wrongs resulted in damage to Genworth's reputation,
goodwill, and standing in the business community," the Pinkoski
case claims.

The second suit, filed by shareholder Martin Cohen, makes similar
claims against the same defendants, but excludes Fraizer, who
resigned in May 2012. The Cohen suit zeroes in specifically on the
struggles of Genworth's long-term care insurance and how the
executives and directors have handled the recent costly issues
with that line of business.

The Cohen suit claims that the LTC insurance, which provides
coverage for in-home care and stays at nursing homes and assisted
living facilities, has accounted for approximately 30 percent of
the company's revenue since 2011. That line of business alone
generated more than $3 billion a year for the company between 2011
and 2014.

The LTC division's performance began to significantly impact
Genworth's finances in 2014, when the need to set aside hundreds
of millions of dollars of reserves ate away at the company's
profit and fueled huge losses.

Genworth reported a loss of $1.04 billion for the full year 2014,
largely fueled by setting aside reserves. Those losses have
continued into 2015; Genworth reported a net loss of $193 million
in the quarter ending June 30.

Both suits go into painstaking detail over statements the
executives made regarding alleged internal reviews of the LTC
business and whether it had adequate reserves to cover claims. The
cases hold the defendants over the fire, pointing to specific
conference calls and investor presentations in 2013 during which
defendants allegedly made assurances only to later contradict
themselves and admit to problems in the business.

The cases both try to tie the motives of the executives to their
compensation plans. McInerney received $11.98 million in total
compensation in 2013, the year before large LTC reserves drove the
company to big losses. His pay package fell to $2.69 million in
2014.

The cases also reference separate class-action lawsuits filed in
federal court in Richmond and New York and their potential to
expose the company to hundreds of millions of dollars of damages.

The class-action case in Richmond was filed by the City of Pontiac
General Employees' Retirement System and claims violations of
federal securities laws related to Genworth's disclosures about
its LTC reserves.

The class-action case in New York was filed by City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System and claims violations of securities
laws over disclosures related to the Australian mortgage insurance
operations.

Genworth fought to have both suits dismissed but was denied
earlier.

The Pinkoski and Cohen suits claim that the defendants'
mismanagement led to the filing of the class-action cases, which
both have "exposed the company to potentially massive liability,"
the Cohen suit states.

Genworth has said in filings that it intends to "vigorously
defend" itself in the lawsuits.

Both suits also reference the damage done to Genworth's stock,
which trades under the symbol GNW. It closed at $5.17 per share,
up 12 cents for the day. The share price is down from more than
$14 a year ago. The stock peaked at around $36 per share in 2007,
just prior to the recession, and has never fully recovered.

"Indeed, for the foreseeable future, Genworth will suffer from
what is known as the 'liar's discount,'" the Cohen case argues, "a
term applied to the stocks of companies which have been implicated
in improper behavior and have misled the investing public, thereby
hampering the company's ability to secure future business partners
and financing on favorable terms."

Both the Cohen and Pinkoski cases are filed on behalf of Genworth
in an effort to win damages for the company to be paid by the
defendants for their alleged mismanagement. They want restitution
from the executives and directors, including forcing them to
disgorge the compensation they received during the period in
question.

The Cohen suit goes as far as to ask the court to impound certain
assets of the defendants to ensure the company has a chance to
receive restitution.

Attorney Jeff Geiger of Sands Anderson is representing the
plaintiff in the Pinkoski case, along with Atlanta attorney Corey
Holzer and several attorneys from the Weiser Law Firm in
Pennsylvania.

Cohen is represented in his suit by Harrisonburg, Virginia,
attorney Robert Wilson, as well as Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe in
California.

None of the attorneys involved in either case returned calls
seeking comment.

Genworth spokesman Tom Topinka said in an email that the company
does not discuss pending litigation.

Genworth, which employs more than 1,000 people in Richmond, sells
life, long-term care and mortgage insurance. It was founded as a
subsidiary of General Electric and went public in May 2004.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Sought in NY Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs have
moved for class certification in the securities law class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest
management, and the SEC investigation that led to GS&Co. entering
into a consent agreement with the SEC, settling all claims made
against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection with the ABACUS 2007-AC1
CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), pursuant to which
GS&Co. paid $550 million of disgorgement and civil penalties. The
consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names
as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of
Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified
damages. On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims
based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a
"Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS
2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims
to proceed. On January 30, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Action by Purchasers of Asset-Backed Certs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 and
the defendants agreed to a settlement in principle in a putative
class action commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of
purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and
asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts
established by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007.

GS&Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities
Corp. and three current or former Goldman Sachs employees are
defendants in a putative class action commenced on December 11,
2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-
through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by
various securitization trusts established by the firm and
underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint generally alleges
that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the
certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or rescissory
damages.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included
in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings. On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended
complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional
offerings (additional offerings).

On July 10, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the additional offerings. On March 23, 2015, the
plaintiff moved for class certification.

On June 5, 2015, the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to a
settlement in principle, subject to definitive documentation and
court approval, which would resolve the claims of the plaintiff
and the separate plaintiff. The firm has reserved the full amount
of the proposed settlement.

On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class
action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one
of the additional offerings and thereafter moved to further amend
its amended complaint to add claims with respect to two of the
additional offerings. On March 27, 2014, the district court
largely denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the original
offering, but denied the separate plaintiff's motion to add the
two additional offerings through an amendment.

On March 20, 2015, the separate plaintiff moved for class
certification. The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co.
underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of
certificates to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the
complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Summary Judgment Bid Filed in Hudson CDOs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 defendants have
moved for summary judgment in a class action filed against GS&Co.,
Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors
in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic
CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2).

On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended
complaint asserts federal securities law and common law claims,
and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.
The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's
claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of
plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21,
2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and
fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants'
petition for leave to appeal from the district court's January 22,
2014 order granting class certification. On January 30, 2015,
defendants moved for summary judgment.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Force-Placed Insurance Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc., Litton,
Ocwen and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a former subsidiary
of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending
since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner
and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton
when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by
their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion,
unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law,
and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief. An amended complaint, filed on
November 19, 2013, added an additional plaintiff and RICO claims.
On September 29, 2014, the court denied without prejudice and with
leave to renew at a later date Group Inc.'s motion to sever the
claims against it and certain other defendants. On February 20,
2015, the defendants moved to dismiss.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Share of Settlement Amount in RALI Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 firm has paid
the full amount of its contribution to the settlement in the RALI
Pass-Through Certificates Litigation.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a
securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in New
York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the
underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in
connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through
certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federal
securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit
Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC),
Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of
their officers and directors.

On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in
connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes
only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from
the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days
after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court
granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the
previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine
offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional
offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings
but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and
scope covered by the previous class definition.

On October 17, 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants moved for
summary judgment. On February 19, 2015, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement among GS&Co., the other underwriter
defendants and the plaintiffs. The firm has paid the full amount
of its contribution to the settlement.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.57 billion principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings included in the
amended complaint. On May 14, 2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. On June 28, 2013, the district
court entered a final order and judgment approving a settlement
between plaintiffs and ResCap, RALI, RFC, RFSC and their officers
and directors named as defendants in the action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Amended Suit Filed in GTAT Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated amended complaint in the GT Advanced
Technologies Securities Litigation.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several
putative securities class actions filed in October 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In addition
to the underwriters, the defendants include certain directors and
officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. (GT Advanced
Technologies). As to the underwriters, the complaints generally
allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the December
2013 offerings by GT Advanced Technologies of approximately $86
million of common stock and $214 million principal amount of
convertible senior notes, assert claims under the federal
securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount and rescission.

On July 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. GS&Co. underwrote 3,479,769 shares of common stock and
$75 million principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering
price of approximately $105 million.

On October 6, 2014, GT Advanced Technologies filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants' Demurrers in FireEye Case Overruled
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 court has
overruled the defendants' demurrers, which sought to have the
consolidated amended complaint dismissed in the FireEye Securities
Litigation.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in several
putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June 2014 in
the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara.  In addition
to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc.
(FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The
complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in
connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering
of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On July 9, 2015,
the court overruled the defendants' demurrers, which sought to
have the consolidated amended complaint dismissed.

GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Cobalt Securities Litigation Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 all defendants have
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in the Cobalt
International Energy Securities Litigation.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), affiliates of
shareholders of Cobalt (including Group Inc.) and underwriters
(including GS&Co.) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities
are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
May 1, 2015, asserts claims under the federal securities laws,
seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts
and alleges material misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt
in connection with a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of
Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of
Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering
of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of
Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of
Cobalt's convertible notes. The consolidated amended complaint
alleges that, among others, Group Inc. and GS&Co. are liable as
controlling persons with respect to all five offerings. The
consolidated amended complaint also seeks damages from GS&Co. in
connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares
of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of
convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount
of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May
2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.66 billion. On June 30, 2015, all defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Solazyme Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 GS&Co. is among the
underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class
action, Solazyme, Inc. Securities Litigation.

GS&Co. is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed on June 24, 2015 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Solazyme,
Inc. (Solazyme) and certain of its directors and officers. As to
the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements
and omissions in connection with March 2014 offerings by Solazyme
of approximately $63 million of common stock and $150 million
principal amount of convertible senior subordinated notes, assert
claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote
3,450,000 shares of common stock and $150 million principal amount
of notes for an aggregate offering price of approximately $187
million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Motion to Intervene in Employee Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 plaintiffs' counsel
have requested that two female individuals, one of whom was
employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom is
a current employee of the firm, be permitted to intervene as
plaintiffs in a labor-related class action lawsuit.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all
female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas
by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under
federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks
class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
compensatory, punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects. On March 24, 2015, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration
of that recommendation. On April 13, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel
requested that two female individuals, one of whom was employed by
the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom is a current
employee of the firm, be permitted to intervene as plaintiffs.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Treasury Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 GS&Co. is among the
primary dealers named as defendants in several putative class
actions relating to the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed
beginning in July 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants violated the federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury
securities, as well as related futures and options, and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages in an
unspecified amount and restitution.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants in Commodities-Related Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 GS&Co., GSI, J.
Aron & Company and Metro, a previously consolidated subsidiary of
Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among
the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed
beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints
generally allege violation of federal antitrust laws and other
federal and state laws in connection with the management of
aluminum storage facilities. The complaints seek declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified
monetary damages, including treble damages. On August 29, 2014,
the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss.
Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the
remaining plaintiffs filed proposed amended complaints on October
9 and 10, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints, rejecting
their monopolization claims and most state law claims but
permitting their antitrust conspiracy claims and certain parallel
state law and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, and the
remaining plaintiffs filed amended complaints on April 9, 2015.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Suit Filed in Zinc Storage Facilities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 GS Power, Metro and
GSI are among the defendants named in putative class actions,
filed beginning on May 23, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, based on similar alleged violations
of the federal antitrust laws in connection with the management of
zinc storage facilities. On June 17, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Platinum Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 GSI is among the
defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in
platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical
platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive
relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On
April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On June 22, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss. On
July 27, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 Group Inc. is among
the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to
trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September
2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The second consolidated amended complaint, filed on February
12, 2015, asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and
state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on April 13, 2015.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settled Currencies-Related Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 GS&Co. and Group
Inc. agreed to a settlement in principle with plaintiffs in the
currencies-related litigation.

GS&Co. and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in several
putative antitrust class actions relating to trading in the
foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in December 2013 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the cases were
consolidated into one action, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on March 31, 2014. On January 28, 2015, the court denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action. On July 16,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint.

On May 8, 2015, GS&Co. and Group Inc. agreed to a settlement in
principle with plaintiffs in the action, subject to definitive
documentation and court approval. The firm has reserved the full
amount of the proposed settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against FX Benchmark Rates Suit in SDNY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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 beginning in
February 2015, GS&Co. and Group Inc. were named as defendants in
separate putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally
allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate foreign exchange benchmark rates, which caused
artificial foreign exchange futures prices. Plaintiffs seek
declaratory and injunctive relief and treble damages in an
unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against ERISA Employee Benefit Plan Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, 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,
GS&Co. and Group Inc. were among the defendants named in a
putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of certain ERISA employee
benefit plans. As to the claims brought against GS&Co. and Group
Inc., the complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
ERISA in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
foreign currency exchange markets, which caused losses to ERISA
plans for which the defendants provided foreign exchange services
or otherwise authorized the execution of foreign exchange
services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as restitution and disgorgement in an unspecified amount.


GRADY EMC: Review Committee Assigned in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Karen Murphy, writing for Times Enterprise, reported that an
independent litigation review committee has been named to
determine the merits of a lawsuit between disgruntled Grady EMC
members and Grady EMC.

Judge Loring Gray appointed John S. Sims Jr. of Tifton, J.
Converse Bright of Valdosta and Frank Faison Middleton IV of
Albany to serve on it.

At a hearing on Aug 18, in Grady County, Gray said "I think it is
in the best interest of this litigation to appoint a litigation
review committee to set certain parameters and time frames for
them to do an efficient and thorough job."

Grady ordered attorney's from both sides of the class action
lawsuit to provide nominations for a three person committee. He
then said, "I will have appointed a litigation review committee
and gotten feedback of whether they are willing to serve, then
we'll give them marching orders, time parameters and we'll proceed
from there."

This ruling was in agreement with a suggestion made by an EMC
attorney, Joshua Archer, to the judge during the hearing. Archer
said the committee "could review claims, determine if the EMC
needs to change or if the suit needs to go forward, or whether it
shouldn't go forward."

"What we propose is much more objective than what the law allows,"
Archer said. "It is efficient to the EMC and fair to the
plaintiffs."

Archer suggested letting "the suit go forward if the committee,
appointed by the court, reviews the allegations that they make
with respect to the EMC and determines what claims, if any should
go forward."

The lawsuit was filed in October 2014. It alleges Grady EMC fails
to return profits called "capital credits" to plaintiff members
and their class. The case also involves allegations that the EMC
and its board, General Manager Thomas A. (Bo) Rosser Jr., and
former General Manager Thomas A. Rosser Sr., breached various
contractual and fiduciary duties.


GRAMBLING STATE: Sued Over Termination of Nursing Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Rogers and Gannett Louisiana, writing for The Times,
reported that the University of Louisiana System Board of
Supervisors approved a state of exigency for Grambling State
University's defunct undergraduate nursing program through summer
2016, but a lawsuit has been filed in federal court against the
Louisiana State Board of Nursing by a current nursing student.

Grambling State University President Willie Larkin made the
request for a state of exigency. It gives the university the
authority to terminate members of the nursing faculty.

Exigency is the mechanism that allows for the termination of
faculty no longer required without classes to teach.

Marshall, Texas, attorney William Hughey, a Grambling alumnus,
filed the suit on behalf of Kourtney Rodgers, who entered the GSU
School of Nursing in August 2012. She has completed three of the
five levels necessary for completing the program and is projected
to graduate in May 2016.

Hughey attended UL System Board of Supervisors meeting in Baton
Rouge where he requested the board to delay action until the legal
process has run its course.

"I was pleased they gave me the opportunity to address them and
pleased with the fact they did go into executive session to
consider it. I was obligated to my client to present the request
to the board. We wanted to pursue all avenues before requesting
the court to grant some form of relief. I think we have explored
all those options, so we will make a decision what our next step
will be in this process," Hughey said.

In June, the Louisiana State Board of Nursing withdrew conditional
approval of Grambling's undergraduate degree in nursing, which
essentially closed the bachelor's program, prohibiting Grambling
from offering nursing classes or enrolling undergraduate students.

Grambling's master's program in nursing was not affected by this
decision. The nursing board also directed Grambling to create a
transition plan for students to complete their studies at other
institutions or transfer to another program at Grambling.

The nursing program has been struggling with maintaining exam pass
rates since 2010.

In February, The News-Star reported the university's undergraduate
nursing program faced possible closure after three years being on
the Board of Nursing's "conditional approval" list for not
maintaining an 80 percent passing rate by students taking the
National Council Licensure Examination. The exam is required to
get a nursing license.

The lawsuit against the state board of nursing alleges the
reliance upon the 80 percent passing rate to terminate GSU's
program creates a "restraint on interstate trade and commerce with
respect to the areas of baccalaureate and professional nursing
education in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
and Section 15 of the Clayton Act."

The lawsuit alleges the nursing board's decision to terminate
GSU's program has directly and adversely impacted Rodgers and
others in GSU's school of nursing.

"The plaintiff asserts the defendant's singular reliance upon the
80 percent NCLEX-RN to terminate Grambling's BSN program is both
highly arbitrary and capricious, as it is universally understood
that the baccalaureate and graduate level accreditation process
for nursing programs in the state of Louisiana is
multidimensional," according to the lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit may include all students enrolled in
GSU's baccalaureate science of nursing program impacted by the
June 15, 2015, order of involuntary termination.

Plaintiffs seek the same relief: the opportunity to complete their
baccalaureate educational program at GSU and permanently prevent
the state nursing board from terminating the program.

The nursing program has worked with students since the nursing
board's decision in June to help them transfer to other programs
so they can complete their studies, Larkin said.

Thirty-five students graduated from Grambling this summer after
participating in a summer nursing course at Northwestern State
University.

Larkin said the nursing program is vital to the future of the
university, and he has been encouraged by the nursing board's
willingness to work with Grambling as it develops a proposal for a
new nursing program.


HAIR THERAPY: Faces "Mankin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Jordan Mankin, on behalf of herself and others similaryly
situated v. Hair Therapy for Women, LLC and Bobbi J. Russell, Case
No. 8:15-cv-02071-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Hair Therapy for Women, LLC owns and operates a hair salon in
Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lecher, Esq.
      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Avenue, #400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 822-1111
      Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
      E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
              daveyard@theFLlawfirm.com


I3 GROUP: Made Unsolicited Calls, Stephan Zouras' Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Zouras LLP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. I3 Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07910 (N.D.
Ill., September 8, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of making unsolicited calls to the wireless telephones of the
Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class.

I3 Group, LLC is a Maryland corporation that offers student loan
services, including student loan default management, default
aversion, and infrastructure.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


ILLINOIS HIGH: Judge Weighs Bid to Drop Concussions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Sun-Times reported that Cook County judge is considering
whether to grant a motion by Illinois' privately run prep sports
governing body to dismiss a class-action head-injury suit against
it.

Illinois High School Association lawyer Thomas Heiden told Circuit
Judge Leroy Martin Jr. during oral arguments the lawsuit seeks new
mandates that would threaten high school football in the state.

Heiden stressed the sport's importance, saying football has taught
Illinois kids life lessons since the 1800s and that "they need
more of those lessons."

Plaintiff's lawyer Joe Siprut said the IHSA is trying to "shock
and awe" the judge by raising a false specter of the lawsuit
killing football.

Siprut said the only relevant question was whether the lawsuit
states a plausible enough claim to continue, which he said it
does.

Martin did not immediately rule.


JIREH AMERICA: Faces "Kim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Mun Kyoo Kim, Seong Il Cho and Choon Seong Hyeon, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Soon Joseph Choi,
Choon Sik Lee, and Jireh America, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00141-TCB
(N.D. Ga., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Jireh America, LLC is a Georgia limited liability company, which
provides factory automation system solution services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian G. Kim, Esq.
      LEON AND KIM, LLC
      3006 Clairmont Road
      Atlanta, GA 30329
      Telephone: (678) 302-1956
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1391
      E-mail: Brian@leonandkim.com


KANSAS: Parents to Sue DCF Over Foster Care Policies
----------------------------------------------------
Madeline Anderson, writing for KAKE.com, reported that dozens of
Kansas parents are hoping to take legal action against the state
of Kansas.

KAKE News reported that concerned community members want to file a
class action lawsuit against the Department for Children and
Families. They're accusing the agency of taking kids from their
homes without cause and placing them in abusive foster homes.

Now other parents are joining the cause and sharing their
experiences.

This August marks one year since Vincent Brown lost custody of his
3-year-old son and 18-month-old daughter.

"It's a nightmare I live over and over again," Brown said.

The 36-year-old father says the kids' mentally unstable maternal
grandmother falsely accused him of abusing his boy.

"Without doing any further follow up in terms of the
accusations... the police and DCF deemed it necessary to place my
kids in protective custody and transported them to the Wichita
Children's Home," Brown said.

Brown says St. Francis Community Center, which works for DCF, told
him to take parenting, anger management, domestic violence, and
drug and alcohol treatment classes in order to get his kids back.

"Despite me completing all of the classes recommended by St.
Francis, their goal had changed following my completion of the
courses and classes to adoption," Brown said.

Rose Flores is also fighting to be with her four kids. The 45-
year-old single mother says DCF took them away two weeks ago,
after Flores herself had called the police and contacted social
workers numerous times to report her adult son's friends picking
fights with her teenagers.

"I was being very open with them, I wasn't hiding anything I was
divulging a lot of information, and then to twist everything the
way they did, it's wrong," Flores said.

Since being placed in foster care, Flores says her 8-year-old
daughter has been sexually abused by her foster father.

"She showed me he was touching her in her inner thigh and her
private area," Flores said.

Both Flores and Brown have complained to DCF officials. They say
they've been ignored, told to calm down, and even threatened.
Suing the state, they say is the only way they believe they might
be able to protect their families and future families in similar
situations.

"These officials [need to] be held accountable for their actions,"
Brown said.

"I think if we all stand together, we have a voice," Flores said.

The state has refused to comment on individual cases. Now, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will investigate each
parents' complaint, and then let the group know whether they have
a case against the state. If investigators believe they do, the
group plans on filing a class action lawsuit.


KEMET CORP: NEC TOKIN Has Not Changed Estimated Accrual
-------------------------------------------------------
Kemet 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 as of June 30, 2015,
NEC TOKIN could not estimate the total losses which may result
from the ongoing investigations and civil litigation because NEC
TOKIN does not have sufficient information to be able to estimate
the amount of all such losses.  During the quarter ended June 30,
2015, NEC TOKIN has not changed the estimated accrual.

Beginning in March 2014, NEC TOKIN and certain of its subsidiaries
received inquiries, requests for information and other
communications from government authorities in China, the United
States, the European Commission, Japan, South Korea Taiwan,
Singapore and Brazil concerning alleged anti-competitive
activities within the capacitor industry.  The investigations are
continuing at various stages. In addition, beginning in July 2014,
NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary, NEC TOKIN America, Inc., have been
named, along with more than 20 other capacitor manufacturers and
subsidiaries, as defendants in purported antitrust class action
suits by direct and indirect purchasers in the United States and
Canada.

As of March 31, 2015, NEC TOKIN has recorded an accrual for
approximately $30.0 million based on its estimation of losses
likely to result from certain of the investigations and civil
litigation. Pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, NEC is
required to indemnify NEC TOKIN and/or KEC for any breaches by NEC
TOKIN or NEC of certain representations, warranties and covenants
in the Stock Purchase Agreement.  NEC's aggregate liability for
indemnification claims is limited to $25.0 million. Accordingly,
KEMET, under equity method accounting, has established an
indemnity asset in the amount of $8.5 million (based upon our 34%
economic interest in NEC TOKIN). However, pursuant to the Stock
Purchase Agreement, claims arising out of fraud or criminal
conduct are not limited by the $25.0 million indemnification cap,
and for such claims the claimant retains all remedies available in
equity or at law.

As of June 30, 2015, NEC TOKIN could not estimate the total losses
which may result from the ongoing investigations and civil
litigation because NEC TOKIN does not have sufficient information
to be able to estimate the amount of all such losses.  During the
quarter ended June 30, 2015, NEC TOKIN has not changed the
estimated accrual.


KENTUCKY: Class Suit Filed to Prevent Hearings on Benefits Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WKYT.com reported that the Social Security Administration is
reviewing the disability benefits of nearly 1,500 people who were
represented by Eric Conn. Each person will have a hearing.

The 1,470 former clients of Eric Conn who are having their
disability benefits reviewed need a lawyer. On, the Appalachian
Research and Defense Fund trained over 50 lawyers in social
security disability law to help these people have representation.

"It's very nice. It's very heartening to see all these people
coming together to help these individuals in this one part of the
country," says Barbara Silverstone, Executive Director of NOSSCR.

In addition to the people being trained, there are 50 lawyers who
have agreed to represent Conn's ex-clients. Plus, a Washington
D.C. firm has said it has 100 lawyers who are willing to help
after they get training.

Even if there are 200 lawyers available to help; there are 1,470
people to represent, and there will likely be an average of 20
hearings per day. Eastern Kentucky lawyer Ned Pillersdorf filed a
class action lawsuit to prevent these hearings from taking place.

"I nervously check my emails every ten minutes. There's a lot at
stake. There's not a family in Floyd or Pike County who have not
been affected by this. You do 1,470 people, imagine the families
and friends. We've already had a number of suicides. We are
desperately trying to prevent these people from going through
hearings," says Pillarsdorf.

These hearings begin September 17 and are expected to wrap up in
December.


MASTERCARD INC: Attys' Offstage Actions Threaten Antitrust Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Sidel, writing for The Wall Street Journal reported that
Keila Ravelo, an immigrant who became a successful New York
antitrust lawyer, wasn't shy about celebrating her achievements.

The 49-year-old drove a Bentley Continental "Flying Spur" sedan
and favored HermŠs handbags. She also spent tens of thousands of
dollars annually to send her two sons to a sports-oriented
boarding school in Florida. Starting in 2008, she has donated more
than half a million dollars to Democratic candidates and
political-action committees.

But when federal agents showed up at her New Jersey home three
days before Christmas, they kicked off a chain of events that
could send her to prison and scuttle the biggest antitrust
settlement in U.S. history. It already may have ended her
marriage.

It is a stunning downfall for Ms. Ravelo, who until late was a
partner at global law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, where her
primary client was MasterCard Inc. The agents alleged that Ms.
Ravelo and her husband bilked MasterCard, Willkie Farr and another
law firm out of more than $5 million by setting up fake vendors
and filing sham invoices for legal services.

As part of its investigation into the alleged theft, court records
allege, the firm subsequently discovered that Ms. Ravelo had
received confidential information via emails from an opposing
lawyer working on two major antitrust lawsuits brought by
retailers against credit-card companies, one of which resulted in
a record $6 billion settlement with MasterCard and Visa Inc. The
lawyer, Gary Friedman, was a longtime friend and former colleague
of Ms. Ravelo's, according to court records.

Now, the record-breaking pact may be in jeopardy. On, lawyers on
both sides will file court documents arguing whether the
settlement should be unraveled because of the two lawyers' behind-
the-scenes actions. Many large merchants that have objected to the
settlement, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and 7-Eleven Inc., now
want to undo it, but Visa and MasterCard are expected to ask that
it stay in place. Among their arguments: They said Ms. Ravelo was
never a key player in the case.

But in a harshly worded 44-page ruling, U.S. District Judge
Nicholas Garaufis threw out a settlement in a parallel case
involving American Express Co. because of the emails. The judge
said Ms. Ravelo helped Mr. Friedman frame the legal issues and
come up with a settlement strategy, among other things. At least
twice, Mr. Friedman wrote Ms. Ravelo emails that said, "Burn after
reading," the judge said.

Mr. Friedman's lawyer declined to comment. Steve Sadow, an Atlanta
lawyer representing Ms. Ravelo, declined to comment on the judge's
ruling.

Ms. Ravelo's fall stunned the New York legal community, where she
was generally well-respected, according to a number of lawyers who
worked with her. "It is inexplicable," said one person who worked
closely with Ms. Ravelo for more than a decade, referring to the
sharing of documents in the antitrust cases.

Ms. Ravelo is free on $500,000 bail in connection with the alleged
plan to bilk the law firms and MasterCard. She has been charged
with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and is in plea negotiations,
according to court records.

On, her husband, Melvin Feliz, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
commit wire fraud and tax evasion in connection with the case. Mr.
Sadow, Ms. Ravelo's lawyer, slammed the development, saying the
husband "caved to the intense and overwhelming government pressure
to implicate Ms. Ravelo."

In his statement, Mr. Sadow said his client had hoped Mr. Feliz
would "take full responsibility for his actions by publicly
proclaiming what he has repeatedly and consistently told his
family: that Ms. Ravelo acted as [Mr.] Feliz coercively demanded-
not freely, voluntarily or with criminal intent." Mr. Sadow
referred to Mr. Feliz as Ms. Ravelo's "estranged husband." Mr.
Feliz's lawyer declined to comment.

Mr. Feliz has additional legal troubles. He is awaiting sentencing
after pleading guilty in February to plotting to transport more
than 40 pounds of cocaine from California to New York. Police
arrested him in March 2014 after receiving a tip that Mr. Feliz
and two other men were planning to arrange to pay $550,000 to buy
the drugs and move them across the country in a tractor-trailer,
according to a criminal complaint.

Before the past year, Ms. Ravelo's life had been a steady ascent
to professional success and personal affluence. Raised in the
Dominican Republic, Ms. Ravelo came to the U.S. when she was 17 to
attend college. She graduated from Columbia University's law
school in 1991 and was courted by multiple top law firms. Twice,
firms put out news releases after hiring her, citing her
experience in handling complex antitrust litigation. At Willkie
Farr, she earned about $2.5 million a year, according to a person
familiar with the matter.

In her private life, Ms. Ravelo was featured on a New Jersey-based
social and celebrity news website, in a 2013 article titled "The
Modern and Classic Style of Keila Ravelo." That same year, she
appeared in an "NBC News" segment about parents who spend large
sums to encourage their children's sports dreams. The segment
estimated that Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Feliz spent more than $70,000 a
year on baseball-related activities for each of their two sons.
"It's a lot. It's a big sacrifice," Ms. Ravelo said, according to
a transcript of the broadcast.

Ms. Ravelo also was a board member of the National Center for Law
and Economic Justice, an organization in New York that works with
low-income families. From 2008 to 2014, she donated over $500,000
to Democratic causes and candidates, including the Obama Victory
Fund and DNC Services Corp., according to Sunlight Foundation, an
organization that tracks political contributions.

Ms. Ravelo first met Messrs. Friedman and Feliz in the early
1990s, when she was an associate at Sidley Austin LLP. There, she
worked with Mr. Friedman, a fellow associate, on a pro bono case
representing her future husband, Mr. Feliz. Over the years, Ms.
Ravelo and Mr. Friedman remained close friends, with their
families socializing and going on vacation together, according to
court records. The two lawyers also discussed investment
opportunities and at one point considered buying a Gulfstream II
jet and operating an air-charter business, according to court
papers. While Mr. Friedman started his own firm, Ms. Ravelo moved
on to law firm Clifford Chance LLP, where her biggest client was
MasterCard.

Like its rival Visa, Purchase, N.Y.-based MasterCard has been sued
numerous times by merchants who are unhappy with the networks'
fees and policies. The cases are notoriously lengthy and complex,
with multiple plaintiffs and defendants ranging from tiny
retailers to the world's largest banks.

A decade ago, retailers including Kroger Co., Safeway Inc. and
Walgreen Co. filed price-fixing suits against Visa and MasterCard
that challenged their long-standing rules prohibiting merchants
from charging more when they used a credit card over other forms
of payment. The case received class-action status, laying the
groundwork for years of negotiations between the merchants and
card network. At the time of the settlement, Visa and MasterCard
said that it was in the best interest of all parties.

Although the case brought big headlines, Ms. Ravelo's job was far
from glamorous. She spent most of her time dealing with discovery,
the painstaking process of hashing out the exchange of documents
with opposing lawyers, according to people who worked with her.

She was aggressive in that role, said people who worked with her,
with one fellow lawyer saying admiringly that she had an "ability
to make other people nuts."

Mr. Friedman represented merchants in the Visa-MasterCard case, as
well as the similar case involving American Express. He played a
leading role in the AmEx case, but had a smaller position in the
Visa-MasterCard case, according to people familiar with his work.

The substance of the communication between the two has largely
been filed under seal, but court records show it went beyond a
typical exchange between opposing lawyers. The exchange included
confidential information about AmEx that Mr. Friedman passed onto
Ms. Ravelo. She also gave Mr. Friedman advice on discovery
processes and a slide presentation, Judge Garaufis said in his
ruling. Mr. Friedman "consulted [Ms.] Ravelo at what appears to be
every step along the way," he wrote. Mr. Sadow declined to
comment.


MARTHA STEWART: Filed Motion to Dismiss Case by R.R. Donnelley
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Strike in the case filed
by R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.

The Company said, "On May 19, 2015, R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
("RRD") filed a lawsuit against the Company in Illinois titled
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
In such lawsuit, RRD claims that the Company improperly terminated
its commercial printing agreement with RRD to print Martha Stewart
Living and Martha Stewart Weddings following our entrance into
agreements with Meredith Corporation to publish the magazines. RRD
seeks damages in the amount of $7.7 million."

"On July 21, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and to
Strike. In our motion, the Company maintained that there was no
breach and that the claimed damages are unsupported or wholly
speculative. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the
claims made by RRD, and intend to vigorously defend such claims.
Future litigation costs in this matter may be significant."


MARTHA STEWART: Stockholder Class Actions Filed Related to Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that since the
announcement of the Merger, a number of putative stockholder class
action lawsuits have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, alleging, among other things, that the members
of the MSLO board breached their fiduciary duties and that
Sequential and its board aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties. The Company, Sequential and each of their
respective directors believe these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend them vigorously.


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Cyber Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Walker and Shicola Washington, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00248 (N.D. Ind., September 8, 2015), is a
data breach class action on behalf of 3.9 million patients whose
sensitive personal information including Social Security numbers
and medical histories was stolen from the Defendant in a cyber-
attack.

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. provides electronic medical
records services to hospitals, health care providers, and
patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Vess A. Miller, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Sherrie Savett, Esq.
      Shanon Carson, Esq.
      Jon Lambiras, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              jlambiras@bm.net

         - and -

      Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Insurance Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Flitcraft v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01789-DLR (D. Ariz., September 8, 2015), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendants' refusal to pay
the Plaintiff and Class members the benefits to which they are
entitled under the life insurance contract.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a foreign corporation
authorized to do business and doing business in Arizona. MetLife
is a global provider of insurance, annuities, and employee benefit
programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick Mause, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK MAUSE, PLLC
      290 North Meyer
      Tucson, AZ 85701
      Telephone: (520) 342-0000
      Facsimile: (520) 342-0001
      E-mail: Patrick@PMauseLaw.com


MINNESOTA: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of $1B in Public Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Serres, writing for Star Tribune, reported that thousands of
Minnesotans with disabilities have been forced needlessly to wait
months and even years for community-based services because the
state has underspent more than $1 billion in public funds,
according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in St. Paul.

Attorneys representing a group of people with disabilities allege
that for nearly two decades, the Minnesota Department of Human
Services (DHS) has mismanaged money set aside under Medicaid, the
state and federal health insurance program, for services intended
to help people with disabilities live more meaningful and
integrated lives in their communities.

More than 5,000 Minnesotans with intellectual and developmental
disabilities have been placed on county waiting lists -- in some
cases, for a decade or more -- for Medicaid benefits, known as
"waivers," which fund a wide variety of community-based services,
from personal caregiving in the home to job coaching and
transportation to day treatment programs. The lawsuit alleges
that, in many cases, people are kept on these waiting lists for
extended periods without ever being told that there are adequate
waiver funds to pay for these services.

"We absolutely cannot treat people like this," said Shamus
O'Meara, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, who are seeking
class-action status from the federal court. "Justice requires that
DHS be ordered to immediately address this important issue and
provide these services without further delay."

Cutting the waiting list

DHS Commissioner Lucinda Jesson said that "quickly reducing, and
ultimately eliminating" the waiting lists for people with
disabilities are key goals of a new state plan, known as an
Olmstead Plan, that has been submitted to federal court for
possible approval. The Olmstead Plan, a detailed blueprint for
expanding community services for people with disabilities, calls
for eliminating the waiting list to one of Minnesota's main
waivers, known as the Community Access for Disability Inclusion
(CADI) waiver, entirely by October 2016. People on a second list,
for the Developmental Disability (DD) waiver, would move off more
quickly starting in December, Jesson said.

"For many years, the state has been committed to serving people
with disabilities in the community, and we are ranked as one of
the best states for this work," Jesson said in a written
statement. She added that DHS has not been formally served with
the lawsuit regarding waiting lists for disability services. "Once
we are, we will review the claims and respond," she said.

Medicaid waivers are the largest single source of social services
for people with disabilities in Minnesota, and are hugely
important because they unlock payments for a bevy of community
services. In Minnesota, the competition to obtain waivers can be
so fierce that some parents of disabled children have likened
getting a waiver to winning the lottery. In many cases, people
with disabilities are unable to afford independent apartments and
transportation to jobs in the community, among other services,
without the cherished waivers.

State officials have long argued, however, that many people on
waiting lists for waivers are receiving other services, such as
medical visits and home caregiving, and are not being deprived of
county social services.

A 14-year wait

One plaintiff, Jeff Pearson, said he has been waiting for more
than 14 years for a Medicaid-funded waiver for his 25-year-old
disabled daughter, Abigail Pearson, who has a developmental
disability, a mental disorder and intractable epilepsy. His
daughter wants to move out of her parents' home, but is unable to
do so without a waiver that would enable her to live with support
on her own.

"The lack of waiver services . . . forces her to remain segregated
from her preferred community living arrangements," the lawsuit
said. This "exacerbates her mental health and cognitive disability
conditions," and causes "feelings of worthlessness, depression and
negative and discordant behaviors," it said.

Some advocacy groups for people with disabilities have argued that
DHS could dramatically reduce or even eliminate waiting lists
statewide for disability services if it did a better job managing
the monies allocated by the Legislature under the Medicaid waiver
program. Many individual counties, these advocates argue, are
overly stingy with their waiver monies, unnecessarily keeping
people on prolonged waiting lists.

"By letting millions of dollars that were intended to fund the
waiver programs go unspent year after year, DHS unnecessarily
placed eligible individuals with disabilities on waiting lists
that blocked them from gaining access to the services and supports
they need to live and work in their communities," said Pamela
Hoopes, legal director of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid's Minnesota
Disability Law Center, co-counsel in the lawsuit.

There are large disparities among counties in their spending of
waiver monies. Some counties spend 20 percent to 40 percent of the
money allocated to them by the state, while others spend nearly
all of what they receive.

Disability advocates have argued that the money goes unspent in
part because of perverse incentives. Counties are required to
reimburse the state if they overspend their waiver funds. As a
result, say advocates, some counties tend to be overly cautious
and spend much less than the amount allocated.


MONTARA OIL: Victims Still Seeking Compensation from Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
News.com, reported that a fisherman who stumbled upon pools of oil
in the Timor Sea says he first thought his boat was leaking. Then
he looked around and it was everywhere: a thick coating over the
water's surface.

"I thought I'd spilt some oil out of the boat, but then it was all
around me. There was a lot of it, there was no doubt about that,"
the fisherman said.

"It was so far away from everyone at the time, nobody really
noticed it, the public didn't notice it."

The oil was leaking from an oil well off the West Australian
coast. According to some estimates, it was dumping 500,000 litres
per day in the ocean.

But because it was so far from the Australian mainland, the impact
to Australia was minimal. Elsewhere, it was anything but.
The Montara oil spill, which took place six years ago, was one of
Australia's worst oil disasters. We barely noticed it then and we
haven't paid a great deal of attention since.
A new report and a class-action lawsuit might make us pay
attention.

Australian Lawyers Alliance released the After the Spill report,
detailing over 250 pages of impacts on small, poor communities
around Indonesia.

The report documented dead fish and oil sightings as well as skin
conditions and food poisoning suffered by locals. It highlighted
how seaweed farmers have been affected and how the Australian
government, despite clear evidence, failed to hold the responsible
parties accountable.

HOW DID IT ALL GO SO WRONG?

On August 21, 2009, the West Atlas rig owned by the Norwegian-
Bermudan Seadrill and operated by Perth-based operation PTTEP
Australasia Montara sprung a leak.

For 74 days, gas and oil poured into the Timor Sea. Some estimates
put the leakage at 500,000 litres per day, others range from
between 400 and 2000 barrels of oil per 24 hours.
The well operator rushed to remove 69 staff from the Montara oil
field and the Australian Maritime Safety Authority sprayed more
than 180,000 litres of dispersants into the water.

The ALA report states the impacts were widespread and continue.

"Communities say that in 2009 they saw oil washing into seaweed
farms, onto beaches, onto the hulls of boats, and fouling fishing
grounds and trawler nets. Witnesses described coral turning white;
the precious farmed seaweed turning yellow, then white and falling
off its ropes, destroyed," the After the Spill report said.

"Communities described the white 'sickness' that later appeared on
the seaweed and which worsened with specific currents. Fishermen
said that there are no longer any fish to catch in fishing grounds
which they have fished for years. The death of mangroves removed a
crucial bulwark to the ocean and there was subsequent flooding of
villages.

"Indonesia's Centre for Energy and Environmental Studies has
estimated that the economic loss caused by the Montara spill to
the fishing and seaweed industries in NTT amounts to approximately
AU$1.5 billion per year since 2009."

In 2010, the Indonesian government requested compensation from
PTTEP Australasia. Four years later, in September 2014, they wrote
to the Australian government requesting assistance. They asked
Prime Minister Tony Abbott to put pressure on PTTEP to carry out a
thorough investigation and compensate those who've lost money or,
worse, their livelihoods.
According to the ALA, Australia has done no such thing.

"The Australian government has not, at any stage, required that
PTTEP Australasia take any action to ensure that Indonesia was not
adversely affected by the spill. Instead, the Australian
government has continued to assert that any negotiations must be
between the Indonesian government and PTTEP Australasia," the ALA
report said.

AFTER THE SPILL

The Thai national petroleum exploration company (PTTEP) took
immediate responsibility for the oil spill. The company declared
it had "transformed" its management culture, operational
capabilities, safety processes and environmental systems since
2009.

"In August 2011 the company pleaded guilty to four charges in the
Darwin Magistrates Court relating to workplace health and safety
and failure to maintain good oilfield practice. The company was
fined $510,000. This concluded all government legal matters in
relation to the Montara incident," PTTEP said on its website.
The company conducted scientific studies and concluded there "has
been little or no detectable impact from the spill on any marine
ecosystem or species in the Timor Sea".

Then Minister for Industry Ian Macfarlane told the ALA that "any
issues relating to environmental damage in Indonesian waters are a
matter for the Indonesian government to take up with the company
(PTTEP)".

Though the company paid a fine and moved on, those affected say
the impacts are far worse than what has been reported.
The ALA reported finding "drastic reductions in the incomes of
thousands of seaweed farmers and fishermen", "children and young
people being pulled out of education", "people experiencing
strange skin ailments in the years after the spill", "dead whales"
and "dead mangroves and the subsequent flooding of villages".
The first hand account from the fisherman who spoke with
investigators suggests the spill was worse than most people
realised.

"[The oil] wasn't that dark, it was a brown, muddy colour," he
said.

"It was like a clear browny colour, not very noticeably dark oil.
Not noticeably a dark oil. Like a cleaner diesel. It smelt like
dirty oil out of a truck like used oil, but more of a diesel
spill, it smelt like diesel. It was quite noticeable.

"The oil was all over the water- and when you bring the nets up
they're external to the boat and all the nets are basically
floating, semi-floating on the surface and you lift them onto your
boat, everything semi-floating has to come through that surface
oil. My impression was that the whole place was covered in it."

'IT'S JUST A BLATANT INJUSTICE'

Australian Fisheries Management expert Richard Mounsey told the
ABC he was in the area at the time of the spill working as a
consultant to the East Timor government.

"I used to go the beach on my small boat every morning," Mr
Mounsey said.

"When I jumped in the water (in September 2009) to have a snorkel
and to look around at the fish and the corals, it was like jumping
into foggy water, it was all milky. I hadn't seen that and I'd
been in East Timor off and on for the last eight years."
Greg Phelps, a lawyer for Darwin-based firm Ward Keller, has been
working with the Nusa Tenggara Timur community since 2011. He told
Fairfax he expects to launch a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
those impacted by the end of the year.

"It's just a blatant injustice -- it's a tragedy beyond belief in
many ways," he said.

"It is ridiculous that for nearly six years the Australian
government has done nothing to help devastated communities when
companies in Australia are regularly prosecuted for oil spills of
only ten or 20 litres," Mr Phelps said.

"The government has maintained that it has no jurisdiction to take
action however it is clear that the government does have the
jurisdiction to open up negotiations."


MOUNTAIN STATE: Payouts from $11.3MM Class Settlement Begin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Wickline, writing for WVVA.com, reported that a panel
approved an $11.3 million-dollar class action settlement in the
lawsuit accusing Mountain State University of concealing problems
with their accreditation.  And now as those payouts begin, a
former MSU student is having a hard time accepting the situation.

The remnants of MSU may be gone from the downtown Beckley campus,
in fact, in just one year, it could be up and running as a West
Virginia University campus. But the ripple effects of what the
school's closing did to its students are still everywhere.

"I'm 28 years old and I'm still unemployed because I don't have a
career," says Brandi Perry, a graduate of MSU.

The failing school lost accreditation and officially closed in
2013, leaving students like Brandi with credits and degrees that
won't transfer. Now Brandi is stuck with thousands of dollars in
student loans, and a $4300 payout from the settlement just isn't
enough.

"With the check that I'm getting, I don't even think that, it's
not even going to touch it. As far as the ones through Sallie Mae
and the other private loans that I had to take out, I'm stuck with
them for life," says Brandi.

She says she spent countless hours at Mountain State, trying to
earn her degree. She even stayed without a job to keep her grades
up, but now she wonders what all that hard work was for.

"I didn't work while I went to school. I focused everything on my
schoolwork and on getting the high GPAs and the good grades, and
it never paid off," says Brandi.

She says she is expecting her settlement check.

Even with the difficult financial situation she's in, Brandi is
doing her best to move on.

She, her husband, and their four-year-old son, will be moving to
North Carolina in the coming weeks to start over.


NEW ZEALAND: Health Ministry Sued Over Midwives' Payments
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hutching, writing for NBR, reported that lawyer Mai Chen
filed a class action on behalf of midwives in the Wellington High
Court.

The statement of claim in the application for judicial review on
behalf of the NZ College of Midwives cites the Attorney General on
behalf of the Ministry of Health as the defendant.

At issue is the Primary Maternity Services Notice 2007 made under
section 88 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000.

This determines the terms and conditions of midwives' payment.

The 2007 notice increased the duties of midwives but since that
time there has been no remuneration adjustment, or any
compensation to cover inflation and increased duties and costs
incurred by midwives, the statement of claim says.

These include compulsory education, which midwives must pay for
themselves.

The claim says it is also financially unsustainable for midwives
providing lead maternity care to take annual or sick leave under
the 2007 notices as they are required to pay a maternity partner
to cover their patients.

Sexual discrimination as a breach of s19 of the New Zealand Bill
of Rights is alleged in relation to the 2007 notice.

"Approximately 99.9% of midwives providing lead maternity care are
female. Approximately 95% of mechanical engineers are male. At
least 69% of registered/certified electricians are male.

"Mechanical engineers and/or registered electricians earn on
average approximately 60% more than midwives providing lead
maternity care based on annual gross income after expenses.

"There is no justification for the disparity in earnings other
than on the basis of sex.

"The direct and/or indirect discriminatory treatment causes a
material disadvantage for midwives who provide lead maternity
care," the claim alleges.

"Therefore, the ministry's failure to increase prices under the
2007 notice is due to unlawful direct and/or indirect
discrimination on the basis of sex."

The relief sought from the court action is a declaration that the
2007 notice is in breach of s19 of the Bill of Rights and is
therefore unlawful.

The midwives' action also seeks costs.


ONE SOURCE: Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Stephan Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephan Zouras LLP, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. One Source Financing LLC d/b/a Big Apple
Finance Company, and Luigi Ceneri, Case No. 1:15-cv-07890 (N.D.
Ill., September 8, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of sending unsolicited junk faxes in bulk to unwilling recipients
with deficient opt-out notices.

One Source Financing LLC is a company that offers alternative
business funding to small and medium sized businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


PERU GOURMET: Faces "Zamora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryuri Zamora, and other similarly situated individuals v. Peru
Gourmet Corporation and Gary Gordillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-23396-FAM
(S.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgattorneys.com
              apetisco@rgattorneys.com


RADIOSHACK CORP: Tentative Settlement Reached Over GC Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase, writing for Dallas News, reported that the old
adage about looking a gift horse in the mouth may have a corollary
regarding gift cards issued by retailers: Use it or lose it.

In the latest case of gift card holders caught up in the
bankruptcy of a major retailer, attorneys on outlined a plan under
which some holders of RadioShack gift cards would be paid in full
for their outstanding balances. Others who hold the electronic
retailers' gift cards, however, would be left with pennies on the
dollar, if anything.

The plan is part of a tentative settlement between Fort Worth-
based RadioShack and the Texas attorney general's office, which
filed a complaint on behalf of holders of some $46 million in
unredeemed RadioShack gift cards and has been working with
attorneys general in several states to protect their interests.

"We are very pleased that we were able to amicably resolve this
dispute. . . . We think it is eminently fair to consumers," Hal
Morris, an assistant attorney general in Texas, told U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon.

Under the proposed settlement, which is subject to approval by the
court and the various attorneys general -- and a possible
challenge by attorneys representing RadioShack card holders in a
separate putative class action -- card holders would be divided
into five categories based on the circumstances in which they
obtained their cards.

RadioShack attorney Greg Gordon said people who purchased cards
for themselves or someone else would be given priority status for
payment of claims, along with people who "reloaded" existing cards
with more money.

A small subset of people who hold cards that were issued between
2000 and 2004 and have since been "deactivated" also would be
allowed priority claims.

But holders of other cards, including promotional giveaways, and
cards given in exchange for merchandise returns or in response to
customer service complaints, would be lumped in with general
unsecured creditors.

All told, roughly a third of the $46 million in potential gift
card claims would receive priority status and be paid in full,
Gordon said.

A key issue yet to be resolved is how gift card holders would be
notified about how to file claims, which they would have to submit
within a year. If attorneys cannot agree on a notification
process, Shannon will decide one for them.

Meanwhile, Gordon said RadioShack will establish a $500,000
uncapped cash reserve for priority gift card claims, as well as a
website through which gift card holders can submit their claims
electronically.

The proposed settlement comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is set to
consider whether to accept an appeal filed on behalf of gift card
holders of Borders Group, who were left holding the bag when the
book-selling chain went under several years ago.

Attorney Clint Krislov, who filed the appeal on behalf of Borders
customers, also is representing RadioShack gift card holders in
the purported class action.

Krislov said he's willing to take a look at the proposed
settlement between RadioShack and the attorneys general, but that
"the devil is in the details."

"I understand they plan on having it replace a class settlement,"
said Krislov, who suggested that an argument could be made for
giving priority claim status to holders of merchandise return gift
cards.

"We can fight about that at some point," he said.

Gordon said an individual holder of a merchandise return card
could still try to seek priority status for his or her claim, but
that the state attorneys general would not take that position.

Morris, the Texas assistant attorney general, said consumers have
been well-represented by the attorneys general.

"I don't know what improvement could be made on this settlement,"
said Morris, who noted that the judge had previously indicated
that he did not believe all gift card holders should receive
priority status.

At a hearing, Shannon told attorneys he believed that a 2004
ruling in which another Delaware bankruptcy judge declared that
all gift card claims were entitled to priority status had been
"wrongly decided."

"We heard your honor's concerns . . . loud and clear," Morris told
Shannon.


SEASONS HOSPICE: Faces Class Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that an
overtime pay laws class action has been filed in California
against a hospice and palliative care enterprise alleging the
defendants failed to pay plaintiffs proper overtime pay, or
provide rest periods and meal breaks as mandated by the California
Labor Code.

It appears as if the basic payment of overtime wages by Seasons
Hospice and Palliative Care of California, Inc. to its non-exempt
employees does not appear to be in dispute. The issue with the
overtime pay is non-discretionary bonus wages paid to employees
based on work performance. It is alleged that such bonus pay
amounts were not included in the employee's hourly rate when
overtime pay was calculated for additional hours worked as
mandated by overtime laws.

Because this bonus pay was left out of the calculations, the
employees received a lessor amount of overtime pay than was their
due, or so it is alleged.

A companion issue to the unpaid overtime alleged in the lawsuit is
the lack of appropriate meal breaks as mandated under California
employment law. Meal breaks are to be 30 minutes and taken in an
uninterrupted fashion after the fifth hour of work. It is alleged
the defendant did not have a policy or provision in place to
provide a full off-duty, uninterrupted meal break according to the
employment laws observed by the state.

Missed rest periods and meal breaks while an employee continued to
work and respond to the needs of patients and the rigors of the
job, would translate to additional time spent working.

It is not known what specific penalties and damages the plaintiffs
are seeking in their overtime pay lawsuit.

Various overtime pay lawsuits are brought to the fore when claims
of unpaid overtime cannot be settled by any other means. Failure
to pay overtime can be the result of improper or incomplete
keeping of records, or even malicious intent through the incorrect
classification of an individual or the job an individual holds as
exempt from overtime pay, when in actual fact, the dynamics and
circumstances of the job and the work performed qualifies the
hourly employee for overtime pay.

The unpaid overtime California class action was filed August 10 in
the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the
County of Los Angeles. The case is Rena Sutton, Marybell
Masferrer-Hoyd, and Irena Pawlak v. Seasons Hospice and Palliative
Care of California, Inc., Case No. BC590870.


SIRIUS XM: Faces "Sheridan" Suit Over Copyright Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and
Pandora Media, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07056 (S.D.N.Y., September
8, 2015), arises out of the alleged unauthorized and unlawful use
of sound recordings initially created before February 15, 1972,
and the unauthorized exploitation of publicity rights held by or
licensed to Plaintiffs.

The Defendants own and operate a satellite and internet radio
services company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 752-5455
      Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
      E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Robert B. Carey, Esq.
      John M. DeStefano, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
      Phoenix, AZ 85003
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
      E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
              johnd@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Anthony L. Abner, Esq.
      ABNER & FULLERTON LLP
      32565 Golden Lantern Blvd., Suite 216
      Dana Point, CA 92945
      Telephone: (323) 839-3291
      Facsimile: (323) 656-7155
      E-mail: tonyabner@gmail.com

         - and -

     Justin Sobodash, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN SOBODASH
     8335 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 302
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Telephone: (323) 337-9010
     Facsimile: (323) 656-7155
     E-mail: justin@Sobodashlaw.com


SIRIUS XM: Faces 2nd "Sheridan" Suit Over Copyright Infringement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and
Pandora Media, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-04081-MEJ (S.D.N.Y.,
September 8, 2015), arises out of the alleged unauthorized and
unlawful use of sound recordings initially created before February
15, 1972, and the unauthorized exploitation of publicity rights
held by or licensed to Plaintiffs.

The Defendants own and operate a satellite and internet radio
services company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 752-5455
      Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
      E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Robert B. Carey, Esq.
      John M. DeStefano, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
      Phoenix, AZ 85003
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
      E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com
              johnd@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Anthony L. Abner, Esq.
      ABNER & FULLERTON LLP
      32565 Golden Lantern Blvd., Suite 216
      Dana Point, CA 92945
      Telephone: (323) 839-3291
      Facsimile: (323) 656-7155
      E-mail: tonyabner@gmail.com

         - and -

     Justin Sobodash, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN SOBODASH
     8335 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 302
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Telephone: (323) 337-9010
     Facsimile: (323) 656-7155
     E-mail: justin@Sobodashlaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 7th Cir. Upholds Fee Award to Class Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Cascino, Esq. -- ccascino@seyfarth.com -- and
Gerald Maatman, Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reported that in In Re Southwest
Airlines Voucher Litigation, Case No. 13-3264 (7th Cir. Aug. 20,
2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a
fee award to class counsel in a class action that resulted in a
"coupon settlement" -- a settlement in which the defendant agrees
to issue coupons to the class members. In upholding the fee award,
the Seventh Circuit also discussed the propriety of a number of
settlement provisions and practices that are frequently at issue
in class action settlement negotiations. While not a workplace
class action, this decision should be of interest to any employers
who are involved in class action litigation because it provides
guidance about how courts in the Seventh Circuit and beyond will
view certain class action settlement provisions and practices.

Case Background

Southwest Airlines issued vouchers to its "Business Select"
passengers that could be redeemed for one free in-flight alcoholic
beverage. Some passengers saved their beverage vouchers so they
could use them on later flights. In August 2010, Southwest
Airlines announced that these vouchers could only be used on the
flight covered by the "Business Select" ticket. The plaintiffs
filed a class action against Southwest Airlines for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer
fraud laws.

The district court dismissed the unjust enrichment and consumer
fraud claims as being preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.
The parties subsequently agreed to settle the remaining breach of
contract claim on a class-wide basis. Under the terms of the
settlement, Southwest Airlines agreed to provide all class members
with a voucher that was good for one free in-flight alcoholic
beverage and further agreed to pay class counsel $3 million in
attorneys' fees. The parties also agreed on a "clear-sailing"
clause that provided that Southwest Airlines would not object to
the attorneys' fee request up to the agreed-to amount, and further
agreed to a "kicker" clause, which provided that, if the district
court were to reduce the fee award, the reduction would benefit
Southwest Airlines rather than the class. The parties also agreed
on limited injunctive relief that would constrain how Southwest
could issue vouchers in the future.

Several class members objected to the class settlement, focusing
primarily on the fee award. They argued that the settlement was a
"coupon settlement" within the meaning of the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), and that therefore the fee award needed to
be a percentage of the value of the vouchers actually redeemed by
class members. As such, they contended that class counsel sought
inflated fees to the detriment of the class. They further argued
that the settlement agreement was unfair because it contained the
"clear-sailing" and "kicker" clauses, which manifested the lack of
a fair and adequate settlement.

The district court agreed that the CAFA applied, but held that
attorneys' fees nonetheless could be calculated using the lodestar
method of determining attorneys' fees. Under this method, fees are
calculated by multiplying the hours spent on litigation by a
reasonable hourly rate and then adjusting the award based on
various factors, such as whether the work was taken on a
contingency basis and the quality of the result. Using this
method, the district court awarded $1,649,118 in attorneys' fees.
The district court further held that the "clear-sailing" and
"kicker" clauses did not render the settlement agreement unfair
because the class was receiving what amounted to the full value of
their claims. Both class counsel and several class members
appealed that decision.

The Seventh Circuit's Decision

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the CAFA
applied because, in the Seventh Circuit, a voucher is considered
to be a coupon. Southwest Airlines, at 7. It then considered
whether the district court correctly concluded that the lodestar
method nonetheless could be applied to determine the fee award.
Disagreeing with the Ninth Circuit's decision in In Re HP Inkjet
Printer Litigation, 716 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2013), the Seventh
Circuit concluded that attorneys' fees could be calculated using
the lodestar method in coupon settlements, while simultaneously
warning district courts to use the method only after "evaluat[ing]
critically the claims of success of a class receiving coupons."
Id. at 16-17.

The Seventh Circuit further considered whether the settlement
agreement was fair and reasonable in light of Southwest Airlines'
agreement to pay $3 million in attorneys' fees and in light of the
"clear-sailing" and "kicker" clauses. Addressing the objecting
class members' argument that the fact Southwest Airlines was
willing to pay $3 million in attorneys' fees showed that there was
additional money class counsel could have recovered on behalf of
the class, the Seventh Circuit held that this argument, while
potentially powerful in other cases, was of "little force" here
because "the class members [would] receive essentially everything
they could have hoped for. As the district court put it, 'the
class members are getting back exactly what they had before, an
unexpired drink voucher.'" Id. at 18-20.

The Seventh Circuit also addressed the "clear-sailing" and
"kicker" clauses. It pointed out that, while it had "deep
skepticism about such clauses, which seem to benefit only class
counsel and can be signs of a sell-out," it would not adopt a rule
finding that such clauses per se bar settlement approval. Id. at
21. On the record before it, the Seventh Circuit concluded that
the settlement agreement was fair and reasonable despite these
clauses because the class members got everything they could have
hoped for in the settlement. Id.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit addressed class counsel's argument
that he should receive $3 million in fees because Southwest
Airlines agreed to provide that amount. It held that judicial
deference to the provisions of class action settlements is not
appropriate, and that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in awarding class counsel $1.6 million in fees.

Implications For Employers

Employers who are involved in class action litigation should use
this case for guidance on how courts in the Seventh Circuit and
beyond will react to proposed class action settlement agreements.
Employers should be aware that including "clear-sailing" or
"kicker" clauses in such agreements will cause district courts --
and any appellate court on appeal if objectors attack the
settlement -- to more closely examine the fairness of the proposed
settlement because such clauses may only benefit class counsel. In
the right circumstances, employers may also be able to use this
case to argue that they are providing full relief to a class even
when they are not providing monetary relief if they can plausibly
argue that they are providing something else that remedies a past
wrong. Finally, employers who agree to provide nearly full relief
to the class to settle a class action can use this case to
overrule objections to the terms of a class action settlement.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), representing investors of The
Spectranetics Corporation ("Spectranetics" or the "Company"), has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado on behalf of a class (the "Class")
comprising purchasers of Spectranetics securities between February
19, 2015, and July 23, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, at (310) 201-9150 or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire
by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number
and number of shares purchased.

Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets and distributes
medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the
cardiovascular system. The Complaint alleges that 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 Spectranetics'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 Spectranetics declined $8.18 per share, over
23%, to close on April 24, 2015, at $26.52 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.

On July 23, 2015, the Company lowered revenue guidance for the
remainder of 2015. According to the Company, 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. On this news, shares of
Spectranetics declined $8.53 per share, over 34%, to close on July
24, 2015, at $16.30 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire via email, please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

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


STARKIST: Settles Class Suit Over Canned Tuna False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shellie Nelson, writing for WQAD8, reported that would you rather
take home $25 in cash or $50 of tuna?

People who bought StarKist tuna have that choice due to a class
action lawsuit settlement. The customers claimed that StarKist put
less tuna in their cans than advertised.

The suit, filed in federal court in Oakland more than two years
ago, charged that StarKist under-filled certain 5-ounce cans of
chunk light tuna and solid white albacore tuna.

Federal law requires 5 ounce cans to contain between 2.84-ounces
and 3.23-ounces of tuna, depending on the type. The customers said
StarKist cans were a little bit below those minimum requirements.

StarKist did not admit fault but agreed to a settlement in which
it will pay $8 million in cash and $4 million in vouchers to
purchase StarKist tuna.

Many people who purchased StarKist tuna will be getting notices of
the settlement and the chance to make a choice between cash and
tuna. But those who bought the tuna and don't get a notice can
sign up for the settlement at a website. They don't need a
receipt, but they will need to swear that they purchased the
product.

The deadline to file a claim is November 20, 2015.

The website says you are a Class Member if you are a resident of
the United States of America who purchased from February 19, 2009
through October 31, 2014:

one or more 5 oz. can of Chunk Light Tuna in Water,
one or more 5 oz. can of Chunk Light Tuna in Oil,
one or more 5 oz. can of Solid White Tuna in Water, or
one or more 5 oz. can of Solid White Tuna in Oil (collectively,
the "StarKist Products").

The deadline to file a claim is November 20, 2015.

The law firm that brought the suit, Bursor & Fisher, will get up
to $4 million, presumably all in cash.

Bursor & Fisher, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019
NY Office: 646-837-7150
CA Office: 925-300-4455
Email: info@bursor.com


SUN PHARMA: Faces Class Suit Over 2009 Plant Closures
-----------------------------------------------------
Archana Shukla, writing for CNBC, reported that pharmaceutical
major Sun Pharma is facing a class action suit in the United
States over plant closures that took place in 2009.

The case pertains to Sun Pharma's US subsidiary Caraco. The US
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled  that Caraco did not comply with
norms while closing two of its units in Detroit and Farmington
Hills.

The case is based on the fact that Caraco did not issue a Federal
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) notice to
its employees until 11 days after the plants were closed.

While the company claimed it had "extraordinary circumstances" as
its reason for filing the notice late, former employees sued the
company arguing that the plant was facing issues for years and had
been informed by the FDA that a seizure could take place if it
didn't mend ways with respect to its manufacturing.

In a statement given post market hours, the company said the
court's judgement does not have any material impact on its
performance or operations.


SUNSET GAS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Federico Guzman v. Sunset Gas & Food, Inc. and Tariq H. Haz, Case
No. 1:15-cv-23388-JAL (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a gas station and convenience store
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 230-4884
      Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
      E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


TARGET CORP: Law Firms Seek Class Cert. of Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twin Cities Business reported that the likelihood of a class
action lawsuit against Target over the 2013 data breach became
ever more present after a motion for class action status was
recently submitted to the U.S. District Court of Minnesota. Those
court filings were unsealed to the public.

Eleven law firms (the same that alleged Target was hiding related
information under a "confidential" status) are representing four
banks and a credit union as its lead plaintiffs, while also
acknowledging the thousands of financial institutions that
incurred monetary damages due to the breach.

TCB asked the potential class how much money it would be seeking
in damages, however a member of the counsel said the figure would
not be made public until a later date. But, as it is written in
the class certification filing, sought-after damages would cover
the costs of "cancelling and reissuing cards, reimbursing
customers for fraudulent transactions, and undertaking additional
customer service."

Co-lead counsel for the pending litigation, Charles Zimmerman and
Karl Cambronne said in a statement that they hope "the now-
unsealed motion for Class Certification shows how Target's
misconduct led to one of the largest data breaches in U.S.
history." Both lawyers made nods to Target's settlement
announcement with Visa for $67 million, which they called
"inadequate." They added, "it is no coincidence that Target set
its deadline to accept the settlement just a few days before the
Class Certification hearing."

Allan Erbsen, associate professor at the University of Minnesota's
law school, said the Court won't likely land on a decision for
quite some time. "Plaintiffs seek certification more often that
courts grant it," he said in an email. "The risks to Target are
especially acute because plaintiffs are sophisticated financial
institutions that are likely to pursue the case aggressively."

Within the 52-page court filing, lawyers gave particular focus to
what they call "Target's longstanding lackadaisical practices and
corporate attitudes toward securing sensitive payment card data."

Prior to the breach, Michael Salters, a group manager for Target's
security operations center, was quoted in the report having
testified that Target discovered unencrypted payment card
information that dated back "at least six or seven years" that was
easily accessible on servers belonging to 292 Target stores.

This prompted internal studies to be done by two third-party teams
on Target's cyber-security environment over the first eight months
of 2013, not long before the breach. According to the class
certification filing, the studies provided Target with more then
20 recommendations to beef up its cyber-security protocol, which
the plaintiff's lawyers believe would have prevented or minimized
the breach's impact.

One such recommendation was to use whitelisting -- a process of
automatically tasking programs to run in specific cases and
blocking other programs that are deemed unnecessary, which is
largely useful in identifying spam and malware. Instead, Target
de-prioritized this protocol, the filing said. In a March
testimony to the Senate Committee, recently appointed COO and
executive vice president John Mulligan of Target said whitelisting
would be part of the strategy for the retailer's cybersecurity
department moving forward.

The lengthy report includes summarized remarks from Nickolas
Kemske, the information protection and cybersecurity manager for
Target at the time of the breach. Kemske said there was no formal
process or procedure in place when it came to following up on
potential threats, or even a way to communicate any threats to
Target's senior executives.

Before the time of the breach, Target initiated a "system freeze"
-- a practice commonly done over the span of Target's higher-
profit seasons, but ultimately limits the retailer's ability to
make changes within its security systems. In this case, the
"system freeze" lasted from October 2013 to January 2014.
Questions about specifics on what a "system freeze" details and
why the retailer performs this operation during higher-profit
seasons was posed to Target, however Target did not provide a
response. Target's anti-virus provider, Symantec, was disabled
"until after black." Meanwhile, Target's use of a malware tool by
computer security firm FireEye had been limited to a state of
"detection mode." On top of that, the FireEye tool was not
integrated into Target's systems to send security alerts.

FireEye detected the hacker's presence as early as November 30 and
again on December 2, yet the program provided limited help to
Target's employees. It wasn't until the U.S. Secret Service
contacted Target on December 12 that the company moved to take
action. Ultimately, about 110 million people's private information
had been compromised.

When reaching out to Target regarding the allegations made in the
class certification filings, Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder gave
this statement: "Class action counsels' allegations are not new
and are drawn from old, and long-disputed, assertions. Target
rejects the arguments and characterizations. None of these
allegations are currently before the court for resolution. The
upcoming hearing is instead limited to whether a class should be
certified in this case or not. Target has filed its opposition to
class certification. As this is pending litigation, we are not in
a position to comment further."

In Target's first quarter report, the retailer said it had spent
$256 million of cumulative expenses, but received $90 million in
return for expected insurance recoveries. Its second quarter
report also listed a cumulative $21 million in pretax data breach-
related expenses, bringing the total to at least $187 million.

Target agreed to pay $2.8 million to settle a hiring
discrimination claim filed by the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The federal agency said it found
"reasonable cause to believe that three employment assessments
formerly used by Target disproportionately screened out applicants
for exempt-level professional positions based on race and sex."

The Securities and Exchange Commission said it would not penalize
Target over the data breach after its investigation. However,
other state and private entities are still conducting their own
investigations, which could lead to other settlement costs or
penalties for Target in the future.

Target's second quarter results ushered in signs of the retailer
finally rebounding from the effects of the breach. With a $400
million dollar increase in revenue from its 2014 Q2 results, CEO
Brian Cornell and COO Mulligan voiced plans to rebrand its grocery
and retail experience, saying the company has "much more to
accomplish."


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Preretirement Spousal Annuity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine H. Luciano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America
- College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAACREF), et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-06726-MAS-DEA (D.N.Y., September 8, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants illegally restrict the qualified preretirement
spousal annuity provided by Employment Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) for defined-contribution plans to no more than 50% of
the accumulated account of the Plan Participant.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America - College
Retirement Equities Fund is a non-profit institution in the field
of education and culture that provides savings, investment, and
retirement services to those institutions' employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederick B. Polak, Esq.
      POST, POLAK, GOODSELL, MACNEILL & STRAUCHLER, P.A.
      425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 200
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1717
      Telephone: (973) 228-9900
      E-mail: fbp@ppgms.com

         - and -

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      250 Pehle Ave. #401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com


THORATEC CORP: Class Suit Challenges Merger with St. Judge
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on
behalf of stockholders of Thoratec Corporation seeking to
challenge the Company's recently announced merger with St. Jude
Medical ("St. Jude").

If you would like to join the class action, please visit our
website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-
6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

On July 22, 2015, Thoratec and St. Jude announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which St. Jude will
acquire Thoratec in a merger worth $3.4 billion. As a result of
the merger, Thoratec shareholders are only anticipated to receive
$63.50 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Thoratec.
While the Company claims that shareholders will receive a premium
for their shares, the $63.50 per share consideration only
represents a 10.3% premium based on the Company's July 21, 2015
closing price of $57.58

On August 4, 2015, a Thoratec shareholder represented by another
law firm filed a class action complaint challenging Thoratec's
merger with St. Jude. The complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of California, Alameda County, Case No. RG15780585.

If you own shares of Thoratec and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/thoratec-class-action-investigation or contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. For more information please visit
our website at www.andrewsspringer.com.

Craig J. Springer, Esq
Andrews & Springer LLC
3801 Kennett Pike #305, Wilmington, DE 19807
1-800-423-6013
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
www.andrewsspringer.com


TINLEY PARK: Faces Class Suit on Overcharging Water Meter
---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Pratt and Joe Mahr, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported
that a lawsuit has been filed alleging that Tinley Park officials
for years misled residents while overcharging them for water --
the latest twist in the controversy surrounding the south suburb's
use of electronic water meters.

The lawsuit against the village seeks class-action status --
which, if approved by the court, could cover every Tinley Park
water user since 2005, who the lawsuit alleges were forced to
endure conduct by the village that was "unfair, immoral, unjust,
oppressive and unscrupulous."

The filing in Cook County Circuit Court comes two months after a
Tribune investigation chronicled widespread problems with Tinley
Park's so-called smart water meters. The Tribune found that the
suburb knew for years that its meters were prone to overbill
residents yet gave the public inaccurate assurances that the
meters worked fine. Along the way, Tinley Park officials
repeatedly under-refunded residents whose meters were
overcharging.

The village's public works director resigned in July amid
questions over his handling of the issue, and Tinley Park's
leaders have said it's a priority to figure out what went wrong,
fix it and properly refund residents.

The village hired a consulting firm and expects the company will
provide some of those answers by mid-September.

The lawsuit, filed by resident Omar Jaber, alleges that Tinley
Park violated the state's consumer fraud and deceptive business
practices act, breached an implied contract with residents by
using the meters and unjustly enriched itself.

"Although (Tinley Park) was aware of all the problems and the
unreliability of the meters, they chose to buy enough meters to
have one installed in every home," the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit also singles out "misleading" statements that Tinley
Park made to residents in an online FAQ.

Residents have a "right to know" about inaccuracies with the
village's smart meters, but Tinley Park failed to inform them "and
in fact concealed these facts" from them, according to the
lawsuit.

The village bought a smart meter for every residence "believing it
could substantially profit through 'smart meters,'" the plaintiff
alleges.

The lawsuit requests damages, an "immediate review, testing and
replacement of all 'smart meters'" and the establishment of a
trust from water bills to reimburse the class for overpayments.

Under the state's consumer fraud and deceptive business practices
act, the village could be liable if it knew its meters were
defective and didn't say anything with the intent of misleading
consumers, said DePaul University law professor Max Helveston.

Tinley Park also could be liable if it said something with the
intent to deceive. But if the evidence isn't clear-cut, the
village could argue, "Yeah, these meters were broken but we didn't
know better," he said.

Helveston said it will be interesting to see how the village
handles damages if it's found liable or if there's a settlement
because it could be difficult to figure out how much individual
residents deserve. It's possible, Helveston said, that the village
would end up creating a large cash fund for individuals, who would
then have to try to prove how much they were overcharged.

Adding more uncertainty to the bottom line for residents: The
lawsuit raises the possibility of the village being ordered to
replace the smart meters. The village has previously said it would
cost $4 million to replace the water meters, or the equivalent of
$179 a household. It's a cost that could be borne by water
customers themselves, as water rates are typically calculated in
ways that enough is collected to supply and maintain the system.

During a town hall meeting, Mayor Dave Seaman, who took office in
June, apologized to residents for the village's handling of
overcharging water meters.

The Tribune's investigation revealed more than 355 cases of meters
found to be overstating water flow since 2007 -- more than double
the 150 figure Tinley Park officials gave residents. That figure
doesn't count thousands more meter failures identified in village
documents that lack information showing how they broke, or 44 more
overcharging meters identified by the village.

Reached for comment, Seaman said he has not seen the complaint.

Larry Drury and John H. Alexander, attorneys for Jaber, could not
be immediately reached.


TWIN STONE: "Mancia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Arnaldo Mancia, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Twin Stone Designs and Installation, Inc., Mimato, Inc.,  Ignacio
Medina, Mayra Parente, and Miguel Matos, Case No. 1:15-cv-23376-
FAM (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a natural stone and tile business
carrying out installations at multiple locations throughout
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      Glades Twin Plaza
      2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


TYSON FOODS: Doesn't Have to Pay OT, 8th Circ. Rules
----------------------------------------------------
Josh Funk, writing for ABC News, reported that Tyson Foods doesn't
have to pay workers at two of its Nebraska plants for the time
they spend putting on and taking off safety gear and preparing for
work, a federal appeals court ruled.

The 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said lawsuits filed by
workers at its plants in Dakota City and Madison failed to show
that Tyson had agreed to pay them for that time. The decision
eliminates two lower-court decisions that ordered Tyson to pay
more than $20 million to the workers and their lawyers.

"We continue to believe we're paying our people appropriately and,
like other businesses, have strived to comply with federal wage
and hour laws that are not precise in describing what activities
should be compensated," Tyson spokesman Gary Mickelson said.

The Nebraska workers filed the lawsuits in 2008, saying they
should be paid for the roughly 30 minutes it takes to do pre- and
post-production chores, such as putting on uniforms and safety
gear, sanitizing equipment, sharpening knives and other duties. At
that time, Tyson paid workers for their time on the assembly line
plus four minutes for all such chores, but that's since been
increased to up to 20 minutes a day.

The federal court also found technical problems with the workers'
claims, saying the lawsuit was flawed because it was filed under
state law instead of federal labor laws and the plaintiffs failed
to file formal statements agreeing to be part of a class-action
lawsuit.

But the question over whether meatpackers are obligated to pay
workers for pre- and post-production chores may get a more
definitive answer soon, as the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to
hear a similar case this fall involving Tyson's plant in Storm
Lake, Iowa.

The 8th Circuit had upheld a ruling ordering Tyson to pay $5.8
million to workers who filed a class-action lawsuit. But the
Springdale, Arkansas-based company is challenging whether workers
should have been allowed to use statistics to determine damages
for an entire class-action lawsuit based on the average amount of
time that a sample of workers spent putting on and taking off
their safety gear.

In an unrelated case, Tyson settled a long dispute with the U.S.
Department of Labor in 2010 by agreeing to pay workers at some
poultry plants for time they spent putting on and taking off
protective clothing.

Similar lawsuits have been filed against other meatpacking
companies in Nebraska with mixed results. Cargill Meat settled a
lawsuit in 2011 by agreeing to pay workers $4 to $6 for each week
they were denied extra the extra pay since April 2006.


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Arbitrator Decides on Class Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Askanas, writing for The National Law Review, reported
that an employment arbitration agreement that incorporated the
American Arbitration Association's National Rules for the
Resolution of Employment Disputes vested the arbitrator with the
power to decide whether the agreement authorized class-wide
relief, the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Universal
Protection Service LP v. Superior Court, No. C078557 (Cal. Ct.
App. Aug. 18, 2015). The Court denied an employer's petition to
set aside the trial court's order compelling class arbitration and
ordered that the arbitrator should determine the class issue.

Background

Michael Parnow and others worked as armed security guards for
Universal Protection Service, LP. The guards provided their own
equipment, such as guns, handcuffs, and radios, and paid the costs
of maintaining their professional certifications. Universal did
not reimburse the guards for their equipment or training costs.

The guards signed an employment arbitration agreement covering all
claims related to their employment. The arbitration agreement did
not expressly address class arbitration or the arbitrator's
authority to decide jurisdictional and arbitrability issues.
However, the agreement provided that the American Arbitration
Association's National Rules for the Resolution of Employment
Disputes would apply to any arbitration.

Under the AAA Rules, the "arbitrator shall have the power to rule
on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with
respect to the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration
agreement." The AAA Rules also state that, with respect to class
claims, the arbitrator must first determine whether the applicable
arbitration clause permits arbitration to proceed on behalf of or
against a class.

The guards filed a class action against Universal for unreimbursed
business and training expenses, among other things. Universal
asked the trial court to order individual arbitration, and the
trial court denied the motion and ordered class arbitration.
Universal petitioned the appellate court to set aside the order as
unauthorized under the arbitration agreement.

Applicable Law

Generally, courts, not arbitrators, decide disputes about
arbitrability. BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S.
__, 188 L. Ed.2d 220, 228 (2014); see also Oxford Health Plans LLC
v. Sutter, 569 U.S. __, 186 L. Ed.2d 113, 119 n.2 (2013)
(questions of arbitrability are "presumptively for courts to
decide" absent "'clear[] and unmistakabl[e]' evidence that the
parties wanted an arbitrator to resolve the dispute").
However, when parties explicitly incorporate rules that empower an
arbitrator to decide issues of arbitrability, it serves as clear
and unmistakable evidence of the parties' intent to delegate such
issues to an arbitrator. Hartley v. Superior Court, 196 Cal. App.
4th 1249, 1256-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011).

Arbitrator Decides Arbitrability

Universal argued that, because the arbitration agreement was
silent about class actions, the arbitrator did not have the
authority to decide whether class arbitration was permitted. The
appellate court rejected Universal's argument.

The Court noted that Universal drafted the arbitration agreement
and specifically referenced the AAA rules. The AAA rules granted
the arbitrator the authority to decide threshold jurisdictional
issues, including whether class arbitration is permitted.
Accordingly, the arbitration agreement was not silent on the issue
of the arbitrability of class actions. The Court concluded that
the parties' "agreement to conduct their arbitration under the AAA
Rules constitute[d] clear and unmistakable evidence of their
shared intent that the arbitrator decide whether it permits
arbitration of class claims."

                            ***

Employers who incorporate the AAA Rules into an employment
arbitration agreement are giving the arbitrator the authority to
decide threshold jurisdictional issues, including the
arbitrability of class claims. To preclude class arbitration,
include a well-drafted class action waiver in arbitration
agreements. To give authority to a court to decide these threshold
issues, include the specific language in arbitrations agreements.


US MONEY: Faces Class Suit Over 'Deceptive Trade Practices'
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 6, 2015, attorneys of Steckler LLP filed a class action
complaint against U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. and Fidelity Gold &
Bullion, LLC in United States District Court for the Central
District of California in Los Angeles on behalf of consumers who
have made a purchase of commemorative coins since 2005 based on
allegedly misleading, deceitful sales tactics. The lawsuit is
seeking to enjoin the defendants from further solicitation,
restitution damages and punitive damages.

The case is Erica Stux v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. and Fidelity
Gold & Bullion, LLC; Central District of CA, Los Angeles Division;
Case No. 2:15-cv-05955.

The named plaintiff of the class action, Ms. Erica Stux, was
allegedly solicited over the phone by the defendant companies 14
times in 7 months, eventually purchasing over $250,000 worth of
coins. As the named plaintiff in the class action, Ms. Stux is
representing herself and others similarly situated.

The complaint further alleged that Ms. Stux and the plaintiffs
made these purchases "as investments" after the defendant
organizations used "misinformation" to sell the coins. According
to the complaint, upon appraisal of Ms. Stux coins, the coins were
found to be worth less than 1/3 of what Ms. Stux was asked to pay.
In the complaint, Ms. Stux denies being told the market value of
the coins was substantially less than the purchase price, the
value of the coins would have to double twice to merely recoup
their value, or the purchases would not result in any profit if
she decided to sell the coins. Rather, the complaint alleges, the
defendant companies described gold bullion coin investment
strategy, such as gold's price rising during economic downturns,
which is not applicable advice in regards to commemorative coins,
which the plaintiffs were sold.

The grounds of the lawsuit are negligence, unjust enrichment, and
violation of Cal. Civ. Code S. 1950, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code S 17200,
and Federal RICO laws (18 U.S.C. S 1960). The RICO grounds allege
the defendants engaged in racketeering activities (an advertising
and sales campaign of omissions, semi-truths, and misdirection)
that affected interstate commerce and used interstate wires and/or
mails to further these activities.

Individuals who were granted relief from the U.S. Money Reserve's
2010 restitution settlement are exempt from the current class
action.

For more information contact Steckler LLP though this webpage
http://www.stecklerlaw.com/contact-usor call 855-STECKLER (855-
783-2553). Morgan & Morgan is currently working with Steckler LLP
on this case.

*Erica Stux v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc. and Fidelity Gold &
Bullion, LLC; Central District of CA, Los Angeles Division; Case
No. 2:15-cv-05955*

Steckler LLP
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230
Phone:+1 855-783-2553
www.stecklerlaw.com


VASCO DATA: Faces "Rossbach" Class Action in N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on
July 28, 2015 a putative class action complaint was filed in the
United State District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
captioned Linda J. Rossbach v. Vasco Data Security International,
Inc., et al., case number 1:15-cv-06605, naming VASCO and certain
of its current executive officers alleging violations under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The suit was
purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative class of
investors who purchased VASCO securities between February 18, 2014
and July 21, 2015, and seeks to recover damages allegedly caused
by the defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees. Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be
predicted with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit
is without merit and intends to defend against the action
vigorously.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett's Tobacco Product Liability Legal Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 for the three months
ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, Liggett incurred
tobacco product liability legal expenses and other litigation
costs totaling $3,158,000 and $1,817,000.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette
manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct,
third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged
to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen
into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases
alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual
plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by individuals
requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle progeny
cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging
personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing
medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the
terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and
unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal
law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery
actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental
plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement
for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking
and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery
Actions"). With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs
and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation
increase. The future financial impact of the risks and expenses of
litigation are not quantifiable.

For the three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively,
Liggett incurred tobacco product liability legal expenses and
other litigation costs totaling $3,158,000 and $1,817,000. For the
six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, Liggett incurred tobacco
product liability legal expenses and other litigation costs
totaling $5,713,000 and $5,174,000.


VECTOR GROUP: 21 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 judgments have been
entered against Liggett and other industry defendants in Engle
progeny cases. A number of the judgments have been affirmed on
appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of June 30, 2015, 21
Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a defendant at trial
resulted in verdicts.

Fourteen verdicts were returned in favor of the plaintiffs
(although in two of these cases (Irimi and Cohen), the court
granted defendants' motion for a new trial and another (Putney)
was reversed on appeal) and seven in favor of Liggett. In certain
cases, the judgments entered have been joint and several with
other defendants. In four of the cases, punitive damages were
awarded against Liggett. Except as discussed regarding the cases
where an adverse verdict was entered against Liggett and that
remain on appeal, management is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss from the remaining Engle progeny cases as
there are currently multiple defendants in each case and, in most
cases, discovery has not occurred or is limited. As a result, the
Company lacks information about whether plaintiffs are in fact
Engle class members (non-class members' claims are generally time-
barred), the relevant smoking history, the nature of the alleged
injury and the availability of various defenses, among other
things. Further, plaintiffs typically do not specify their demand
for damages.

Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing
litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant
challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle
progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past
litigation experience will be representative of future results.
Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in
Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those
judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is
possible that the consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially
adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any
of the remaining smoking-related litigation.

Liggett believes, and has been so advised by counsel, that it has
valid defenses to the litigation pending against it, as well as
valid bases for appeal of adverse verdicts. All such cases are,
and will continue to be, vigorously defended. Liggett may,
however, enter into settlement discussions in particular cases if
it believes it is in its best interest to do so, including the
remaining Engle progeny cases.

As of June 30, 2015, Liggett (and in certain cases the Company)
had, on an individual basis, settled 163 Engle progeny cases for
approximately $3,456 in the aggregate. Two of those settlements
occurred in the second quarter of 2015. In October 2013, Liggett
announced a settlement of the claims of over 4,900 Engle progeny
plaintiffs.


VECTOR GROUP: 52 Individual Actions Pending Against Liggett
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 as of June 30, 2015,
there were 52 Individual Actions pending against Liggett and, in
certain cases, the Company, where one or more individual
plaintiffs allege injury resulting from cigarette smoking,
addiction to cigarette smoking or exposure to secondary smoke and
seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. These
cases do not include approximately 300 Engle progeny cases or the
approximately 100 individual cases pending in West Virginia state
court as part of a consolidated action.

The following table lists the number of Individual Actions by
state:

State          Number of Cases

Florida              28
Maryland             10
New York              8
Louisiana             2
West Virginia         2
Missouri              1
Ohio                  1

The plaintiffs' allegations of liability in cases in which
individuals seek recovery for injuries allegedly caused by
cigarette smoking are based on various theories of recovery,
including negligence, gross negligence, breach of special duty,
strict liability, fraud, concealment, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, common law public nuisance, property damage, invasion
of privacy, mental anguish, emotional distress, disability, shock,
indemnity, violations of deceptive trade practice laws, the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), state RICO statutes and antitrust statutes.

In many of these cases, in addition to compensatory damages,
plaintiffs also seek other forms of relief including
treble/multiple damages, medical monitoring, disgorgement of
profits and punitive damages. Although alleged damages often are
not determinable from a complaint, and the law governing the
pleading and calculation of damages varies from state to state and
jurisdiction to jurisdiction, compensatory and punitive damages
have been specifically pleaded in a number of cases, sometimes in
amounts ranging into the hundreds of millions and even billions of
dollars.

Defenses raised in Individual Actions include lack of proximate
cause, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or
contributory negligence, lack of design defect, statute of
limitations, equitable defenses such as "unclean hands" and lack
of benefit, failure to state a claim and federal preemption.


VECTOR GROUP: $3.4MM Annual Payments in Engle Progeny Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 Engle Progeny
Settlement, the Company's future payments will be approximately
$3,400,000 per annum through 2028, with a cost of living increase
beginning in 2021.

In October 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with
approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a
total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately
$61,600,000 paid in a lump sum and the balance to be paid in
installments over 14 years, starting in February 2015.

In exchange, the claims of over 4,900 plaintiffs were dismissed
with prejudice against the Company and Liggett.

Due to the settlement, in 2013 the Company recorded a charge of
$86,213,000, of which $25,213,000 is related to certain payments
discounted to their present value. The present value of the
installment payments was computed using an 11% annual discount
rate. The Company recorded an additional charge of $643,000 in the
first quarter of 2015 for additional cases joining the settlement
and the restructuring of certain payments related to several
previously settled cases. The installment payments total
approximately $48,000,000 on an undiscounted basis. The Company's
future payments will be approximately $3,400,000 per annum through
2028, with a cost of living increase beginning in 2021.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlement, approximately 300 plaintiffs' claims remain
outstanding. Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be
subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material
adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

Through June 30, 2015, Liggett paid $20,312,000, including
interest and legal fees, to satisfy the judgments in seven Engle
progeny cases (Lukacs, Campbell, Douglas, Clay, Tullo, Ward and
Rizzuto).

The Company's potential range of loss in the Putney, Calloway,
Buchanan, Cohen, Irimi, Lambert, Boatright and Caprio cases is
between $0 and $28,254,000 in the aggregate, plus interest and
legal fees. In determining the range of loss, the Company
considers potential settlements as well as future appellate
relief.  The Company is unable to determine a range of loss
related to the remaining Engle progeny cases. No amounts have been
expensed or accrued in the condensed consolidated financial
statements for the cases described above. However, as cases
proceed through the appellate process, the Company will consider
accruals on a case-by-case basis if an unfavorable outcome becomes
probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated.


VECTOR GROUP: Four Class Actions Pending Against Liggett
--------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 as of June 30, 2015,
there were four actions pending for which either a class had been
certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where
Liggett is a named defendant, including one alleged price fixing
case. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these
actions.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.
Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.

In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported
personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff
and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not
themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to
secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the
defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of
that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class
certification hearing has been held. In 2013, plaintiffs' filed a
motion to stay the case. The defendants did not oppose the motion
and the stay was entered by the court.

In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a class was commenced
on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have
personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke
and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in
compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is
stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the
defendants.

In February 2000, in Smith v. Philip Morris, a case pending in
Kansas, a class was commenced against cigarette manufacturers
alleging they conspired to fix cigarette prices in violation of
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount
in actual and punitive damages. Class certification was granted in
November 2001. In January 2012, the trial court heard oral
argument on defendants' motions for summary judgment and in March
2012, the court granted the motions and dismissed plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice. In July 2014, the court of appeals affirmed
the lower court's decision. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a
petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court which was denied
in June 2015.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain common issues. In
January 2002, the court severed Liggett from the trial of the
consolidated action. After two mistrials, on May 15, 2013, the
jury rejected all but one of the plaintiffs' claims, finding for
the plaintiffs on the claim that ventilated filter cigarettes sold
between 1964 and 1969 should have included instructions on how to
use them. The issue of damages was reserved for further
proceedings. The court entered judgment in October 2013,
dismissing all claims except the ventilated filter claim. The
judgment was affirmed on appeal and remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings. In April 2015 the plaintiffs filed a
petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court
and the Supreme Court declined review.

On July 13, 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope of the
remaining ventilated cigarette filter claim and determined that
only 30 plaintiffs have viable claims against the non-Liggett
defendants and the trial court set tentative dates for
consolidated trials of those claims for June 13, 2016 and December
4, 2016. With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that
Liggett and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett
survive given the outcome of the first phase of the trial.
Briefing of that issue is underway. When the case proceeds against
Liggett, it is estimated that Liggett could be a defendant in less
than 25 of the remaining individual cases.

Class action suits have been filed in a number of states against
cigarette manufacturers, alleging, among other things, that use of
the terms "lights" and "ultra lights" constitutes unfair and
deceptive trade practices. In December 2008, the United States
Supreme Court, in Altria Group v. Good, ruled that the Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act did not preempt the state
law claims asserted by the plaintiffs and that they could proceed
with their claims under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act. The
Good decision resulted in the filing of additional "lights" class
action cases in other states against other cigarette
manufacturers. Although Liggett was not a defendant in the Good
case, and is not currently a defendant in any other "lights" class
actions, an adverse ruling or commencement of additional "lights"
related class actions could have a material adverse effect on the
Company.

In addition to the cases described, numerous class actions remain
certified against other cigarette manufacturers. Adverse decisions
in these cases could have a material adverse affect on Liggett's
sales volume, operating income and cash flows.


VECTOR GROUP: Suit by Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. 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 as of June 30, 2015,
there was one remaining Health Care Cost Recovery Action pending
against Liggett, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. American Tobacco
Company, a South Dakota case filed in 1997, where the plaintiff
seeks to recover damages based on various theories of recovery as
a result of alleged sales of tobacco products to minors. The case
is inactive. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named as
defendants.

The claims asserted in health care cost recovery actions vary, but
can include the equitable claim of indemnity, common law claims of
negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied
warranty, breach of special duty, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, conspiracy, public nuisance, claims under state
and federal statutes governing consumer fraud, antitrust,
deceptive trade practices and false advertising, and claims under
RICO. Although no specific damage amounts are typically pleaded,
it is possible that requested damages might be in the billions of
dollars.

In these cases, plaintiffs typically assert equitable claims that
the tobacco industry was "unjustly enriched" by their payment of
health care costs allegedly attributable to smoking and seek
reimbursement of those costs. Relief sought by some, but not all,
plaintiffs include punitive damages, multiple damages and other
statutory damages and penalties, injunctions prohibiting alleged
marketing and sales to minors, disclosure of research,
disgorgement of profits, funding of anti-smoking programs,
additional disclosure of nicotine yields, and payment of attorney
and expert witness fees.


VIVUS INC: Securities Related Class Action Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, 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 securities related class
action is now concluded.

The Company, a current officer and a former officer were
defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in
November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended based on allegedly
false or misleading statements made by the defendants in
connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug
Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The
Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action
Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal
was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants
the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Following briefing of the appeal, the Court of Appeals held oral
argument on January 16, 2015. On January 29, 2015, the Court of
Appeals issued a Memorandum decision affirming the District
Court's ruling. On February 12, 2015, plaintiff asked the Court of
Appeals' panel to rehear the case or for the Court to rehear the
case en banc. The Ninth Circuit rejected that petition on March
16, 2015, and the time for further appeal has expired. The matter
is, accordingly, now concluded.


VIVUS INC: New Pleadings Due in "Jasin" Action
----------------------------------------------
Vivus, 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 new pleading were due to be filed
by August 14, 2015.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114 cv 261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal. With the
demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, in an action captioned Jasin v. VIVUS,
Inc., Case No. 5:14 cv 03263. The Jasins' federal complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially
similar to those alleged in their state court action. On September
15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs
moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, the state court
action.

In the federal action, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
November 12, 2014. On December 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Complaint in the federal action.

On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint. By Order dated June 18, 2015, the Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety, but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their pleading. If
plaintiffs elect to amend their complaint further, the new
pleading were due to be filed by August 14, 2015.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot
predict whether the Jasin plaintiffs will amend their complaint,
and cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit if they do; however,
the Company and the defendant former officers and directors
believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to continue
vigorously to defend against the claims.


WAEL AHMAD: Sued by Immigrants for Fraud
----------------------------------------
Andrew Wolfson, writing for The Courier Journal, reported that a
Kentucky immigration lawyer has been accused of allegedly taking
fees from possibly hundreds of clients to block their deportation,
knowing they were not eligible to stay in the United States.

The claims come in a lawsuit filed in federal court that charges
Lexington attorney Wael "Wally" Ahmad and an associate broke
federal laws by filing forms to stop the removal of clients they
knew weren't eligible.

The suit, filed Aug. 17 in U.S. District Court in Lexington, asks
for triple damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, which allows plaintiffs to sue for allegations
involving systematic violations of  criminal law.

In an interview, Ahmad said the suit is "completely without merit"
and that the same allegations were made in an anonymous complaint
to the Kentucky Bar Association that he said was dismissed.

The complaint, filed on behalf of two immigrants and potentially
more, says Ahmad took fees from clients knowing they didn't meet
qualifications for staying in the U.S. that include living here
continuously for 10 years and having a parent, child or spouse who
is U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Seeking to have case made into a class action, the suits says
there are "hundreds of individuals who have been damaged by the
defendants' conduct" and that it is impossible for them to sue
individually because they are poor and have limited command of
English. Some may already have been removed or left the U.S., the
suit says.

Samual Rock, a Lexington immigration and tax lawyer who filed the
suit, along with Louisville lawyers Christina Norris and Dean
Furman, said clients paid $1,500 to $6,000 in fees to the Ahmad
Law Office.

The plaintiffs, Porfirio Nevada Martin, Carlos Alberto Macias
Ramirez and unknown class participants, also allege that Ahmad
filed forms with U.S. Customs and Immigration Services to block
removal of clients but didn't apply to the U.S. Immigration Court
for that relief, as required by law.

Rock said in an interview that Ahmad didn't file with the court
because "that would have put people on to his scam."

By filing the forms with Customs and Immigration Services, Ahmad
was able to get clients renewable one-year permits for them to
work legally in the U.S. But Rock said they eventually realized
they still faced removal because their cases had never been
presented in court. And he said they then consulted with other
immigration lawyers in Lexington and Louisville.

Louisville attorneys Ron Russell and Jeff McClain said they have
been consulted by some of Ahmad's former clients and McClain said
"I have a lot of clients leave us to go there after we say we
can't help them."

Ahmad said in an interview that he filed forms for some clients
who weren't eligible to protect them if they later became eligible
by marrying or having a child with a qualified resident or
citizen.

"I don't think I did anything unethical or illegal," he said.

He also said that he also wanted to protect immigrants who  are
now eligible to stay in the U.S. under policy changes announced
year by President Barack Obama.

"The government doesn't want to deport people any more," he said,
adding that his strategy allows immigrants to work and drive
legally, protecting American citizens.

But Betsy Lawrence, a staff attorney with the Washington-based
American Immigration Lawyers Association, of which Ahmad is a
member, said immigrants must be eligible at the time the
application is filed -- and their case must be simultaneously
filed in Immigration Court.

The plaintiffs accuse Ahmad and his firm of fraud and violation
the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

The suit says knowingly filing a cancellation of removal form
containing false information is a federal offense. Christopher
Bentley, a spokesman for Customs and Immigration, said it does not
comment on pending litigation.

Ahmad, a graduate of University of Kentucky and UK law school who
was admitted to practice in 2000, is licensed and in good
standing. He suggested the suit may have been inspired by
competitive jealousy.

"If that is what this is about, it is a very sad commentary,"
Ahmad said.

Rock, who said he does principally tax work for immigrants, denies
that competition has anything to do with the complaint.

He said some of Ahmad's former clients are confused, while others
are angry.

"Some of them are pretty upset," he said.


WASHTENAW COUNTY, MI: Sued to Make Sidewalks ADA-Compliant
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Stanton, writing for MLive, reported that the Ann Arbor
Center for Independent Living has filed a class-action lawsuit in
hopes of bringing all Washtenaw County sidewalks, bus stops and
street crossings into compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The plaintiffs held a press conference afternoon at the
intersection of Washtenaw Avenue and Golfside Road to announce the
federal case, which has been assigned to Judge Paul Borman in U.S.
District Court.

Using the intersection as one example of what they say is a
widespread problem, the plaintiffs demonstrated some of the access
barriers they're challenging.

Joining the Center for Independent Living as plaintiffs are the
Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America and various individuals
with disabilities.

Two of those individuals, James Briggs and Christopher Cooley,
were on hand to show the challenges they face crossing the
intersection.

The CIL and the MPVA successfully brought similar lawsuits against
the cities of Monroe, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti more than a decade
ago.

The new suit names the Michigan Department of Transportation,
Washtenaw County Road Commission, Pittsfield Township and
Ypsilanti Township as defendants.

"Each year, each defendant resurfaces pedestrian crossings,
installs new curb cuts and new sidewalks, and resurfaces
pedestrian crossings throughout Washtenaw County," the complaint
states. "However, many of these new curb cuts and sidewalks
violate clear accessibility standards and are dangerous to
pedestrians with disabilities."

The lawsuit continues, "Also, defendants are refusing to install
many curb cuts required by law. As a direct result, a quarter of a
century after passage of the ADA, throughout Washtenaw County's
public right-of-way, thousands of access barriers segregate
pedestrians with disabilities from safely using sidewalks,
crossing streets, accessing public transit, and reaching area
businesses and residences."

The lawsuit and attached exhibits highlight several locations
where the plaintiffs allege the defendants have failed to meet ADA
construction standards.

The plaintiffs say out-of-court settlement discussions have been
unsuccessful, leading to the lawsuit.

Roy Townsend, managing director of the Road Commission, said he
hasn't seen the lawsuit yet so he couldn't comment.

Tim Fischer, a spokesman for MDOT, said on that MDOT was just
learning about the lawsuit.

He said in a statement that MDOT has had a barrier-free curb
policy for decades and it closely follows the letter and spirit of
the ADA.

"MDOT strives to make our transportation system safe and
accessible for all users," he said. "Our current ADA ramps,
landings, placements and grading details are based on years of
research and comply with the act."

Pittsfield Township Supervisor Mandy Grewal and Ypsilanti Township
Supervisor Brenda Stumbo, both of whom are named in the suit,
couldn't be reached.

Carolyn Grawi, executive director of the Center for Independent
Living, explained some of the challenges with the intersection of
Golfside and Washtenaw on.

She noted the intersection is on the border of the two townships,
and Washtenaw Avenue is a state road managed by MDOT. She said the
Road Commission completed the work on the crossings that they're
complaining about.

"From the west side, if you're coming from over by the Washtenaw
County Service Center or the Starbucks in that little strip mall
that's there and you were coming east on Washtenaw, when you get
to Golfside, the sidewalk ends and there's just a drop off," Grawi
said. "There's nowhere to go. There's no direction to say please
go around this, the other direction, or anything like that, so
that's an issue."

She added, "If you cross from the east side of the street to the
west side of the street, you come into a wall and there's no
direction again."

Mark Finnegan, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said he's tried
for several months to get deep cracks and holes in the crosswalk
fixed. He and his paralegal demonstrated on how a wheelchair can
get stuck in the cracks.

Grawi, who is legally blind, also demonstrated how it's a
challenge for her to cross given the various barriers, including
the cracks and the fact that, going from east to west, the
crossing just leads to a wall that requires going around and
crossing through a gas station parking lot to continue on the
sidewalk. She also pointed out the crosswalk approaches are at
angles that present additional challenges.

Grawi said another really bad intersection for people with
disabilities is at Hewitt Road and Washtenaw Avenue.

Michael Harris, executive director of the MPVA, said in a
statement that, due to advanced field medicine, veterans survive
war injuries like never before.

"This means that accessible sidewalks are now even more important
for paralyzed and other disabled veterans to independently access
their community without facing architectural barriers," he said.
"Unfortunately, Washtenaw County's sidewalks, bus stops and street
crossings still suffer from hundreds of access barriers risking
our safety and hindering us. The state and local governments must
work together to make our sidewalks accessible to veterans and all
other pedestrians with disabilities."


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Suit Over FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR Check, reported that a federal
court in Virginia has denied a motion for summary judgment in a
class action complaint that claims Wells Fargo Bank violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when preforming background checks
on job applicants by coding some as "ineligible" prompting adverse
action and including a release of liability in authorization
forms.

In the decision in Manuel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Senior
United States District Judge Robert E. Payne denied the

Defendant's motion for summary judgement in the case that alleges
Wells Fargo violated the FCRA 15 USC Section  1681 et seq on two
counts:

   -- Count One alleges a violation of Section 1681b (b) (2) (A)
of the FCRA, which requires that "a person may not procure a
consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for
employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless: (i) a
clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the
consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be
procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure,
that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes;
and (ii) the consumer has authorized in writing (which
authorization may be made on the document referred to in clause
(i)) the procurement of the report by that person."

   -- Count Two alleges a violation Section 1682b(b) (3) (A) (i)
of the FCRA. Section 1681b (b) (3) (A) {i) requires that "in using
a consumer report for employment purposes, before taking any
adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person
intending to take such adverse action shall provide to the
consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a copy of the report; and
(ii) a description in writing of the rights of the consumer under
this subchapter, as presented by the Bureau under section 1681g(c)
(3) of this title."

The plaintiff was offered a job with Wells Fargo based upon the
successful completion of a background check. The plaintiff
completed a consent form on Wells Fargo's third-party background
check vendor website which contained language releasing Wells
Fargo, its vendor, and third parties from liability arising from
the background check.

When the background check revealed several convictions on the
plaintiff's record, Wells Fargo coded the plaintiff as
"ineligible" which prompted their background check vendor to begin
the "adverse action" protocol. The plaintiff received a "Pre-
Adverse Action Notice," a copy of the report, and a summary of
rights under the FCRA.

The plaintiff disputed the report and appealed pursuant to Wells
Fargo's appeal process.  The vendor then generated a revised
report that still contained the disputed convictions, and Wells
Fargo sent an adverse action notice to the plaintiff advising him
that Wells Fargo would not consider him further for the employment
position.

The plaintiff claims Wells Fargo violated the FCRA requirement of
"a clear and conspicuous" disclosure in a document that consists
solely of a disclosure that a background check may be obtained
because that documents also contained language releasing the
company and others from liability arising from the background
check.

The plaintiff also claims that Wells Fargo's coding of him as
"ineligible" in the background check vendor's system and
initiating the adverse action protocol violated the FCRA
requirement that the pre-adverse action notice, a copy of the
report, and summary of rights be provided to the individual before
the adverse action is taken.

In denying the motion for summary judgement, the court found that
the plaintiff could assert claims that the initial disclosure was
not in a document consisting solely of the disclosure and that the
"ineligible" coding was an adverse action under the FCRA. The
decision is available at
http://www.esrcheck.com/file/Manuel_v_WellsFargo.pdf.

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) reminds readers that any
allegations made in class action lawsuits are not proof that a
business or background check vendor violated any law, rule, or
regulation. For more blogs about FCRA class action lawsuits, visit
http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/class-action-lawsuits/.


                            *********

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  * * *