CAR_Public/150922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, September 22, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 189


                            Headlines


ABENGOA SA: Faces "Lamoureaux" Securities Suit in N.Y. Court
ABENGOA SA: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Summary Judgment in Promo GCs Suit Denied
ACCELERATED BUY: "Reynolds Holding" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
ADVANTAGE HUMAN: Final Approval Hearing Set for January 28

ACT INC: 1st Cir. Affirms Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
AETNA LIFE: Sued for Denying Depression Treatment
AETNA LIFE: Court Grants Motions to Dismiss "Mattson" Case
AG WEST: "Jenkins" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
AMERICAN AIR LIQUIDE: "Brackin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Cone" Lawsuit for Alleged Price Fixing
APPLE INC: Appeal Over False Ad Class Suit Rejected
APPLE INC: Court Approves $415-Mil. Employee Poaching Class Deal
ARGON INDUSTRIES: "Johannsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ARIELLA EVENTS: "Ozturk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

AUTO CLUB: "Rothstein" Suit Seeks Damages Over Undisclosed Fees
BB&T CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over ERISA Violations
BC HYDRO: Faces Class Suit Over Power Outage Causing Spoiled Food
BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS: Faces "Munoz" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Nelson" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing

BUMBLE BEE: Accused of Conspiracy to Fix Prices of Packed Seafood
BUMBLE BEE: Sued for Alleged Price Fixing of Packaged Seafood
C&R DOWNHOLE: Faces "Blackford" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
CALIFORNIA: State Prison Settles Solitary Confinement Class Suit
CANADA POST: Faces Class Suit in Quebec Over Mailboxes

CHOICE HOTEL: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Paternostro"
CONCORD, AR: Sued Over City Employees' 'Illegal Activity'
CONFORMIS INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
DEL MONTELL: "Herrera" Suit Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Code
DIOSDADO BANATAO: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties

E&T CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Ruling Raises Uncertainty in Insurance Policies
EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Class Suit Over Defective Touch System Dismissed
GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Faces Class Suit Over Fund Mismanagement

HOME DEPOT: Bid to Dismiss FCRA Violation Claims Denied
JEFFBOAT AMERICAN: Request for Appointment of Counsel Denied
LANDS' END: Seeks Dismissal of "Made in U.S.A." Class Suit
LHC GROUP: Court Rules on Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Ruling
MASSACHUSETTS: WilmerHale Fees Granted in Ford v. Bender Case

MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
NARCONON: Court Shelves Ruling on Arbitration Bid
NEW JERSEY: Judge Dismisses Drisco Complaint with Leave to Amend
NEW SOUTH WALES: Police Faces Class Suit Over 'Wrongful Arrest'

NFL INC: DNW Foods Alleges Monopoly by DirectTV of NFL Games
NORTHWEST BIO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
ONTARIO, CANADA: Nov. 30 Opt Out Date in First Nations Suit
PHILADELPHIA: Tate-Brown's Family Files Federal Class Suit
PLAINS ALL: Berstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Suit

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Upaid Insurance Policies
ROCKPORT FINANCIAL: Parties to Address Continuance of Stay
SAN DIEGO, CA: Suit Targets Exams at Polinsky Children Center
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued Over 'Useless Insurance Add-on'
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Court Denies Motions to Dismiss and Transfer

SHIPLEY DONUTS: Faces "Castrejon" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
SONY PICTURES: Settlement in Hacked Employee Data Suit Inked
STAPLES INC: Driver's Wage Class Suit Dismissed
SWISHER HYGIENE: Faces "Berger" Shareholder Suit Over Assets Sale
TENNESSEE: School Funding Suit Awaits Certification

TIMBERTECH LTD: CPG's Motion to Strike Class Allegations Denied
TRINET GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
UBER: Will Likely Appeal California Drivers' Class Certification
UCLA HEALTH: "KoCi" Sues Over Cyber Breach of Network Systems
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: To Settle Royalties Class Suit With Artists

VIRGINIA: Regional Jail Suit Seeking Class Status
WAYFAIR INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: Fraud Lawsuit Granted Class Status
XOMA CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
YELP INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Curry" Case Moved


                            *********


ABENGOA SA: Faces "Lamoureaux" Securities Suit in N.Y. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Lamoureaux, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Abengoa, S.A., Santiago Seage, Manuel
Sanchez Ortega, Barbara Zubiria and Ignacio Garcia Alvear, Case
1:15-cv-06971 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2015), was filed on behalf of a
purported class of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Abengoa American Depositary Shares between October 17,
2013 and August 2, 2015, inclusive.

Abengoa is a Spanish multinational corporation with U.S.
headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. Its subsidiaries operate in
the energy, telecommunications, transportation, and the
environmental arenas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Steven P. Harte, Esq.
     Erica Langsen, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, Massachusetts 02110
     Tel: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
             Steven@blockesq.com
             Erica@blockesq.com


ABENGOA SA: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, has filed a class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws against Abengoa SA and
three of its current or former officers, one of whom is also a
member of its board of directors.

The case is pending in the United District Court for the Southern
District of New York and is captioned Lamoureaux v. Abengoa SA et
al, Case Number 1:15-cv-06971.  Shareholders have until October 9,
2015, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in this action.  The
Complaint was brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Abengoa's securities (the "Class") between
October 13, 2013 and August 2, 2015 (the "Class Period"). This
Class Period has been extended and is currently the longest Class
Period of any related complaint against the Company on file.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to fully disclose
material information with regard to the true state of Abengoa's
financial affairs and that the Company misrepresented its
liquidity.

On July 31, 2015, Abengoa announced that it was lowering its free
cash flow guidance and planned to divest itself of approximately
400 million euros in assets, despite recent announcements that
"our business model is all set to enhance our free cash flow".  On
July 31, 2015, Company CEO Santiago Seage, stated that although
the Company had issued the reduced guidance, Abengoa "has no plan
to tap the capital markets in any manner".

Just days later, on August 3, 2015, the Company reversed course
and announced a share issuance plan for 650 million euros, and
increased its planned asset divestiture to 500 million euros.  In
addition to contradicting the CEO's announcement of three days'
prior, it seemed to call into question Abengoa's May 2015
representations that it had at least 400 million of undrawn
working capital lines.

Following the July 31 and August 3, 2015 announcements, an August
11, 2015  Bloomberg report announced that Abengoa's top
shareholder, Inversion Corporativa, holder of 57.5% of the
Company's outstanding stock, had pledged 28.2 million Class A
Abengoa shares and 115.6 million Class B Abengoa shares to banks
as guarantees for loans.  A substantial portion of these pledges,
16.9 million Class A and 83 million Class B shares, are guarantees
for debt taken by a subsidiary of Inversion.

Since the initial news, the Company's shares have dropped
precipitously in value by approximately 61%.  Plaintiff seeks to
recover monetary damages on behalf of all Class members.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Abengoa during the Class Period, you have until
October 9, 2015 to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in this
action.  This deadline is mandated by federal law and cannot be
extended.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however,
affected by the decision to serve or seek appointment as lead
plaintiff and you have the right to hire an attorney of your own.

If you have questions about the lawsuit, would like a copy of the
Complaint, possess information relevant to this investigation, or
seek information about any of the foregoing, please contact
attorney Steven P. Harte, at (617) 398-5600 or email him at
Steven@blockesq.com.

Block & Leviton is also experienced at representing whistleblowers
and encourages any insiders with information about the allegations
to contact them.  Confidentiality is assured.

Steven Harte, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal St Suite 400, Boston, MA 02110
(617) 398-5600
Steven@blockesq.com


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Summary Judgment in Promo GCs Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stpehanie N. Grimoldby, writing for Cook County Records, reported
that a woman suing Abercrombie & Fitch over the retailer's
decision to void promotional gift cards after the cards'
expiration dates still has more work to do to prove the retailer
did anything wrong, a federal judge said in denying the woman's
request for summary judgment in her breach of contract class
action against the retailer.

U.S. District Judge John J. Tharp Jr., ruling in Chicago's federal
court Aug. 28, said Tiffany Boundas failed to provide undisputed
evidence Abercrombie had entered into a contract with her and
class members to honor gift cards indefinitely.

He also indicated Abercrombie may have the upperhand in the
lawsuit altogether.

"Based on the undisputed facts in the record, Boundas has not met
her burden to demonstrate that no reasonable jury could find for
Abercrombie," Tharp wrote in his opinion. "Indeed, it appears that
judgment in favor of Abercrombie may be warranted."

According to the lawsuit, Boundas, her daughter, Taylor, and her
friend, Dorothy Stojka, shopped on Dec. 15, 2009, at A&F's Oak
Brook store. After purchasing $328 worth of merchandise, a
salesclerk provided Stojka with two gift cards worth a total of
$75, and Stojka in turn gave the gift cards to Boundas.

The gift cards were part of a holiday promotion from late November
through late December 2009 in which customers were eligible to
receive a $25 gift card for every $100 spent in a single
transaction. The terms of the promotion, which court documents
noted were displayed throughout the store, on Abercrombie's
website, Facebook page and related emails, and printed on sleeves
in which the gift cards were distributed, stated the gift card
expiration date was Jan. 30, 2010.

However, the cards read, "no expiration date," on the back.

In April 2010, Boundas attempted to redeem her gift cards, but an
Abercrombie associate told her the cards had expired. She made a
purchase of approximately $100 without using the gift cards and
later reached out to Abercrombie's customer service department,
asserting the gift cards should have been valid because they
stated they had no expiration date. After failing to persuade the
company to honor what she believed were the correct terms, she
filed a class action complaint in DuPage County.

Tharp wrote no breach of contract took place under Illinois law.
An offer was provided by Abercrombie and accepted by Boundas in
the form of a sales transaction in which she purchased the
required amount of goods to be rewarded with the appropriate
number of gift cards.

"The question, then, is whether the terms of the contract between
Abercrombie and its qualifying customers promised a gift card that
was valid through January 30, 2010, or one that had no expiration
date," Tharp wrote.

Boundas accepted the transaction between her and Abercrombie had
been made under the terms of the holiday promotion: spend $100,
receive a $25 gift card valid through Jan. 30, 2010.

However, she also maintained a separate contract existed within
the body of the gift card itself, and that the terms in that
contract -- namely, the phrase "no expiration date" printed on the
card -- should be honored.

Tharp disagreed.

"Boundas's separate contract theory goes off the rails almost
immediately, however, because she fails to explain how
Abercrombie's issuance of the gift card created a new agreement
between the parties .." he wrote. "As explained (and as Boundas
acknowledges), the gift cards were part of the exchange of
consideration supporting the holiday promotion contract, and
providing the cards 'discharged' Abercrombie's obligation under
that contract. As such, the gift cards were a component of that
contract, not a separate an [sic] independent contract."

Tharp denied Boundas' request summary judgment because the legal
theory upon which she based her breach of contract claim was
"fatally flawed."

"And because the only legal theory she has advanced is untenable,
it may be appropriate to require Boundas .. to show cause why
judgment should not be entered against her and in favor of
Abercrombie," Tharp wrote.

In his notes, Tharp did allow that promissory estoppel may have
been an acceptable legal theory that could hold Abercrombie to
honoring the "no expiration date" gift cards. But he said that
theory would be difficult to pursue on a class basis, as
individualized proof would be required for each alleged instance.

A status hearing is scheduled for Sept. 10.

Boundas is represented in the action by attorneys with the firms
of DiTomasso Lubin P.C., of Oakbrook Terrace, and Schad, Diamond &
Shedden P.C., of Chicago.

Abercrombie & Fitch is represented by the firm of Jones Day, with
offices in Chicago and Columbus, Ohio.


ACCELERATED BUY: "Reynolds Holding" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds Holding Inc. dba Sign A Rama of Bolingbrook, and all
others similarly-situated v. Accelerated Buy Sell, Inc. dba
AcceleratedMfgBrokers.com, Frances Brunelle, and John Does 1-12,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07753 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for faxing unsolicited advertisements in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants offer manufacturing broker service. Its principal
place of business is in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5500


ADVANTAGE HUMAN: Final Approval Hearing Set for January 28
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's unopposed
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement and for
certification of the settlement class in the case captioned, JUAN
BETANCOURT, Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE HUMAN RESOURCING, INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 14-CV-01788-JST.

Defendant Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc. is a temporary
employment agency that places candidates with its clients.
Plaintiff Juan Betancourt  completed Advantage's intake and
orientation process and agreed to become an Advantage temporary
employee in late 2011.  Advantage then sent Plaintiff to interview
with one of its clients and complete additional materials for a
temporary position.  Plaintiff was not compensated for the time he
spent interviewing with Advantage's client.

On April 17, 2014, Plaintiff brought a putative class action
against Advantage, on behalf of former California-based temporary
employees, arguing that Advantage's failure to compensate its
employees for the time spent participating in interviews and
orientation for Advantage's clients violates the California Labor
Code and California Business & Professions Code. Plaintiff asserts
the claims for violations of all of the following: (1) California
Labor Code sections 1924(a) and 1198 for failure to pay wages; (2)
California Labor Code section 226(a) for failure to provide
accurate wage statements; (3) California Labor Code sections 201-
203 for failure to pay timely wages at termination; (4) California
Labor Code sections 222 and 223 for failure to pay Plaintiff's due
hourly wage; and (5) California Business & Professions Code
section 17200, et seq.for failure to pay for the interviews.
Plaintiff seeks damages, penalties, restitution, and other
equitable relief.

Advantage filed a motion to dismiss on May 14, 2014. The Court
denied the motion on September 3, 2014, concluding that Plaintiff
adequately alleged his employment status with Advantage and the
compensable nature of the time spent interviewing with Advantage's
clients. The parties subsequently participated in a full-day
mediation on November 11, 2014, with Susan Haldeman, Esq., a class
action and wage-and-hour mediator. The parties agreed to material
terms of the proposed settlement.

In his Order dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/uDKQrFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar concluded that
the terms of the proposed settlement fall within the range of
possible approval. The Court appointed Juan Betancourt as class
representative and Patterson Law Group as class counsel and set
the final approval hearing for January 28, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. and
the filing to any objections, and application for attorneys' fees,
costs, expenses, and service awards by December 23, 2015.

As part of the settlement agreement, Advantage will provide
$320,000 as a gross settlement.  Attorneys' fees, service payments
to class representatives, and administrative costs will be paid
from the gross settlement fund.  Plaintiff's counsel seek up to
$120,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, which would represent
37.5%2 of the gross settlement amount.

The settlement provides for class representatives to each receive
a $3,000 service award ($9,000 total).  Settlement administration
costs are estimated at $59,888.  The parties agree to the
appointment of KCC LLC as the settlement administrator.  After
subtracting these amounts, the net remaining funds will be
distributed to class members.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

James Richard Patterson, Esq.
PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC
402 W. Broadway, 29th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel:(619)398-4760

Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc. is represented by Kevin Durrell
Reese, Esq. -- kevin.reese@ogletreedeakins.com & Christopher M.
Ahearn, Esq. -- Christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.


ACT INC: 1st Cir. Affirms Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Kayatta of the United States Court of Appeals, First
Circuit, affirmed the district court's order denying ACT's motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in the case captioned, BAIS
YAAKOV OF SPRING VALLEY, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. ACT, INC.,
Defendant, Appellant, Case No. 14-1789.

ACT, Inc., is a nonprofit Iowa corporation known for developing
and administering an eponymous college-entrance examination. Bais
Yaakov of Spring Valley is a private religious high school located
outside New York City. ACT sent Bais Yaakov three unsolicited
facsimiles reminding Bais Yaakov of the exam's registration
deadline and encouraging Bais Yaakov to volunteer as a test site.
The messages did not provide notice of certain rights of the
recipient as required by the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, and an analogous New York state
law, New York General Business Law Sec. 396-aa (section 396-aa).
In response, Bais Yaakov filed claims individually and on behalf
of three putative classes seeking damages and injunctive relief
under the TCPA and section 396-aa.

Several months into the litigation, the parties mutually agreed on
a deadline for the class certification motion that Bais Yaakov's
complaint announced it would pursue. Prior to that deadline, ACT
tendered to Bais Yaakov an offer for judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 68. ACT offered to pay Bais Yaakov $1,600 for
each fax ($1,500 for violating the TCPA and $100 for violating
section 396-aa), stating that the figure represented the maximum
amount Bais Yaakov could be awarded as damages under each statute.
ACT also offered to be enjoined from sending any additional
unsolicited facsimiles to Bais Yaakov, and offered to pay Bais
Yaakov's attorneys' fees and costs if the court determined such
fees were in order. Four days after receiving the offer, Bais
Yaakov moved for class certification. Bais Yaakov did not
otherwise respond to the offer within fourteen days after it was
served, which meant that the unaccepted offer was "withdrawn" by
operation of Rules 68(a) and (b).

In the motion, ACT moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that its unaccepted and
withdrawn Rule 68 offer fully resolved any case or controversy
between the parties, rendering Bais Yaakov's claims moot. ACT
argued that an unaccepted offer of judgment did not moot Bais
Yaakov's claim.

In the Order dated August 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/QqNeEKfrom Leagle.com, the Appeals Court said, "On
certified interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), we
hold that a rejected and withdrawn offer of settlement of the
named plaintiff's individual claims in a putative class action
made before the named plaintiff moved to certify a class did not
divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction by mooting the
named plaintiff's claims."

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley is represented by:

Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
85 Miles Ave, White Plains,
NY 10606
Tel: (914)358-5345

ACT, Inc. is represented by Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq. --
jonathan.franklin@nortonrosefulbright.com,  Robert A. --Burgoyne,
Esq. - robert.burgoyne@nortonrosefulbright.com & Mark Emery, Esq.
-- mark.emery@nortonrosefulbright.com -- FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI
L.L.P.


AETNA LIFE: Sued for Denying Depression Treatment
-------------------------------------------------
Psych-Appeal, Inc., in conjunction with Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and
LeClairRyan, P.C., has filed a class-action lawsuit against Aetna
on behalf of mental health patients suffering from depression. The
federal lawsuit alleges that Aetna has categorically refused to
cover a safe and effective treatment called Transcranial Magnetic
Stimulation (TMS).

"Aetna has unjustifiably categorized TMS as 'experimental and
investigational' while Medicare and numerous commercial insurers
routinely cover it," said Brian Hufford, partner at Zuckerman
Spaeder, LLP. "By denying coverage for TMS, Aetna is preventing
patients from receiving potentially lifesaving care."

In 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared TMS for
patients who have failed to respond to psychotropic medications.
Unlike electroshock therapy, TMS is performed on an outpatient
basis without sedation and does not typically result in side
effects such as memory loss.

The complaint also alleges that MCMC, LLC, an independent review
organization, directly contracted with Aetna to evaluate external
appeals of Aetna's TMS denials, rubber-stamps the insurer by
relying on outdated clinical research and misapplying health plan
criteria that violate the federal Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act.

"This case will be among the first to highlight the conflicts of
interest that independent review organizations have when they are
allowed to contract directly with insurers to evaluate claim
denials," said Meiram Bendat, mental health attorney and founder
of Psych-Appeal, Inc.

The class action has been filed with co-counsel Elizabeth K. Acee
and Daniel P. Elliott of Connecticut-based LeClairRyan P.C.

Interested parties may contact Meiram Bendat at mbendat@psych-
appeal.com or Brian Hufford at dbhufford@zuckerman.com.

                    About Psych-Appeal, Inc.

Los Angeles-based Psych-Appeal, Inc. is a law firm exclusively
dedicated to mental health insurance claims, advocating on behalf
of patients, clinicians and treatment facilities to overcome
insurer denials of treatment. For more information, visit
www.psych-appeal.com.

Brian Hufford, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M St NW #1000, Washington, DC 20036
Phone:+1 202-778-1800
Fax: 202.822.8106
www.zuckerman.com

Meiram Bendat, Esq.
Psych-Appeal, Inc.
8560 Sunset Blvd, Suite 500 West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel: (310) 598-3690
Email: info@psych-appeal.com


AETNA LIFE: Court Grants Motions to Dismiss "Mattson" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Joseph E. Irenas of the United States District Court
for District of New Jersey granted two Rule 12(b)(6) motions to
dismiss filed by Aetna and Rawlings, and the Fund in the case
captioned, JOAN MATTSON and ERIC MATTSON, individually and as a
class representative on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE CO. D/B/A AETNA, INC., THE
RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC D/B/A/THE RAWLINGS GROUP, S.N.J. REGIONAL
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT FUN, COOPER UNIVERSITY HEALTH CARE D/B/A COOPER
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL and D/B/A COOPER HOSPITAL/UNIVERSITTY MEDICAL
CENTER and D/B/A COOPER UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS, and JOHN DOE
INDIVIDUALS and BUSINESS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 14-
6809(JEI/KMW).

Plaintiffs Joan Mattson and her son, Eric Mattson, brought a
putative class action against Defendants Aetna Life Insurance Co.
(Aetna), The Rawlings Company, LLC (Rawlings), Southern New Jersey
Regional Employee Benefit Fund (Fund), and Cooper University
Health Care (Cooper), based on the Fund, acting through Aetna and
Rawlings, seeking allegedly impermissible subrogation for medical
expenses paid as a result of injuries Eric Mattson sustained in a
motor vehicle accident. On November 10, 2014, Eric filed a motor
vehicle bodily injury complaint in the Gloucester County Superior
Court. In that complaint, Eric brought a count for negligence
against the alleged tortfeasor, and a count against his own
automobile insurance company for allegedly withheld Personal
Injury Protection (PIP), Uninsured Motorist (UM), and Underinsured
Motorist (UIM) benefits. Plaintiffs thereafter sought leave to
file an Amended Complaint in the instant case, which, with the
Court's permission, they filed on December 31, 2014.

The Amended Complaint asserts (1) violation of the TCCWNA against
Rawlings and Aetna; (2) violation of the CRA, against the Fund;
(3) breach of contract against Aetna and the Fund; (4) violation
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, against Aetna and
the Fund; (5) promissory estoppel, against Aetna and the Fund; (6)
violation of the CFA, against Rawlings and Aetna; (7) breach of
contract, against Cooper; (8) violation of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, against Cooper; (9) promissory estoppel,
against Cooper; (10) violation of the CFA, against Cooper; and
(11) declaratory judgment against Aetna. On March 26, 2015,
Plaintiffs settled with and voluntarily dismissed their claims
against Cooper. In their opposition papers, Plaintiffs concede
that their only remaining causes of action concern subrogation
activity, specifically (1) Aetna and Rawlings's alleged TCWWNA
violation (Count 1), (2) the Fund's alleged CRA violation (Count
2), and (3) Aetna and Rawlings's alleged CFA violation (Count 6).

In the motion to dismiss, the relevant issues include: (1) was the
Fund, acting through Aetna and Rawlings, prohibited from seeking
subrogation for medical expenses paid as a result of Eric
Mattson's motor vehicle accident from any judgment, settlement, or
other award in Plaintiffs' pending action against the tortfeasor;
(2) if yes, have Plaintiffs otherwise pled facts sufficient to
support their CRA, CFA and TCCWNA claims; and (3) regardless the
claims' viability, whether Plaintiffs were required to pursue
administrative remedies prior to filing the lawsuit.

In his Opinion dated August 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vFt7h5from Leagle.com, Judge Irenas found that
neither the NJCSS nor N.J.S.A. 39:6A-9.1 confer on Plaintiffs a
"right" to be free from subrogation and that Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently pled a CFA claim against Aetna and Rawlings.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
26 Newton Ave
Woodbury, NJ 08096
Tel:  (856)589-6509

Defendants are represented by Uriel Rabinowitz, Esq. --
urabinovitz@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART PC


AG WEST: "Jenkins" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Dana Jenkins, and all others similarly situated v. AG West Covina,
LLC and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. BC539297 (Cal.
Super., September 2, 2015), seeks compensation for all premium
wages for non-compliant meal and rest period, penalties, other
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and Labor Code
section 2698 et seq.

The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and
disgorgement of all benefits pursuant to Business & Professional
Code sections 17200-17208.

The Defendants' operate a clinic in Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
      GAINES & GAINES, APLC
      27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
      Calabasas, CA 91301
      Tel: (818) 703-8985
      Fax: (818) 703-8984


AMERICAN AIR LIQUIDE: "Brackin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph L. Brackin, and all others similarly situated v. American
Air Liquide Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04945 (E.D. Pa.,
September 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for damages
and harms arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment & Collection
Law.

The Defendant manufactures and supplies specialty and industrial
gases for research, analysis, process control, manufacturing, and
other applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Delgaizo, Esq.
      KRAEMER MANES & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1150 1st Avenue, Suite 501
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Tel: (610) 844-1779
      Fax: (610) 646-7436
      E-mail: cd@lawkm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Cone" Lawsuit for Alleged Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Lawrence Cone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co.,
United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc.

Case No. 1:15-cv-728 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 3, 2015), alleges conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of airline
tickets in the United States, in violation of the Sherman Act.

Defendants in this action own or operate the four largest
commercial airlines in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David F. Meschan, Esq.
     DAVID F. MESCHAN, PLLC
     125 S. Elm Street, Suite 500
     Greensboro, NC 27401
     Tel: (336) 500-0655
     Fax: (336) 378-9968
     E-mail: dmeschan@meschanlaw.com
             Robert S. Kitchenoff

        - and -

     David H. Weinstein, Esq.
     WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
     100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
     Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
     Tel: (215) 545-7200
     Fax: (215) 545-6535
     E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
             weinstein@wka-law.com


APPLE INC: Appeal Over False Ad Class Suit Rejected
---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a California
judge on rejected Apple Inc.'s bid to escape a putative consumer
class action alleging the company tricks consumers by not
disclosing that only Apple-licensed charging cables work with
iPhones and iPads, ruling Apple's practices could lead consumers
to waste money on useless cables.

Named plaintiffs Catherine Silas and Cody Weiss had alleged in
their operative complaint that Apple hides from consumers the fact
that iPhones and iPads are designed so that only pricier Apple-
made or Apple-licensed Lightning charging cables will work with
the devices.

At a hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jane J. Johnson
issued a written ruling overruling Apple's demurrer to the
complaint. The judge found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently
alleged claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act because the error screen displayed on
the devices when a user plugs in a nonlicensed cable says that
unlicensed products "may" not work, meaning consumers might then
try buying another unlicensed product.

Judge Johnson wrote that given the difference in cost between
licensed and unlicensed cables, if consumers knew ahead of time
that only licensed cables would work with iPhones and iPads, they
might have chosen to instead purchase competing companies'
smartphones and tablets, which use cheaper, widely available
cables in the USB or microUSB standards.

David Walsh of Morrison & Foerster LLP, representing Apple, urged
Judge Johnson to reverse her tentative ruling, arguing firstly
that it runs counter to the intent of the UCL and the CLRA to
allow the plaintiffs to allege the tech giant had misled iPod and
iPhone consumers with an error screen that they never saw until
they purchased an unlicensed cable, likely "months and months or
years after purchase" of their device.

Secondly, Walsh argued, no reasonable consumer would read that
error message and decide to purchase another unlicensed product.

"It is in my mind . . . unreasonable to buy an uncertified
product, plug it in to your Apple iPad, get this error message
saying it's uncertified . . . and then go buy more uncertified
products," he said.

Judge Johnson, however, noted that the error message says
unlicensed products "may" not work, implying "there is a
possibility something else will work."

Silas and Weiss filed suit in November 2014 and in May, filed
their operative second amended complaint, alleging that Apple was
ripping off consumers by giving its "MFi" and officially licensing
to any company that agrees to pay a per-cable royalty. The suit
alleges that Apple then installs hardware and software on its
devices, allowing them to check if a charging cable is licensed or
not, and disabling the device's charging capabilities if the cable
is unlicensed.

The plaintiffs allege this scheme forces iPhone and iPad owners to
purchase the more expensive licensed cables even though
nonlicensed products are capable of meeting all the technical
requirements for transmitting power into the devices.

Judge Johnson made final her tentative ruling and overruled
Apple's demurrer and gave Apple 20 days to answer to the
complaint.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

         Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
         Caleb Marker, Esq.
         ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
         1100 IDS Center
         80 South 8th Street
         Minneapolis, MN 55402
         Tel: (612) 341-0400
         Email: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

Apple is represented by:

         David Walsh, Esq.
         Kai Bartolomeo, Esq.
         MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
         425 Market Street
         San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
         Tel: (415) 268-7000
         Fax: (415) 268-7522
         Email: dwalsh@mofo.com
                kbartolomeo@mofo.com

The case is Catherine Silas et al. v. Apple Inc., case number
BC565147, in the Superior Court of California for the County of
Los Angeles.


APPLE INC: Court Approves $415-Mil. Employee Poaching Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Blowes, writing for Neowin, reported that the four-year legal
dispute between Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe and over 64,000 of
their employees has finally been settled.

US District Court Judge Lucy Koh approved a $415 million
agreement, with roughly $41 million going to attorney legal fees.
She described the amount as "fair, adequate and reasonable" after
rejecting a $324.5 million proposal for being insufficient.

The class action lawsuit started in 2011 with the high-tech
companies accused of agreeing not to poach one another's
employees. Such an arrangement meant employees of the companies
would have restricted job opportunities and suppressed salary
growth.

Evidence for the claim was largely compiled from emails between
high-ranking executives at the companies, including Steve Jobs and
Eric Schmidt, who sought to avoid poaching each others engineers.

Attorney's originally requested $80 million in fees which Judge
Koh described as offering them an inappropriate "windfall". She
roughly halved the amount to just over $40 million.

Prominent tech companies Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar were also
included in the class action suit but had previously settled with
the employees for around $20 million.


ARGON INDUSTRIES: "Johannsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Johannsen, and all others similarly situated v. Argon
Industries, Inc.'s Wisconsin facility, Case No. 2:15-cv-01080
(E.D. Wis., September 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant manufactures steel products. It currently operates
its manufacturing facility at New Berlin, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com


ARIELLA EVENTS: "Ozturk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olga Ozturk, and all others similarly situated v. Ariella Events
Limited, Brandon Events Inc., New York Kosher Caterers, Inc., RAM
Caterers of Flatbush Inc., and Benjamin Avizov, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05172 (E.D.N.Y., September 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a kosher catering service
throughout several Brooklyn New York locations and Deal New Jersey
location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2747 Coney Island Ave.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Tel: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


AUTO CLUB: "Rothstein" Suit Seeks Damages Over Undisclosed Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Rothstein and Stanley Rothstein, and all others similarly
situated v. Auto Club South and the American Automobile
Association, Case No. 9:15-cv-81249 (S.D. Fla., September 2,
2015), seeks damages from Defendants' alleged practice of
overcharging through the use of unauthorized and undisclosed fees
for the booking of hotel accommodations through Defendant AAA's
website, AAA.com.

Defendant AAA is a federation of automobile clubs, with regional
member clubs spread throughout the United States. AAA, through its
regional member clubs such as Defendant Auto Club South, provides
emergency roadside services, as well as other primarily travel-
related benefits, to its
members.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane
      Weston, FL 33326
      Tel: (954) 315-3454
      Fax: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jgoldsten@pomlaw.com

          - and -

      Noah Axler
      DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (610) 647-6067
      Fax: (610) 647-7215
      E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com


BB&T CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Burke Bowers, Robert Sims, Erik Gavidia, Stephanie Gavidia, Stacy
Holstein, Jeffrey Stauffer, and Kerri Greaner, individually and as
representatives of classes of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan v. BB&T
Corporation, the BB&T Corporation Employee Benefits Plan
Committee, the BB&T Corporation Board of Directors, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of BB&T
Corporation, John P. Howe, Anna R. Cablik, Edwin H. Welch, Eric C.
Kendrick, Louis B. Lynn, Tollie W. Rich, Steve Reeder, Cindy
Powell, Sterling Capital Management LLC, and John Does 1-40, Case
No. 1:15-CV-732 (N.D.N.C., September 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and
engagement in prohibited transactions in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Plaintiffs seek to recover the financial losses suffered by the
Plan and to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief from
Defendants.

BB&T is one of the largest financial services holding companies in
the United States, offering a full range of consumer and
commercial banking, securities brokerage, investment banking,
insurance, trust, lending, and investment management services.
Based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, BB&T and its subsidiaries
have locations throughout the United States.

The BB&T Corporation Employee Benefits Plan Committee and its
members and delegates, the BB&T Board of Directors, the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of BB&T
Corporation and its members and delegates, are members of the
Defendant committees or otherwise believed to be fiduciaries to
the Plan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      F. Hill Allen, Esq.
      THARRINGTON SMITH, L.L.P.
      P.O. Box 1151
      Raleigh, NC 27602-1151
      Tel: (919) 821-4711
      Fax: (919) 829-1583
      E-mail: hallen@tharringtonsmith.com

         - and -

      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 S 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      Fax: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: krichter@nka.com


BC HYDRO: Faces Class Suit Over Power Outage Causing Spoiled Food
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Korstron, writing for Business Vancouver, reported that more
than 100 British Columbia residents remained without power
September 2, four days after the peak of the weekend wind and rain
storm, which put about 533,000 people without electricity at its
peak.

The multi-day power outage for thousands prompted plenty of anger
on Twitter and calls for BC Hydro to compensate those affected for
spoiled food.

Any attempt to join together and launch a class action lawsuit,
however, has its challenges, according to class action lawyer and
Kieran A.G. Bridge Law Corp. principal Kieran Bridge.

He said that a stumbling block could be legislation approved by
the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) and known as the
BC Hydro tariff.

"I would expect BC Hydro will point to provisions in its tariff
that might limit its liability when the power goes out," Bridge
said.

Indeed, BC Hydro told Business in Vancouver that there is no
absolute guarantee of service and that the tariff indeed limits
liability in part because the company is a rate-regulated utility
so anything that it spends or any compensation that it doles out
would have to come from other rate payers.

Another obstacle to winning a class action would be to prove fault
and Bridge listed some fundamental questions that would be
considered were a suit launched.

"Why did the power go out?" he asked.

"Was it BC Hydro's fault? No. It was a wind storm. Was the problem
the delay in getting the power reconnected? Whose fault is that?
Did they do everything reasonably possible or didn't they?"


BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS: Faces "Munoz" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Munoz, on behalf of herself and other persons similarly
situated v. Bollinger Shipyards LLC, and Guro Enterprice LLC and
Cesar Guerrero, Case 6:15-cv-02328, (E.D.La., Sept. 3, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Bollinger is in the business that specializes in the repair,
conversion and new construction of offshore and inland vessels in
Louisiana and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Louisiana Bar #33696
     Tel: (504) 914-1048
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail:costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Louisiana Bar #33005
     Tel: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Nelson" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer A. Nelson, Elizabeth Davis Berg, Jessica Decker, Laura
Childs, Nancy Stiller, Bonnie VanderLaan, Kristin Millican, and
all others similarly-situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC,  Starkist
Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC and King Oscar, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-01979 (S.D. Calif., September 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize or
maintain prices as well as allocate customers and restrict
capacity within the market for the sale of packaged seafood
products ("PSPs") during January 1, 2000 through such time as the
anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conduct ceases (the "Class
Period").

The antitrust class action is brought against the Defendants
pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
sections 1, 2, and Section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section
14, and state antitrust and unfair competition laws.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business located at 280 10th Avenue, San Diego,
California 92101. Bumble Bee produces and sells PSPs throughout
the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United
Kingdom.

StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters
at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15212. StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
Sates, its territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is
privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, a company based in South
Korea.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, Suite
500, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces and
sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its
territories and the District of Columbia, and markets these
products under the brand name Chicken of the Sea. Unless otherwise
indicated, Tri-Union Foods LLC will be referred to herein as
"Chicken of the Sea."

King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San
Diego, CA 92108.  King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood
products throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia.

Defendants Chicken of the Sea and King Oscar are wholly owned by
Thai Union Frozen Products, a public company headquartered in
Thailand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 239-4599
      Fax: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

         - and -

      Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad St., 24th Floor
      New York, NY 1004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com

         - and -

      Michelle Kranz, Esq.
      ZOLL KRANZ & BORGESS LLC
      6620 West Central Ave., Ste 100
      Toledo, OH 43617
      Tel: (419) 841-9623
      Fax: (419) 841-9719
      E-mail: michelle@toledolaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Accused of Conspiracy to Fix Prices of Packed Seafood
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Christensen, Scott Dennis, Adam Buehrens, Brian
Depperschmidt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union
Seafoods LLC, and King Oscar, Inc., Case3:15-cv-04093-JCS
(N.D.Cal., Sept. 9, 2015), alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products
within the United States, its territories and the District of
Columbia in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition statutes.

Bumble Bee produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout
the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United
Kingdom.

StarKist produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout
the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
StarKist is privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, based in South
Korea.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells packaged seafood
products throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia, and markets these products under the brand
name Chicken of the Sea.

King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San
Diego, CA 92108. King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood
products throughout the United States (including this District),
its territories and the District of Columbia.

Defendants Chicken of the Sea and King Oscar are wholly owned by
Thai Union Frozen Products, a public company headquartered in
Thailand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
     Andrew Szot, Esq.
     Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
     MILLER LAW LLC
     115 S. LaSalle St.,
     #2910 Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 332-3400
     Fax: (312) 676-2676
     Email: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
            aszot@millerlawllc.com
            mvantine@millerlawllc,com

        - and -

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


BUMBLE BEE: Sued for Alleged Price Fixing of Packaged Seafood
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debra L. Damske, Ken Dunlap, John Peychal, Virginia Rakipi,
Barbara E. Olson on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Bumble BEE Foods LlC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union
Seafoods Llc, and King Oscar, Inc., Case 3:15-cv-04025(N.D. Cal.,
Sept. 3, 2015), alleges conspiracy by Defendants to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products
within the United States, its territories and the District of
Columbia in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair
competition statutes.

The Defendants are described as three largest producers of
packaged seafood products in the United States, its territories
and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
     Andrew Szot, Esq.
     Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
     MILLER LAW LLC
     115 S. LaSalle St.,
     #2910 Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 332-3400
     Fax: (312) 676-2676
     E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
             aszot@millerlawllc.com
             mvantine@millerlawllc,com

        - and -

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


C&R DOWNHOLE: Faces "Blackford" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Blackford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. C&R Downhole Drilling LLC, Case 4:15-cv-
02543 (W.D.Penn., April 27, 2015 ), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

C&R is an oilfield service company offering a wide ride range of
services to the oil and gas industry in states such as
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
     3634 California Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Tel: 412-766-1455
     Fax: 412-766-0300
     E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CALIFORNIA: State Prison Settles Solitary Confinement Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autumn Johnson, writing for Patch.com, reported that a settlement
that calls for major reforms was reached in a federal class action
lawsuit that alleged California prison officials have engaged in
cruel and unusual punishment by putting many inmates into solitary
confinement for long periods of time.

The plaintiffs in the case, which was being litigated before U.S.
District Court Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland and was scheduled
to go to trial in December, are inmates at the Pelican Bay State
Prison in Crescent City, near the Oregon border, which is
considered the state's toughest prison.

The suit alleges that many Pelican Bay prisoners are held at the
facility's security housing units for more than 10 years at a time
and spend 23 hours a day in their cells with little or no access
to family visits, outdoor time or any kind of programming. Jules
Lobel, the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and
the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and the president of the
Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a statement, "This far-
reaching settlement represents a major change in California's
cruel and unconstitutional solitary confinement system."

The plaintiffs in the case said in a separate statement, "This
settlement represents a monumental victory for prisoners and an
important step toward our goal of ending solitary confinement in
California, and across the country."

The settlement applies to all state prisons in California. Pelican
Bay inmates were so upset about the conditions they faced that
they conducted hunger strikes in 2011 and 2013. The initial
lawsuit was filed by inmates Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell on Dec.
9, 2009, an amended complaint was filed in 2010 and a second
amended complaint, which sought and was granted class action
status, was filed on Sept. 10, 2012, after the inmates retained
lawyers.

At a rally and news conference outside the state building in
downtown Oakland, Carole Travis, one of the lawyers for the
inmates, said, "California was a true outlier because it had the
most inmates in solitary confinement and they've been placed there
without due process."

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation spokeswoman Terry
Thornton said prison officials decided to settle the case at this
time because the department has already been making improvements
in inmates' conditions in recent years. Thornton said prison
officials "take issue" with the allegation that the state places
some prisoners in solitary confinement, saying the phrase is
"problematic." Thornton said the state places many prisoners in
security housing units or segregated housing units but most of
those who are put in those units have cellmates and television.
But she said California has made efforts to reduce the number of
prisoners in security housing units and that number has dropped
from 4,000 to 2,800 in recent years.

Thornton said the state placed many inmates in such units in
response to gang violence which resulted in prison employees and
inmates being murdered. She said the idea was to separate inmates
identified as gang members away from other inmates. Under the
terms of the settlement, prisoners will no longer be sent to a
security housing unit based solely on gang affiliation and instead
will only be sent to such a unit for specific and serious rule
violations. Thornton said the state began making changes in 2007
and placement is now "behavior-based, not (gang) affiliation-
based."

Attorneys for the inmates estimate that between 1,500 and 2,000 of
the 2,800 prisoners now in security housing units at Pelican Bay
will be transferred to the general population within a year. Marie
Levin, whose brother Sitawa Nantambu Jamaa, also known as Ronnie
Dewberry, is one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said at the rally
in Oakland that she hopes the settlement is a step in
"transforming the criminal justice system and ending the
warehousing of people.

Levin said her brother, who was convicted of murder in Alameda
County in 1981, has been in prison for 34 years and has been in
solitary confinement for 31 of those years. Levin said her brother
told her that he'll be one of the first security housing unit
inmates to be transferred to the general population and he expects
that to happen later.


CANADA POST: Faces Class Suit in Quebec Over Mailboxes
------------------------------------------------------
CTV News reported that in the battle against community mailboxes,
varying tactics have been employed.

A Dorval man bought a pile of dirt and had it dumped on his lawn
to prevent the mailbox from being built on his lawn. Mayor Denis
Coderre tried to take one down himself with a jackhammer.

But Dollard des Ormeaux resident John Benizri is taking the legal
approach -- with the help of his nephew, he intends to launch a
class-action lawsuit against Canada Post. The suit claims that
people living near the mailboxes are suffering from major
inconveniences, including a drop in property value.

Canada Post installed a community box next to his property and he
says it's been a major disturbance ever since.

"Cars were coming, three, four, five cars at a time, car doors
slamming at all times of the day or night," he said.

Benizri also complains about trash which regularly piles up
because of junk mail. But his biggest frustration: a loss of
privacy.

"People were coming looking through our fence. We have a pool and
my wife doesn't have her privacy," he said.

Benizri's nephew Jamie Benizri is a lawyer, and Jamie decided to
file a request for a class-action suit against Canada Post on
behalf of everyone affected by the new mailboxes.

"Anyone who's directly affected, meaning anyone who has that metal
mailbox on their property or anyone within a 10-metre radius of
that mailbox is invited to join the class once authorized and as
we move forward," he said.

A class-action first has to be approved by the courts before it
can go ahead. The lawsuit is seeking a yet-to be-determined amount
in financial compensation for property owners affected.

Canada Post declined an interview request, saying they can't
comment because the case is currently before the courts.

Jamie Benizri says the lawsuit is anything but frivolous, pointing
out it's also a matter of property values.

Canada Post is also facing a legal challenge by the city of
Montreal, among others.


CHOICE HOTEL: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Paternostro"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District for
Northern District of Ohio granted Defendants' motions to strike
the class allegations in the case captioned, ANGELA PATERNOSTRO,
ET AL. v. CHOICE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP., D/B/A/
CLARION INN AND SUITES, ET AL., SECTION "L"(5). THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: ALL CASES, Case No. 13-0662.

The Court consolidated the case with several other related cases
which alleged similar factual allegations which arises from the
alleged presence of Legionella and Pseudomonas aeruginosa -- the
causative agent of Legionnaires' disease -- at the Clarion Inn and
Suites Hotel ("the Hotel") in Covington, Louisiana.  Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant Choice was the franchisor of the Hotel, and
Defendant CWI was the franchisee, owner, and operator of the
Hotel. Plaintiffs include: (1) surviving relatives of the
decedent, Russell Paternostro, specifically his widow Angela
Paternostro, and his children Robyn Ortego and Mercedes
Paternostro; (2) Gwen Newberry and Robert Newberry; (3) Marie
Heeser; and (4) Jason Beleto. Plaintiffs, individually and as
class representatives, allege that they suffered injury because of
negligence of Defendants between December 1, 2011 and January 28,
2013. Putative class representatives allege that they were
registered guests and/or invitees at the Hotel between January
2011 and December 2012 and that Defendants' negligence caused
Plaintiffs to sustain personal injuries requiring medical
treatment. Plaintiffs further alleged that this negligence caused
or substantially contributed to the death of Russell Paternostro.

Choice and CWI deny liability, including causation. Choice further
argues, inter alia, that it was the franchisor only for the
Clarion Inn & Suites brand and did not own or operate the Hotel.
It also states that it had no involvement in the use, opening, or
closing of the hot tub/spa. Choice moved for dismissal of all
claims against it on the grounds of insufficient control. After
oral argument, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' vicarious liability
and apparent agency claims against Choice but denied summary
judgment on the issue of Choice's independent liability.

Before the Court are three Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss and/or
Strike Plaintiffs' Class Action Allegations filed by defendants:
(1) Choice Hotels International, Inc.; (2) Century Wilshire, Inc.;
and (3) Allied World National Assurance Company, American
Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, AIG Specialty Insurance
Company, Merchants National Insurance Company, National Surety
Company, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, and Scottsdale Insurance
Company.

In his Order and Reasons dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/8d0IjUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fallon found that the
Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden under Rule 23(b)(1)
or (2) and that the court need not address the threshold
requirements of Rule 23(a).

Plaintiffs are represented by Shawn C. Reed, Esq. --
sreed@howardandreed.com -- D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Esq. --
dhoward@howardandreed.com -- Kyle T. Del Hierro, Esq. --
kdelhierro@howardandreed.com -- HOWARD & REED

Defendants are represented by Celeste D. Elliott, Esq. --
celliott@lawla.com -- Anne Elizabeth Briard, Esq. --
abriard@lawla.com -- LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD


CONCORD, AR: Sued Over City Employees' 'Illegal Activity'
---------------------------------------------------------
Shawnda Caillouet, writing for The Sun Times, reported that on
June 8, 2014, the United States District Court for the Arkansas
Eastern Division received a complaint in the form of a class
action suit against eight people in the incorporated township of
Concord.

According to court documents, the complaint lists several
accusations regarding illegal activity by Concord city employees,
which includes the mayor, five aldermen, the town Marshal, and
Deputy Marshal for the year 2013.

On June 30, 2015, the eight defendants retained Amanda LaFaver, a
Little Rock attorney, who filed a Notice of Appearance and time
extension request for her clients' answer.  She filed the Answer
to Complaint on August 17, denying most of the claims in the suit
while agreeing the number of tickets written exceeded state policy
standards set by the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement
Standards and Training.

Based on an Arkansas State Police (ASP) investigation, Concord
exceeded the state's 30% revenue threshold from ticketing by 8%.
Most tickets were written for the same reason, "no tag light".
They further accused the Concord City Council of supporting a
speed trap within the city with the purpose of increasing revenue.

The 2013 audit reports show $57,000 in revenues.

On November 7, 2013, the Sun-Times reported Prosecuting Attorney
for the 16th Judicial District Don McSpadden ordered an
investigation into the matter.  McSpadden sent a letter to Concord
notifying the city a formal investigation would be conducted.
Based on that investigation, the city received a second letter
alleging they illegally operated a speed trap. The letter revoked
Concord's right to issue citations by city-appointed Marshal Bobby
Hopson, Jr., and appointed Deputy Marshal, Justin McCallaster. It
has since been reinstated and a new Chief of Police has been
hired.   Both letters were listed as exhibits in the current
pending complaint in the Little Rock District Court.  The ASP
investigation was requested because of formal complaints against
the city, including some by Concord residents, for harassment
whiletraveling through Concord in 2013.

The complaint alleges the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendments rights
were violated by Concord because unlawful searches were reportedly
conducted by illegally appointed law enforcement and arrests were
illegitimately made.  Listed in the complaint are the 432 names
for citations, given in excess, for "no tag light".

The Answer to Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court by the
defendants denies any misconduct by the City of Concord, or its
City Council.  According to the document,  "Everything was done by
the color of the law" by the city and it requests the court
recognize "the extent that any citations issued and/or arrests
made by Concord Marshals or deputy Marshal, would have been and
were within the boundaries of the Town of Concord".
Whether anyone on the city council knew of plans to increase
revenue from ticketing is uncertain at this time.


CONFORMIS INC: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against ConforMIS, Inc. ("ConforMIS" or the "Company") and certain
of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 15-cv-13295,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased ConforMIS securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (defined
below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on or about July 1, 2015 (the "IPO" or the "Offering");
and/or (2) on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28,
2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased ConforMIS securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 2, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

ConforMIS, Inc., a medical technology company, develops,
manufactures, and sells customized joint replacement implants. The
company offers customized knee replacement products, including
iTotal CR, a cruciate-retaining product; iTotal PS, a posterior
cruciate ligament substituting product; iUni G2, a
unicompartmental product for treatment of the medial or lateral
compartment of the knee; and iDuo G2, a bicompartmental partial
implant for patients with osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral
compartment of the knee and either the medial or lateral
compartment of the knee, as well as provides iJigs, customized
single-use patient-specific instruments. It is also developing
iTotal Hip, a customized total hip replacement implant. The
company markets and sells its products through direct sales force,
independent sales representatives, and distributors in the United
States, Austria, Germany, Ireland, the United Kingdom,
Switzerland, Hong Kong, and Singapore. ConforMIS, Inc was founded
in 2004 and is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies both in connection
with its IPO and in subsequent filings with the SEC. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's manufacturing processes were
flawed; (ii) that as a result of the flaws in the Company's
manufacturing process, a number of the Company's knee replacement
product systems were defective; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, ConforMIS's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 31, 2015, pre-market, the Company announced that it had
initiated a voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of
patient-specific instrumentation for certain of its knee
replacement product systems, in response to recent complaints of
moisture on the patient-specific instrumentation. A total of
approximately 950 patient-specific instrumentation sets were
affected by ConforMIS's recall. On this news, the Company's stock
dropped $3.78, or 19.11%, to close at $16.00 on August 31, 2015.
At the close of trading on September 2, 2015, the Company's share
price closed at $14.18 per share.

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

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


DEL MONTELL: "Herrera" Suit Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eldy Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Del Montell Motors, Ltd. and Does I through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC 5 94 01 8 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County,
Sept. 9, 2015), alleges violations of the California Labor Code
and unfair and unlawful business practices.

Defendants operated automotive dealerships in Santa Monica,
California in Los Angeles County.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael r. Parker, Esq.
     M.R. PARKER LAW, PC
     21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 2080
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Tel: (818) 334-5711
     E-mail: Michael@mrparkerlaw.com

        - and -

     Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez, Esq.
     SEPULVEDA SANCHEZ LAW GROUP
     3320 West Victory Boulevard
     Burbank, CA 91505
     Tel: (213) 426-1051
     E-mail: Gabriel@sepulvedalawgroup.com


DIOSDADO BANATAO: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Tsai, and all others similarly-situated v. Diosdado Banatao,
Jason W. Cohenour, Daniel Faizullabhoy, Frederick M. Lax, George
Pavlov, James Smaha, Omid Tahernia, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. King
Acquisition Co., Ikanos Communications, Inc., Case No. RG15784408
(Cal. Super., September 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for alleged breach of fiduciary duties to the public
stockholders in the sale of Ikanos to Qualcomm and King
Acquisition.

Ikanos designs, develops, markets, and sells semiconductors and
integrated firmware products for the connected home worldwide. Its
principal place of business is located in Fremont, California.

Qualcomm Atheros, Inc. is a Delaware corporation.

King Acquisition Co. is a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiary of Qualcomm Atheros.

The Individual Defendants constitute the Board of Ikanos and, by
reason of their corporate directorships and executive positions,
stand in a fiduciary position relative to the Company's public
shareholder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc G. Reich, Esq.
      REICH RADCLIFFE & KUTTLER LLP
      4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 550
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 975-0512
      Fax: (949) 208-2839
      E-mail: mgr@reicharadcliffe.com

          - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER
      821 Franklin Ave., Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 493-9780
      Fax: (516) 280-7376
      E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com


E&T CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Martin, Christina Martin, Timothy Joiner, Nick Kaemmerer,
and others similarly-situated v. E&T Capital Resources, LLC dba
Kwik Full Service Kar Wash, Case No. 1:15-cv-00781 (W.D. Tex.,
September 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a car wash in Pflugerville, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Kell A. Simon, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF KELL A. SIMON
      902 East Fifth Street, Suite 207
      Austin, TX 78702
      Tel: (512) 898-9662
      Fax: (512) 368-9144


ENDEAVOUR ENERGY: Ruling Raises Uncertainty in Insurance Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Toemoe, Esq. -- travis.toemoe@au.kwm.com -- and Peta
Stevenson, Esq. -- peta.stevenson@au.kwm.com -- at King & Wood
Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, wrote that the recent
decision from the NSW Supreme Court in the Endeavour Energy class
action ([2015] NSWSC 1117) has raised an important issue for
insurers and their policyholders for the opt-in/opt-out process in
class actions.

Following this judgment, insurers will need to consider whether
retail (and maybe other) policy wordings require amendment to
provide greater control of their policyholder's participation in
class actions. Policyholders will need to consider the extent to
which they may wish to hand over the opt-in/opt-out decision to
insurers.

Issue

The key issue for determination concerned subrogation clauses in
insurance policies (particularly domestic retail policies) and the
extent to which insurers can control subrogated recovery claims
against third parties. This is particularly important in the
context of class actions and the ability for an insurer through
the policyholder to "opt out" of the class. Because of the wording
of a significant number of policies in the Endeavour Energy class
action, the insurer was unable to force its policy holders to opt
out of the class which could have significant ramifications for
the amount the insurer is able to recover.

Background

The Endeavour Energy class action concerns the Springwood (Blue
Mountains) bush fire in 2013. A number of the class members held
insurance with a domestic insurance group. The policies responded
to various claims for loss and damage but underinsurance was often
an issue such that the full loss was not covered. The insurer paid
out the claims which gave it the entitlement to bring subrogated
recovery actions.

A class action had been commenced and the definition of the class
captured a large number of the insurer's policyholders. The damage
claimed included the damage to which the insurer's policies
responded to.

As is the case with class actions started with an open class, an
opt-out framework was implemented requiring opt-out notices to be
served within a specified timeframe. The insurer, through its
solicitors, served opt out notices for its policyholders and
subsequently commenced its own action against Endeavour Energy to
recover both insured and uninsured losses. The class action
applicant subsequently challenged the validity of the insurer's
opt out notices.

Outcome - see [2015] NSWSC 1117

The outcome turned on the particular policy wording and whether
the policy gave the insurer an express right to unilaterally take
the opt out decision. In a small number of cases, the policy
provided that right and the opt out notices were successful.
However, in the great majority of cases the opt out notices were
found not to be of any effect as the policy either did not provide
the insurer with the right to unilaterally opt out for the
policyholder or, where it did, the insurer had not complied with
the relevant policy pre-conditions.

Impact for insurers

For the insurer, the immediate impact was its loss of the ability
to run and manage the recovery claim against Endeavour for a large
number of its policyholders for whom the opt out notices were
invalid (approximately 530 out of 565). That will likely mean that
any recovery received by the insurer by virtue of these
policyholders pursuing their claim through the original class
action is less than it would have been under the insurer's
separately commenced action. This is because the insurer was
likely to run the action more efficiently given its information
advantage (and the lawyers acting for the class may be entitled
under their fee agreement to claim an uplift in fees). This issue
would be more pronounced if there was a funder in the background
entitled to take a (significant) cut of any damages recovery.

More broadly, it seems to us that the impact for general insurers
operating in the Australian market is around the extent to which
they are prepared to allow control of any subrogated recovery
claims to essentially vest in a class action. If such claims vest
in the class action, then the recovery for the insurer may be less
(possibly significantly less) than if the insurer had pursued its
own subrogated recovery claim. This is because of the impact that
uplifts on solicitor's fees or the payment litigation funders take
from any damages recovered may have. In large scale disasters
impacting on households and small businesses (such as bushfires or
floods), an insurer may have sufficient numbers of recovery claims
(7 or more claimants) to allow it to pursue its own class action
to recover both insured and uninsured losses on behalf of its
policyholders. In such cases, the recovery is likely to be larger
than through a regular class action because of the impact of
uplifts on legal fees and payments to funders.

Impact for policyholders

Retail or small business policyholders often have little ability
to negotiate the wording of their policies. That said, if
policyholders wish to (potentially) have a say in the opt-in/opt-
out decision then they should look carefully at the policy
wording.

Larger businesses with more bespoke policy wordings are likely to
have more ability to negotiate policy wordings in this space to
give themselves (should they wish for it) a say in the opt-in/opt-
out decision.

An important issue for all policyholders to be aware off is the
manner in which any recoveries from a subrogated claim by an
insurer are distributed between the insurer (for insured loss) and
the policyholder (for uninsured loss).

Considerations

Whether or not an insurer wishes to opt in or opt out its insureds
from a class action will obviously turn on the particular
circumstances. That said, we expect insurers would at least like
to give themselves the opportunity to opt out should they wish to
and control the opt out decision making. Alternatively, having
control over the opt out decision may give insurers the ability to
negotiate better terms with the lawyers/funders of any class
action. Insurers ought therefore carefully look at their policy
wordings to make sure they have the required degree of control.


EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
September 18, 2015 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
purchasers of the securities of EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the
"Company") between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels,
products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locations
and branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to access
instant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in the
United States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company
offers these products through four primary channels: in-store,
online, at the worksite, and through a mobile platform.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among
others: (1) that the Company improperly recognized particular
structured assets sales; (2) that the Company improperly
classified certain accounted for certain out-of-payroll loans; (3)
that, as a result, the Company overstated its gains on assets
sales and accrued interest revenue; (4) that, as such, the
Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6)
that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Over the
course of several disclosures, the Company revealed its alleged
accounting and securities fraud, causing the Company's share price
to decline thereby harming investors.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you are
encouraged to contact Casey Sadler, Esq., of GPM, 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 by email,
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.

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


FORD MOTOR: Class Suit Over Defective Touch System Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge dismissed just part of a class action that
claims Ford concealed known problems with its MyFord Touch
"infotainment" system that could endanger drivers.

Lead plaintiff Jennifer Whalen claimed that the $1,795 MyFord
Touch system was defective when sold. She said the defects are in
the Microsoft software, which freezes and leaves drivers unable to
defrost windows, operate the car's rearview camera or dial 911.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on dismissed five specific claims
with prejudice from the second amended complaint.

Chen dismissed a fraud claim for affirmative misrepresentation as
"not sufficiently particularized," since it did not allege that
Ford told a plaintiff the system was defect-free before he bought
the car.

But Chen upheld claims for fraudulent omissions, rejecting Ford's
argument that the claims lacked materiality. Chen found nothing in
the amended complaint to suggest that a plaintiff who bought two
vehicles equipped with the MyFord Touch system knew the first
car's system defect was an isolated incident.

He dismissed claims under Iowa's Consumer Fraud Act because they
did not obtain the requisite approval of the state's attorney
general before filing suit, and he dismissed one plaintiff's claim
for breach of express warranty.

"Plaintiffs have once again failed to cite any case -- let alone
any Iowa case law -- that supports their contention that an
individual can maintain a claim for breach of express warranty
where that individual did not even give the defendant an
opportunity to honor the terms of that warranty," Chen wrote.

But Chen upheld another express warranty claim because "Ford has
not cited any case that squarely stands for the legal proposition
it asserts; namely that a plaintiff must plead awareness of the
terms of a clearly labeled express warranty that was provided to
the consumer at the time of sale."

He dismissed a claim of breach of implied warranty, as "not
sufficient to state a plausible claim for breach of any implied
warranty against Ford under a third-party beneficiary theory."

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims of breach of contract.

Neither side could be reached for comment.

Chen gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.

They are represented by Adam Levitt, with Grant & Eisenhorfer in
Chicago.

Ford's counsel is Randall Edwards, with O'Melveny & Myers in San
Francisco.


GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Faces Class Suit Over Fund Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------
LeAnne Kavanagh, writing for Cut Bank Pioneer Press, reported that
less han three months after several Glacier County residents paid
their taxes under protest, a class action suit has been filed
against Glacier County and the State of Montana. The action was
filed in Lewis and Clark County District Court in Helena by Great
Falls attorney Lawrence A. Anderson, on behalf of his clients
Elaine Mitchell and "all others similarly situated."

The 99-page complaint details "factual allegations" against the
Glacier County Commissioners and the State of Montana.

Glacier County's audit findings for Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 are
cited numerous times in the complaint. The document points out
"despite the deficiencies reflected in 2013 and 2014 audits,
Glacier County's mismanagement of its budget continues. In its
July 28, 2015 commission meeting, it approved negative cash
balances in 15 funds totaling in excess of $2.5 million."

Generally accepted governmental accounting standards do not allow
for negative cash balances in any fund, including reimbursable
grant funds.

The complaint cites several provisions in state law that hold the
Glacier County Commissioners personally responsible "for the
amount of the excess disbursement, expenditure or obligation. . ."
The complaint also alleges the Montana Department of
Administration has "failed and declined" to enforce the provisions
of Montana's Single Audit Act.

In the complaint, Anderson and the plaintiffs ask the court to:

   * Declare Glacier County has failed to comply with Generally
Accepted Governmental Accounting Standards used to ensure strict
accountability of all revenues received and money spent; and has
violated the Local Budget Act and the Debt Management Act.

   * Declare Glacier County is in violation of the laws prescribed
for assuring strict accountability of all revenues received and
money spent.

   * Declare Glacier County officials who have made disbursements
or expenditures or incurred government obligations in excess of
appropriations from budgeted funds are personally liable under
state law.

   * Order the State of Montana to perform its duties under
Montana's Single Audit Act to withhold public funds until Glacier
County complies with its budgeting responsibilities.

   * Order the State of Montana to hold those Glacier County
officials who have failed in their duties to ensure strict
accountability of all revenues received and money spent
accountable.

   * Order the appointment of a receiver, paid for by the State or
County, to ensure Glacier County complies with budgeting laws and
Generally Accepted Governmental Accounting Standards.

   * Allow for the prosecution of this action as a class action
under the provisions of Montana Rules for Civil Procedure.

   * Allow the plaintiff and the class to continue to pay their
taxes under protest until Glacier County shows it is in compliance
with its budgeting duties to ensure strict accountability of all
revenues received and spent.

   * Determine Glacier County violated Mitchell's right to know
under the Montana Constitution when she requested the names of
persons who paid their taxes under protest and was denied that
information.

   * Rule for plaintiff's attorney fees and costs incurred in
prosecuting this action as well as whatever other relief the court
deems fair and just.

This is the third lawsuit filed against the Glacier County
Commissioners in less than six months. The Cut Bank Pioneer Press
and Glacier Reporter filed a complaint against the Glacier County
Commissioners on March 16 and Glacier County resident Frank Rides
At The Door filed a complaint against them on April 2. Both
complaints allege the commissioners took action in an illegal
meeting, denying the public a chance to observe and participate in
their proceedings.

Commissioners add $200,000 more to their budget for suit's legal
fees

The Glacier County Commissioners voted unanimously at the Sept. 1
meeting to increase their budget for legal services from $50,000
to $250,000. The commissioners said they were acting on their
"attorney's recommendation" and the additional $200,000 will be
used to defend Glacier County in the latest lawsuit filed against
it. (See related story above.)

Chairman Michael DesRosier said the commissioners earlier budgeted
$50,000 out of their budget for "general legal issues." The
commissioners met with Glacier County Attorney Carolyn Berkram and
Special Deputy County Attorney Kirk Evenson of Great Falls in
closed session to discuss litigation strategy.


HOME DEPOT: Bid to Dismiss FCRA Violation Claims Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Funk, Esq. -- samanthafunk@dwt.com -- and James Howard,
Esq. -- jimhoward@dwt.com -- at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, wrote
that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a growing source of
class action litigation, due to the high potential penalties that
it provides for very technical violations. The statute imposes
conditions, among other things, on obtaining "consumer reports,"
e.g., information on a consumer's credit worthiness, character, or
mode of living, for employment purposes. It is easy to commit
technical violations that may sustain nationwide class action
claims, making it vital for employers to understand FCRA
requirements before procuring credit or background checks on
prospective or current employees.

The FCRA applies to employers when they retain "consumer reporting
agencies," e.g., companies that compile or evaluate consumer
credit information or other information on consumers for the
purpose of providing consumer reports to third parties in exchange
for a monetary fee, to provide consumer reports regarding
employees and prospective employees. It generally requires
employers to make certain disclosures to the employee and
reporting agency, to obtain authorization from employees before
obtaining a consumer report, and to take specific action in the
event that an adverse employment decision is made as a result of
information contained in the credit or background report.

The statute provides for statutory damages of up to $1,000 per
violation to any affected consumer, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees for willful violations. If the employer
negligently fails to comply, it can be liable for the actual
damages incurred by employees or prospective employees, as well as
attorney's fees.

Disclosure to Employees and Prospective Employees
The disclosure requirements prohibit employers from obtaining
consumer reports unless, before the report is procured:

   -- A "clear and conspicuous disclosure has been made in
writing" to the employee or prospective employee that a consumer
report may be obtained for employment purposes;

   -- The disclosure is made "in a document that consists solely
of the disclosure" (the "stand-alone disclosure" requirement); and
The employee or prospective employee has authorized, in writing,
the procurement of the consumer report.

Class actions frequently rely upon the "stand-alone disclosure"
requirement to construct claims alleging that the employer's
disclosure improperly contains extraneous language or information,
and, thus, does not consist "solely of the disclosure." While the
case law on this issue is far from unanimous, courts often
construe the "stand-alone disclosure" provision narrowly.

Consequently, in order to avoid this type of litigation, the
employer should use an obviously stand-alone disclosure in a
separate document that does not include a release of liability and
does not cross reference additional information or documents.

When the "stand-alone disclosure" requirement is litigated, some
district courts have concluded that the provision is too ambiguous
to sustain claims for willful violations of the FCRA, or that a
small amount of extraneous language does not create a violation.
At the same time, however, many district courts have allowed
consumer class action claims seeking damages for willful
noncompliance of the FCRA to continue beyond the pleadings stage
where plaintiffs can point to a disclosure containing information
beyond the disclosure and requested employee authorization. For
example, in Harris v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 15-cv-
01058, the Northern District of California recently denied Home
Depot's motion to dismiss claims that it willfully violated the
stand-alone provision by including language in the disclosure
releasing it from liability for information obtained through the
consumer report. District courts have even denied motions to
dismiss "stand-alone disclosure" claims based upon allegations
that the disclosure, albeit contained in a document separate from
the allegedly offending extraneous information, was presented to
plaintiff at the same time and read in conjunction with extraneous
information. Speer v. Whole Food Mkt. Grp., Inc., No. 8:14-cv-
03035 (M.D. Fla. March 30, 2015). Thus, while questions of
willfulness and a lack of damages on the part of employees may
prove to be viable defenses for employers, many of these cases
cannot be dismissed at the outset and are allowed to proceed into
discovery.

Notice of Potential Adverse Action

Before taking an adverse action, e.g., denying employment or
making other employment decisions that adversely affect current or
prospective employees, as a result of information contained in the
consumer report, employers must notify employees or prospective
employees. The notice must include a copy of the consumer report,
as well as a written description of the employee's rights under
the FCRA.

Employers should provide as much advance notice as possible, but
at least five business days, using a delivery method that would
allow them to prove, if necessary, that advance notice was given.
The statute does not specify a minimum amount of time for this
notice period, but courts have interpreted the provision to
require a reasonable amount of time to allow the employee to
respond, and some have even specified a minimum of five business
days. See Reardon v. Closetmaid Corp., Civ. No. 2:08-1730, 2013 WL
6231606, at *12 (W.D. Pa.  Dec. 2, 2013) (quoting legislative
history as stating: "a reasonable period for the employee to
respond. . .  is not required to exceed 5 business days" following
receipt). Plaintiffs are quick to attempt to create class action
claims based on any arguable failure to comply with these
requirements, alleging that the required materials were not
provided or were not given sufficiently in advance of the adverse
action.

Additional Information to Employees and Prospective Employees Upon
Taking Adverse Action

If, after sending the pre-adverse action notice, the employer
takes adverse action against the employee based upon information
contained in his or her consumer report, the employer must provide
a follow up notice to the employee that the adverse action was
indeed taken. The required contents of the post-adverse action
notice include:

   -- Identification of the consumer reporting agency, including
its contact information;

   -- A statement that the agency did not make the adverse action
decision and is unable to provide the specific reasons why adverse
action was taken; and

   -- A summary of the consumer's right to challenge the accuracy
or completeness of the report and to obtain a free additional
report from the agency within 60 days.

Additional disclosures, including the employee's numerical credit
score, may be necessary depending on the basis of the adverse
action. Class action claims arising from alleged failures to
provide this information are generally less successful, but they
are still routinely asserted.

State and Local Laws

Employers should also be aware of state and local laws governing
employment decisions based on credit reports and consumer
background checks. Washington, for example, has a state Fair
Credit Reporting Act, RCW Chapter 19.182, which largely mirrors
the requirements imposed under the federal statute. However, in
Washington, an employer may not obtain consumer credit information
unless (1) the information is substantially job related and the
employer's reasons for using the information are disclosed in
writing, or (2) the information is required by law. California
also imposes additional requirements for conducting background
checks on job applicants, many of which are aimed at providing
applicants and employees greater access to the background check
results.

Before obtaining background checks or credit reports in a specific
location, employers must research state and local requirements to
ensure compliance.


JEFFBOAT AMERICAN: Request for Appointment of Counsel Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard L. Young of the United States
District Court for Southern District of Indiana granted
Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of counsel in the case captioned, AARON M.
MUHAMMAD, Plaintiff, v. JEFFBOAT AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, and
GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 89,
Defendants, Case No. 4:14-CV-00087-RLY-WGH.

Plaintiff, Aaron M. Muhammad, a former employee of Jeffboat LLC,
filed a pro se Complaint against Jeffboat and the General Drivers,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 89, alleging he was
discriminated against "by being subjected to harassment and being
denied recall rights and benefits" and "retaliated against for his
race being Black," in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Plaintiff was also a participant in the Jeffboat
Hourly-Rated Employees' Pension Plan. Jeffboat serves as the
administrator of the Plan. At the time of Plaintiff's separation
from Jeffboat in 1984, he had accrued a total of 4.1 years of
credited service under the Plan. As a result of the settlement
dated November 12, 1993, Plaintiff received a lump sum award. In
calculating the amount of settlement proceeds that each class
member received, every class member was deemed, solely for the
purpose of calculating the settlement payment, to have "one year"
for each year during which the class member had worked at least
one day. At that time, in order to be eligible for retirement
benefits under the Plan, an employee must have accrued at least
8.5 years of credited service.

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss or, in the alternative,
for summary judgment, regarding all claims made against them.
Plaintiff also moves for the appointment of counsel under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(1). The Court denies request for the
appointment of counsel because the plaintiff already has in
possession of the type of documents he needs to support his
claims.

In the Order dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LKp8jbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Young found no genuine
issue of material fact exists and that Defendants are entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. The Court denies request for the
appointment of counsel because the plaintiff already has in
possession of the type of documents he needs to support his
claims.

Defendants are represented by Megan R. U'Sellis, Esq. --
musellis@laborlawyers.com -- Todd B. Logsdon, Esq. --
tlogsdon@laborlawyers.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP


LANDS' END: Seeks Dismissal of "Made in U.S.A." Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Riley, Esq. -- kriley@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye &
Warren, wrote that Lands' End tried a second time to dismiss a
"Made in U.S.A." class action with the novel argument that,
because the company had already reimbursed the plaintiff for the
necktie she purchased, she is not injured and lacks standing.

As background, in October 2014, plaintiff Elaine Oxina filed the
putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, alleging that Lands' End falsely
represented that the necktie she purchased, which label states
"Made in China," was "Made in USA," in violation of the Lanham Act
and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition
Law, and "Made in U.S.A." statute. In June 2015, the court granted
Lands' End's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint (which
omitted the Lanham Act claim), concluding that Ms. Oxina lacked
standing to bring the case under California's "Made in U.S.A."
statute because Lands' End made the alleged "Made in U.S.A."
representation online, and the statute applies only to "Made in
U.S.A." claims that appear on the merchandise or the merchandise's
container.

Not easily discouraged, Ms. Oxina filed a second amended complaint
at the end of July, alleging that Lands' End violated California's
consumer protection statutes in general by deceptively advertising
a product labeled as "Made in China" as "Made in U.S.A."
Additionally, she claims that she sent Lands' End a letter in June
demanding that the company initiate a corrective advertising
campaign and alert affected customers, but it did not comply with
her request.

In the motion to dismiss filed, Lands' End argues that, because
the company sent Ms. Oxina a refund check for the purchased
necktie, plus interest, eight days before she filed the second
amended complaint, she lacks the injury necessary to file an
action for damages, and therefore lacks Article III standing.
Although "Made in U.S.A." class action lawsuits are popular in
California right now, it will be interesting to see whether Lands'
End's argument passes muster, and whether companies can avoid an
alleged violation -- of California's "Made in U.S.A." statute or
its consumer protection statutes in general -- by simply
reimbursing the aggrieved consumer.


LHC GROUP: Court Rules on Bid to Reconsider Class Cert. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the United States
District for Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part
Defendant LHC Group, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the
order conditionally certifying collective action, or in the
alternative to certify interlocutory appeal in the case captioned,
CORINNE CHAPMAN v. LHC GROUP, INC., SECTION: "G"(3), Case No. 13-
6384.

Corrine Chapman worked for 15 years as an office manager for
Ochsner Home Health Corp. in Covington, Louisiana, which was
acquired by LHC in 2009.  According to Chapman, she was a
nonexempt employee paid hourly, with responsibilities including
scheduling, recording, and reporting the work hours of LHC's
hourly employees.  Chapman alleges that LHC never instructed or
trained its payroll employees how to properly record hours worked
by hourly employees, or with respect to the record-keeping
requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

On April 4, 2014, Chapman filed a "Motion to Conditionally Certify
a Collective Action and Issue Notice,"  which the Court granted on
November 13, 2014.  The Court's November 13, 2014 Order granted
Plaintiff's request to conditionally certify a nationwide class of
office managers, administrative personnel, and clinical
technicians based on the allegations of Chapman and three other
employees that they were prohibited from recording more than 40
hours on their time sheets.

In the motion, LHC argues that reconsideration of the Court's
November 13, 2014 Order granting conditional certification "is
warranted to prevent the manifest injustice that would result to
LHC if a nationwide notice is authorized by this Court based on
the wholly conclusory and otherwise inadequate allegations
submitted by Chapman in support of her motion.

In her Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qjGdx8from Leagle.com, Judge Brown held that neither
party dispute the applicability of the Lusardi approach, and since
that approach is routinely used by courts in this district, the
Court denied LHC's alternate motion for certification of these
questions for interlocutory appeal. The motion for reconsideration
is granted to the extent that LHC requests reconsideration of the
scope of the putative class and denied to the extent that LHC
requests reconsideration of any other aspect of the Court's
November 3, 2014 Order.

The Court directed the parties to meet before a magistrate judge
to discuss the form and content of the Proposed Notice and submit
a joint Proposed Notice following that conference.

Connie Chapman is represented by:

Chad A. Danenhower, Esq.
Dale Edward Williams, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DALE EDWARD WILLIAMS
212 Park Pl Dr
Covington, LA 70433
Tel: (985)898-6368

LHC Group, Inc. is represented by:

Glenn G. Patton, Esq.
Brett E. Coburn, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
1201 West Peachtree St NW # 4200,
Atlanta, GA 30309
Tel:(404)881-7000


MASSACHUSETTS: WilmerHale Fees Granted in Ford v. Bender Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Judith Gail Dein of the United States District
Court for District of Massachusetts allowed in its entirety
Plaintiff's motion for fees and costs in the case captioned,
ALBERT FORD, Plaintiff, v. JAMES BENDER, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 07-11457-JGD.

In May 2008, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ("Wilmer
Hale") was appointed to represent the plaintiff Albert Ford, who
was incarcerated in the Department Disciplinary Unit ("DDU") at
MCI-Cedar Junction as a pretrial detainee, and later as a
convicted inmate, without a hearing. In September 2010, summary
judgment was entered in Ford's favor on his claim that his
detention in the DDU without a hearing violated his constitutional
rights. The First Circuit reversed the prior order to award
damages on the grounds of qualified immunity. WilmerHale had filed
a motion seeking fees in the amount of $345,542.00 and costs in
the amount of $20,456.36 and ordered that the defendants pay
WilmerHale attorneys' fees in the amount of $258,000.00 and costs
in the amount of $20,456.36.

The court reviewed all of the significant court proceedings,
carefully scrutinized all of the time records submitted, and
awarded only those fees which were necessary and appropriate and
awarded $258,000 in fees is commensurate with the amount of work
needed to bring the case to resolution.

The defendants appealed to the First Circuit.  The First Circuit
reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded the matter for
reconsideration of attorneys' fees and costs consistent with its
ruling that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity,
that certain equitable relief issued by this court was moot when
issued, and that Ford was the prevailing party for "two forms of
relief" issued by this court specifically, the declaratory
judgment that the plaintiff's procedural due process rights had
been violated in 2008 when he was confined "in the DDU without a
new hearing as a convicted felon serving a sentence," and the
injunctive relief issued by this court ensuring the plaintiff's
access to transitional programming for the remainder of his
sentence.

On remand, WilmerHale filed the motion for attorneys fees and
costs.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/mLoAEhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dein found that the
request for limited reimbursement of costs to be reasonable and
awarded Wilmer Hale in the amount of $103,200 and costs of
$20,456.36 plus post-judgment interest.

Albert Ford is represented by Lisa J. Pirozzolo, Esq. --
lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com -- Emily R. Schulman, Esq. --
emily.schulman@wilmerhale.com -- Timothy D. Syrett, Esq. --
timothy.syrett@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
DORR LLP

Defendants are represented by Kevin A. Anahory, Esq., Richard
Elkins Gordon, Jr., Esq., and William D. Saltzman, Esq., at
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Correction.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased shares of MaxPoint Interactive, Inc.
("MaxPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: MXPT), pursuant and/or
traceable to MaxPoint's initial public offering on or about March
6, 2015 (the "IPO"). (the "Class Period").

The Lawsuit alleges that MaxPoint's IPO offering documents were
inaccurate because MaxPoint failed to disclose that it was
receiving two-thirds of its sales from only 50 customers and that
due to this high customer concentration, it was more exposed to
those 50 customers' budgetary proclivities and promotional
activities. Additionally, the suit also claims that MaxPoint had
been signing smaller customers with smaller advertising budgets in
the months leading up to the IPO and consequently, MaxPoint's
sales growth was declining at the time of the IPO.  Since the IPO,
the price of MaxPoint common stock has declined approximately 60%
and is currently trading at below $5.00 per share.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in MaxPoint you have until October 30, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
info@bgandg.com


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MaxPoint
Interactive, Inc. securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on or about March 6,
2015 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MaxPoint investors under
the federal securities laws.

If you purchased MaxPoint securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than October 30, 2015, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you want more information about the MaxPoint Securities Class
Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com.

On March 6, 2015, MaxPoint completed the IPO, selling more than
6.5 million shares of MaxPoint common stock to the public at
$11.50 per share pursuant to a Registration Statement and
Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the IPO, raising more than $74.75 million.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement used to
conduct the IPO contained materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition, business
and prospects. According to the complaint, MaxPoint failed to
disclose that it was deriving two-thirds of its sales from just 50
customers at the time of the IPO, and that as a result of this
high customer concentration, it was more exposed to those 50
customers' budgetary proclivities and promotional activities. The
complaint also alleges that the Company had been signing smaller
customers with smaller advertising budgets in the months leading
up to the IPO, and that as a result, MaxPoint's sales growth was
declining at the time of the IPO, which would have a material
impact on MaxPoint's profitability. Since the IPO, the price of
MaxPoint common stock has declined approximately 60% and is
currently trading at below $5.00 per share.

                   About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.  All of the Firm's legal
endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and
consumer protection and always fight "for the people."

Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
28 West 44th Street Suite 2001 New York, NY  10036
1-800-732-5200
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com


NARCONON: Court Shelves Ruling on Arbitration Bid
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District for
Northern District of California deferred ruling on both the
motions to compel arbitration and the alternative motions to
dismiss, and granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in the
case captioned, NATHAN BURGOON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NARCONON OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. C-15-1381 EMC.

Plaintiffs Nathan Burgoon and Caleb Landers are individuals who
signed up for drug treatment programs at facilities known as
"Narconon Centers."  Plaintiffs have filed a class action against
Defendants, asserting in essence that Defendants are not truly
offering a drug treatment program but rather recruiting and
indoctrinating vulnerable persons (because they have addictions)
into Scientology. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants have engaged
in fraud by (1) professing to offer a secular program not
affiliated with any religion when in fact that was not the case
and (2) claiming the program had a high success rate when in fact
that was not the case. Plaintiffs also maintain that Defendants
breached their contracts by failing to offer a secular program by
not having a high success rate.

Although Plaintiffs agreed that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
governed the case, Plaintiffs argued that they cannot be compelled
to arbitrate because they lacked the mental capacity to contract
and/or were unduly influenced to enter into the contracts. They
further argued that the arbitration agreements are unconscionable,
which provides an independent ground to deny arbitration. Finally,
Plaintiffs argued that, at least as to Mr. Burgoon, the "higher-
up" Narconon companies are nonsignatories to the arbitration
agreements and, therefore, cannot compel arbitration.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to amend in which they
seek to drop the claim for breach of contract.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 28, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/4limvcfrom Leagle.com.

The Court directed the parties to meet and confer, and consult
with Courtroom Deputy Betty Lee regarding available trial dates,
as well as file a joint proposed trial plan to adjudicate the
issues of mental incapacity and undue influence.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

David Evan Miller, Esq.
Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
SAEED AND LITTLE LLP
1433 N Meridian St Suite 202,
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Tel: (317)721-9214

     - and -

Mary Bondy Reiten, Esq. -- mreiten@tmdwlaw.com -- Beth E. Terrell,
Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE
PLLC

Defendants are represented by David Charles Scheper, Esq. --
dscheper@scheperkim.com -- Gregory Andrew Ellis, Esq. --
gellis@scheperkim.com -- William Hobbes Forman, Esq. --
wforman@scheperkim.com -- SCHEPER, KIM AND HARRIS LLP


NEW JERSEY: Judge Dismisses Drisco Complaint with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court
for District of New Jersey granted Defendants' unopposed motion to
dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, Stanton DRISCO, Jr.,
Plaintiff, v. Oliver WILLIAMS, Darrell Stewart, Richard Fogarity,
Paul Lagana, Norma Morales, Lisa Schofield, Cindy Sweeney,
Jefferey Feebee, Amadu Jalloh, Charles Jay Hughes, Gary M.
Lanigan, Beverly Hasting, Jane Doe, John Does 1-2, Defendants,
Case No. 2:13-1144 (KM)(MAH).

Stanton Drisco, Jr., brought an action against Defendants Oliver
Williams, Darrell Stewart, Richard Fogarity, Paul Lagana, Norma
Morales, Lisa Schofield, Cindy Sweeney, Jefferey Feebee, Amadu
Jalloh, Charles Jay Hughes, Gary M. Lanigan, Beverly Hasting, Jane
Doe, and John Does 1-2. The complaint alleges violations of
Drisco's constitutional rights in connection with disciplinary
charges lodged against him while he was incarcerated by the State
of New Jersey. Drisco sought to hold the Department of Corrections
Administrator Lisa Schofield responsible in her "supervisory
responsibilities" and that asked that the sanctions against him to
be removed, that the facility reclassify him as full-minimum and
community release status, that he be returned to the residential
community release program, and that the facility reimburse him for
all wages and credits for the days of work he missed as a result
of disciplinary sanctions being imposed. He also sought monetary
relief totaling $25 million.

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss the complaint and Drisco
failed to file any opposition to the motion which was construed as
an abandonement to his claims.

In his Opinion dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bkg2jIfrom Leagle.com, Judge McNulty held that
Drisco's claims to be not legally viable since he did not allege
any facts pertinent to his Eighth Amendment, due process, and New
Jersey constitutional rights claims.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to file any amendment to his
complaint within 30 days upon issuance of the Opinion.


NEW SOUTH WALES: Police Faces Class Suit Over 'Wrongful Arrest'
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that lawyers who launched a class action against
NSW Police for wrongly arresting young people say there may be
many potential claimants across the North Coast.

Young people wrongfully arrested may be entitled to compensation
in the class action, that is set to cost the police force millions
of dollars.

More than one hundred young people were wrongfully arrested for
breaching bail conditions across the state, due to an error with
police software.

The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) launched the class
action against NSW Police, and has reached an in-principle
agreement for at least $1.85 million.

One young person from Casino, north of Lismore, is already
involved and the PIAC is urging more young people on the North
Coast to come forward.

PIAC Senior Solicitor Camilla Pandolfini said if they were
arrested for breaching their bail, they may be entitled to
compensation.

"They have to been arrested before the 20th of May 2014, their
matter has to have been in the Children's Court originally, and
they have to been arrested for a breach of bail where either they
weren't actually on bail, or they weren't in breach of their
conditions," she said.

"That's what the class action is about."

The four-year class action was taken after the PIAC became aware
of young people being arrested due to errors in the police
computing system, or COPS (Computer Operational Policing System).

Ms Pandolfini says she is confident there are more young people
with a case.

"If they have been arrested for a breach of bail where they
weren't actually on bail, so basically it was a wrongful arrest,
they'll be entitled to compensation," she said.

"For each individual person it will depend on how long they might
have been arrested for, what else happened to them, the individual
circumstances."


NFL INC: DNW Foods Alleges Monopoly by DirectTV of NFL Games
------------------------------------------------------------
DNW Foods Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC,
Directv, LLC, Direct TV Holdings LLC, Case 2:15-cv-07095
(C.D.Cal., Sept. 9, 2015), was filed on behalf of a purported
class of bar and restaurant owners that have purchased DirecTV and
the NFL Sunday Ticket alleges that DirecTV is involved in the
monopoly on the distribution of live broadcasts of Sunday
afternoon NFL games.

DirecTV Holdings LLC is the U.S. operating arm of DirecTV and
describes itself as "a leading provider of digital television
entertainment in the United States."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
     Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     600 West Broadway
     Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 230-0800
     Fax: (619) 230-1874
     E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
             sward@barrack.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
     Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 963-0600
     Fax: (215) 963-0838
     E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
             jgittleman@barrack.com


NORTHWEST BIO: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of purchasers of Northwest Biotherapeutics,
Incsecurities during the period between March 8, 2013 and August
20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until October
26, 2015 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Northwest Biotherapeutics is headquartered in Maryland.  Brower
Piven is the only firm headquartered in Maryland with a practice
dedicated primarily to shareholder class action litigation.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Northwest
Biotherapeutics securities purchased on or after March 8, 2013 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period, as described below, and would like
to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate
as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please
visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  No class has yet been certified in the above action.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

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

The Complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
claims regarding positive results from its DCVax-Direct Trial were
based on preliminary and unconfirmed trial results that had not
been reviewed or analyzed by the hospitals conducting the trials
and that  the Company was the subject of an aggressive stock
promotion campaign which included promoters using fictitious
identities and false credentials, and that German regulators
required additional information to consider whether to allow the
DCVax-L Trial to continue uninterrupted.

According to the Complaint, following: (1) a June 19, 2014 report
from, The Street.com that MD Anderson Cancer Center had issued a
stern rebuke to Northwest Bio for promoting, unjustified claims
about results from the ongoing clinical trial of DCVax-Direct; (2)
a July 7, 2014, report published on SeekingAlpha.com stating that
the Company was the subject of a massive promotional campaign
where in some cases, authors have used fictitious identities and
fake credentials when they are actually paid writers;  (3)  an
August 21, 2015 pre-market news story revealing that the Company's
Phase 3 DCVax-L brain cancer treatment clinical trial in Germany
was temporarily suspended; and (4) a Company announcement that
same day that new screening of patient candidates for the trial
had been temporarily suspended while the Company submitted certain
information from the trial for regulatory review, the value of
Northwest Biotherapeutics shares declined significantly.

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

Charles J. Piven, Esq.
Brower Piven
1925 Old Valley Road, Stevenson, Maryland 21153
Telephone:410.332.0030
Facsimile:410.685.1300
Email: piven@browerpiven.com


ONTARIO, CANADA: Nov. 30 Opt Out Date in First Nations Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jody Porter, writing for CBC News, reported that residential
school survivors who were left out of the Indian Residential
Schools Settlement Agreement now have another chance to push for
compensation from the federal government.

A class action lawsuit for students who attended an Indian
residential school during the day, but went home at night, was
certified by a federal court in June. All so-called 'day
scholars', and their children, are included in the case unless
they opt out by November 30.

The day scholars experienced the same loss of language and culture
and were subjected to the same curriculum, punishments and
treatment as other students, said their lawyer Karenna Williams.

"But because these students went home at night, they were actually
ineligible for any compensation for the way they had been
treated," Williams said.

'Common experience'

Day scholars were eligible for the independent assessment process
if they suffered physical or sexual abuse at residential school,
she said, but they were ineligible for the common experience
payment.

That's the compensation that was awarded to survivors who could
prove they lived at a residential school. They received $10,000
for the first school year of residence and an additional $3,000
for each subsequent school year.

Nine residential schools in northwestern Ontario are mentioned in
the day scholar class action. They are:

Cecilia Jeffrey (Kenora, Shoal Lake)
Fort Frances (St. Margaret's)
McIntosh (Kenora)
Pelican Lake (Pelican Falls)
Poplar Hill
St. Mary's (Kenora, St. Anthony's)
St. Joseph's/Fort William
Stirland Lake High School (Wahbon Bay Academy) from September 1,
1971 to June 30, 1991
Cristal Lake High School (September 1, 1976 to June 30, 1986)
First Nations, such as Poplar Hill, that were home to the schools
could also be eligible for compensation if the class action is
successful.

Unlike students, First Nations must opt-in to be part of the case.
They have until February 29, 2016 to do so.

Williams said ideally, the case will be settled out of court.

"I really believe that it's time the government sit down with the
people who were left out [of the common experience payments], have
these conversations and essentially right the wrongs," she said.


PHILADELPHIA: Tate-Brown's Family Files Federal Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Otterbein, writing for Phillymag, reported that the family
of Brandon Tate-Brown, a 26-year-old man who was fatally shot by
police at a traffic stop, filed a class-action lawsuit in federal
court.

The lawsuit makes the same claims as a wrongful death suit that
was filed in April by the family in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, which has since been withdrawn, as well as several
additional claims. Attorney Brian Mildenberg said the new claims
were based on an investigation that took place after the police
department released several documents in June related to the
shooting.

Mildenberg said the family "is asking the federal court to certify
a class action on behalf of all persons who have been or may be
injured by police due to lack of training and operational
deficiencies identified by the United States Department of
Justice."

In March, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a wide-ranging,
critical report that found that police-involved shootings in
Philadelphia had increased, use-of-force training was often
inadequate, and the investigation of shootings was inconsistent.
It also recommended several major police reforms. The federal
government began reviewing the city's police department after a
request was made by Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey.

The family "requests that the federal court take jurisdiction
over, and force the implementation of, these reforms in order to
assure that the Philadelphia Police Department is operating in
accordance with law and Constitutional limitations," said
Mildenberg, and it "seeks damages for the wrongful death of
Brandon Tate-Brown."

Tate-Brown's family also renewed its call for the police officers
involved the shooting to be criminally charged and removed from
the streets. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams said in
March that he would not press charges because the officers had not
committed any crimes.

Protesters swarmed an event where Ramsey was speaking, shouting,
"Black lives matter!" and "No racist police!" They were protesting
Tate-Brown's death.


PLAINS ALL: Berstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announced that it has
filed a securities class action on behalf of the Jacksonville
Police and Fire Pension Fund ("Jacksonville P&F") in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") on behalf of investors in the Common Units
of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. ("Plains" or the "Company")
between February 27, 2013 and August 4, 2015, inclusive, and the
Class A Shares of Plains GP Holdings, L.P. ("Plains Holdings")
(between October 16, 2013 and August 4, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint also alleges claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) Plains Common
Units pursuant and/or traceable to a registered offering of Plains
Common Units conducted on or about February 26, 2015, (ii) Plains
Holdings Class A Shares pursuant and/or traceable to Plains
Holdings' initial public offering conducted on or about October
16, 2013 (the "IPO"), and (iii) Plains Holdings Class A Shares
pursuant and/or traceable to a registered public offering of
Plains Holdings Class A Shares conducted on or about November 10,
2014 (the "November 2014 Offering" and, collectively with the
February 2015 Offering and the IPO, the "Offerings"). The action
is captioned Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund v. Plains
All American Pipeline, L.P., No. 4:15-cv-02540 (S.D. Tex.).

The Complaint was filed as related to an action against Plains
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas before the Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, captioned City of
Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension System
v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., No. 4:15-cv-02404 (S.D.
Tex.). As noted below, pursuant to a notice that was previously
published by BLB&G in connection with a prior action filed against
Plains in the Central District of California, the deadline to file
a motion seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this matter is
October 16, 2015.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Plains, Plains
Holdings and certain of its senior executives violated provisions
of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's pipeline monitoring, maintenance and
spill response measures, as well as its compliance with federal
regulations governing its pipeline operations. Among other things,
Plains told investors and regulators that it was in compliance
with regulations governing its pipeline operations, and that its
Line 901 pipeline and operations off the coast of Santa Barbara,
California were "state of the art" and therefore a spill was
"extremely unlikely." The Complaint also seeks remedies under the
Securities Act against Plains, Plains Holdings, certain of their
senior officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the
IPO, the November 2014 Offering and the February 2015 Offering for
material misstatements and omissions contained in materials issued
in connection with the Offerings.

On May 19, 2015, news reports disclosed that Line 901 had
ruptured, causing a spill that impacted several miles of some of
the most environmentally sensitive and protected coastline in
North America. Although the Company was required to notify the
National Response Center within 30 minutes of discovery of the
spill, the agency was instead notified as a result of a 911 call
to the local fire department. Further, regulators investigating
the spill have reported that Line 901 and an adjacent pipeline
were "extensively" corroded, and that prior inspections had shown
a worsening of pipeline integrity.

Moreover, after the spill occurred, Plains executives
misrepresented the extent and severity of the spill. In the days
after the spill was disclosed, Company officials told investors
that a "worst case" estimate showed that 2,400 barrels had been
released. However, on August 5, 2015, the Company reported that
the extent of the spill was in fact far greater than initially
reported, and that the U.S. Department of Justice had initiated a
criminal investigation into the spill.

In response to disclosures concerning the spill and the truth
about the Company's operations, the price of Plains securities
have declined by nearly 30%. Plains Holdings Class A Shares have
similarly declined in value, falling $5.65 per share on August 5,
2015, or over 20%.

The deadline for seeking appointment as Lead Plaintiff in this
matter is on October 16, 2015, or 60 days after the notice of the
pendency of an action asserting substantially the same claims
against Plains was first published. Specifically, on August 17,
2015, BLB&G published a notice in connection with a complaint that
Jacksonville P&F filed against Plains in the Central District of
California (the "California Action"), which triggered the 60-day
deadline to seek Lead Plaintiff appointment. The California Action
was subsequently dismissed. However, neither the dismissal of the
California Action nor the filing of the Complaint in the Southern
District of Texas alters the statutory deadline to seek Lead
Plaintiff appointment.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court in the Southern District of Texas no
later than October 16, 2015. Any member of the proposed Class may
move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the
proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at (212) 554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international
reputation for excellence and integrity. Specializing in
securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights,
employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among
other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions
on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide.
Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest
and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering
billions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors. More
information about BLB&G can be found online at www.blbglaw.com.

Avi Josefson, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas # 38, New York, NY 10019
Phone:+1 212-554-1400
www.blbglaw.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Over Upaid Insurance Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal
judge certified a class-action lawsuit accusing Prudential
Financial Inc of inflating its earnings and stock price by holding
on to money that should have gone to life insurance policy
beneficiaries.

Plaintiffs led by the National Shopmen Pension Fund in Washington,
D.C. are represented by lawyers including Shawn Williams of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

Mr. Williams may be reached at:

         Shawn Williams, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Tel: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423
         Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


ROCKPORT FINANCIAL: Parties to Address Continuance of Stay
----------------------------------------------------------
Meridith Liable filed her class action complaint against Rockport
Financial LLC on February 17, 2015. The next day, Plaintiff filed
her pending Motion for Class Certification. In March 2015, the
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to Stay Class
Certification, pending the Court's ruling on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

In granting the Motion to Stay, the Court stated, "Briefing
deadlines of pending Motion to Certify Class [] are held in
abeyance pending further Orders of this Court"  Subsequently, on
August 12, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/s4Kq7ifrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge E.
Richard Webber found Defendant's initial reasoning for staying the
briefing for the Motion for Class Certification is no longer
applicable.  He directed the parties to file a response on the
issue of whether the stay should be extended further.

The case is, MERIDITH LIABLE Plaintiff, v. ROCKPORT FINANCIAL, LLC
d/b/a REGIONAL CREDIT SERVICES, INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-
00306-ERW (E.D. Mo.).

Meredith Liable is represented by:

James W. Eason, Esq.
EASON LAW FIRM
124 Gay Ave #200
St. Louis, MO 63105
Tel: (314)932-1066

Rockport Financial LLC is represented by:

      Dennis J. Barton, III, Esq.
      BARTON LAW GROUP, LLC
      17600 Chesterfield Airport Rd
      Chesterfield, MO 63005
      Tel: (636)778-9520


SAN DIEGO, CA: Suit Targets Exams at Polinsky Children Center
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Chen, writing for ABC10 News, reported that for the first
time, the mother of a toddler boy is opening up about a two-month
nightmare now front and center in a class action suit against the
County of San Diego.

Katy Evans says her son, at 2 years of age, was always on the
move.

In August 2014, Evans says moments after he got out of the tub,
"he went hydroplaning through tiles, onto the carpet and grazed
his eyebrow."

Evans, a Navy Corpsman in the Navy for more than 15 years, was on
a ship at the time and got word of the carpet burn on her son's
eyebrow from the family friend who was watching him.

Later, the boy's father -- who is not with Evans -- reported it to
a social worker.

"It was probably the worst day of my life, to have him taken from
me," said Evans.

Evans says even though she was on a ship for several days
surrounding the incident, her son was taken to the Polinsky
Children's Center, and two foster homes before he was returned to
her two months later.

"I fell to my knees, cried and screamed when I learned he was put
in a foster home," said Evans.

She looked up an attorney and says she found out her son underwent
an invasive physical exam at Polinsky Children's Center

"I am really upset. I wish I had been there to comfort him," said
Evans.

Evans' son, not named in legal documents, is now the plaintiff in
a class action suit alleging the county's decades-old practice of
exams was unconstitutional, amounting to illegal searches.

Her attorney says the consent forms usually given to parents to
sign were misleading, according to a judge.

"These are investigative searches. This is not medical care.
Federal courts have found that children have the constitutional
right to reassurance and comfort and care," said Evans.

Earlier, the county settled another case involving the exams for
$1.1 million.

Afterward, the county agreed to allow parents to be present for
any exams.

Evans wants to make sure that's happening.

"I hope nobody has to go through the things I've gone through,"
said Evans.

A county spokesperson confirms all the changes have been made as
required by the settlement.

The class action suit could include a staggering 50,000 children.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Sued Over 'Useless Insurance Add-on'
--------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Records, reported that a
Chicago woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against the finance
company that handled her car loan, claiming she was misled into
buying a useless contract addendum.

In the complaint filed Aug. 31 in federal court in Chicago,
plaintiff Joyce Pettye is suing Fort Worth, Texas-based Santander
Consumer USA Inc., claiming the company violated the Truth in
Lending Act and the Illinois Motor Vehicle Retail Installment
Sales Act.

According to court documents, Pettye bought a 2012 Ford Focus in
March from Al Piemonte Super Car Outlet in Northlake, and financed
the purchase through a Retail Installment Contract held by
Santander. Under the terms of the contract, Pettye agreed to make
72 monthly payments at a 27.06 percent annual percentage rate.
Once the finance charge and other miscellaneous charges were added
to the car's $13,000 sticker price, the total sale price came to
just under $30,000.

Among the additional charges was $895 for a program outlined in a
document titled "Gap Addendum." The optional program absolves the
buyer of liability for the unpaid balance of the contract in the
event of a total loss, but was worthless in Pettye's case, because
it is limited to contracts with an annual percentage rate of 24
percent or less.

In her lawsuit, Pettye claims the sales staff at the dealership
presented her with a stack of documents and told her to sign on
every line marked by an "X." The Gap Addendum was among the
documents in the stack, and because its signature line was marked
with an "X," Pettye signed it as instructed, believing it to be
part of the contract. Court documents say she was unaware that she
had made a non-required purchase until she consulted with
attorneys about an unrelated concern with the sale.

"Had Plaintiff been provided adequate disclosures about the nature
of the Gap Addendum as an additional, non-required purchase with
an $895 cost, she would not have signed [it]," the lawsuit states.
"The only reason Plaintiff signed the Gap Addendum was because she
was led to believe it was a mandatory form connected with her
RIC."

In addition to the claims regarding the gap program, the lawsuit
says that Pettye was not provided any contract disclosures in a
written form she could keep, and neither the amount financed nor
the finance charge were explained to her either orally or in
writing, in violation of the Truth in Lending Act. The suit also
argues that the gap charges should have been calculated under the
"finance charges" figure, not the "amount financed" figure.

"The true cost of credit was never disclosed to Plaintiff or any
of the members of the proposed class in accordance with the TILA,
and therefore they are entitled to damages," the suit claims.

The suit has been filed as a class action and names as plaintiffs
all vehicle purchasers in the state of Illinois who signed a Gap
Addendum while their APR was in excess of the addendum's limit.
The class period covers the past year for the Truth in Lending Act
claim and the past five years for the Illinois Motor Vehicle
Retail Installment Sales Act claim. According to the lawsuit,
nearly 35 percent of vehicles purchased with an RIC in 2011
included purchase of a Gap program.

Pettye is being represented by attorney Christopher V. Langone of
Langone Law Firm, of Evanston, and James P. Batson of the Law
Office of James P. Batson, of Chicago. The suit requests
certification as a class action, damages from Santander to be
determined at trial, attorney fees and costs and disgorgement of
finance charges.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Court Denies Motions to Dismiss and Transfer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the United States
District for Southern District of Illinois denied Schnuck's
motions to dismiss and to transfer the case captioned, CLYDE
ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHNUCK MARKETS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 15-CV-0061-MJR-DGW.

The case stemmed from a cyber-attack on the credit and debit card
systems at Defendant Schnuck Markets (Schnucks), a regional
grocery chain headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. The (over 200)
Plaintiffs are Schnucks customers whose personal and financial
information has been exposed due to the cyber-attack. The case was
removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
According to the Complaint, hackers gained access to Schnucks'
credit/debit card processing systems in December 2012. The hackers
managed to obtain personally identifying information (PII) and
confidential financial data (CFD). Despite notification from the
bank regarding the breach, Schnucks continued to accept plastic
cards, and did not warn its customers of the risks of unauthorized
PII/CFD disclosure until March 30, 2013.

Plaintiffs blame Schnucks for the data breach and delayed
response, and sued in state court on several theories of relief,
including negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, violation of merchandising statutes, and violation of
Illinois' Personal Information Protection Act, 815 ILCS 530/1.

In the motion, Scnuck argued that dismissal is warranted because
the Complaint lacked the specificity necessary to satisfy the
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Schnucks
further argued that transfer to the Eastern District of Missouri,
just across the Mississippi River from this courthouse
approximately three miles away, is warranted for the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

In his Memorandum and Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KWRlRxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reagan held that class
certification is warranted and the class mechanism is superior to
other methods available to the parties for a fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy in the case. The class definition
is limited, however, to purchasers in Ohio, California, Colorado,
New Jersey and Texas. Because Colorado has a three-year statute of
limitations on breach of warranty claims, the Colorado class
plaintiffs are limited to purchasers who bought the product
between February 7, 2011 and February 7, 2014.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

John J. Driscoll, Esq.
Christopher J. Quinn, Esq.
DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
1 Metropolitan Sq # 2440,
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel: (314)932-3232

Schnuck Markets, Inc. is represented by Russell K. Scott, Esq. --
rks@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE PC, Casie D.
Collignon, Esq. -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- Paul Karlsgodt, Esq.
-- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER


SHIPLEY DONUTS: Faces "Castrejon" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merari Antonio Castrejon, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. Michael R. Williams, individually,
and d/b/a/ Shipley Donuts, Case 4:15-cv-02599 (S.D.Tex., Sept. 9,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shipley Donuts is an individual resident of the State of Texas and
is an "employer" as defined under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
     Houston, TX 77018
     Tel: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940


SONY PICTURES: Settlement in Hacked Employee Data Suit Inked
------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reproter, reported that
attorneys for a proposed class action against Sony Pictures over a
large hack attack have revealed in court papers that they have
reached an agreement in principle on the material terms of a
settlement.

According to a declaration by attorney Daniel Girard, the deal
came together after a mediation session and months of discussions.
The parties are still preparing settlement documentation.

The deal would likely hold off debate on certification of the
class action. The judge denied Sony's motion to dismiss, but had
yet to rule on Sony's attempt to argue that there wasn't enough
commonality in the claims from former employees. Sony had also
presented the argument that damages were impossible to prove on a
class basis thanks to many other corporate hacks.

The lawsuit led by Michael Corona is a consolidated action of more
than a half dozen lawsuits that were filed this winter after a
data breach that has been attributed by the U.S. government to
North Korea in anticipation of the release of The Interview. There
are two other lawsuits filed in California state court that have
been paused while the litigation in federal court plays out.

If approved, former employees will also have the opportunity to
opt out of claims to continue pursuing legal action against Sony.


STAPLES INC: Driver's Wage Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reported that Staples Inc.
for now has exited a putative class action in New Jersey state
court accusing the office supply giant of trying to conceal an
employer-employee relationship with drivers and denying them
proper wages.

Staples and named plaintiff Jorge Torres-Martinez entered an Aug.
18 stipulation in Middlesex County Superior Court dismissing the
company without prejudice from the litigation. South Hackensack,
New Jersey-based BES Trucking Corp. remains a defendant in the
suit, which accused the companies of violating the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law.

An attorney for Torres-Martinez declined comment, while attorneys
for Staples did not immediately return requests for comment.

Filed on June 23, the suit accused Staples of working with BES to
hide the fact that they had employer-employee relationships with
proposed class members and improperly failed pay them overtime
wages when they worked more than 40 hours per week.

Torres-Martinez has sought to represent drivers and helpers who
allegedly worked to deliver goods from a facility of BES and
Staples in South Hackensack to customers throughout New Jersey and
New York.

Staples controlled how those workers performed their duties,
according to the complaint.

"Specifically plaintiff and all class members all reported to work
at the South Hackensack location, took instruction from Staples
employees, communicated with Staples employees while delivering
their routes during the workday and handled paperwork and invoices
with Staples customers," the complaint said. "Staples had the
authority to reprimand and terminate plaintiff and all class
members."

In a May answer, Staples denied it violated any wage requirements
and said Torres-Martinez and other members of the putative class
were not employees of the company under the state's Wage and Hour
Law.

A similar suit that accuses Home Depot USA Inc. and Piscataway,
New Jersey-based TK Cleaning LLC of failing to pay cleaning
workers owed wages remains pending in Middlesex County.

In that case, named plaintiff Denis Miranda-Rivera is hoping to
represent class members who allegedly worked overnight at Home
Depot locations in New Jersey clearing debris and garbage and
operating sweeping trucks. Under the direction of Home Depot and
TK Cleaning, the workers would bring debris to a central location
in each store, where Home Depot workers would then take charge of
disposing the refuse, according to the complaint.

Along with TK Cleaning, Home Depot controlled the manner and means
in which the workers performed their duties, the complaint
alleged.

Torres-Martinez is represented by Ravi Sattiraju.

Staples is represented by:

         Stacey D. Adams, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON PC
         One Newark Center
         1085 Raymond Blvd, 8th Floor
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Tel: (973) 848-4700
         Fax: (973) 643-5626
         Email: sdadams@littler.com

The case is Torres-Martinez v. BES Trucking Corp. et al, case
number L-385-15 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex
County.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Faces "Berger" Shareholder Suit Over Assets Sale
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Berger on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., William M. Pierce, Joseph
Burke, Richard Handley, Harris W. Hudson, William M. Pruitt, David
Prussky, and Ecolab Inc., 2015CH13325 (Ill. Circ., Sept. 8, 2015),
was filed on behalf of purported public holders of Swisher Hygiene
Inc. who disagree with the sale of substantially all of Swisher's
assets.

Swisher, through its wholly owned subsidiary Swisher
International, delivers hygiene and sanitizing solutions to
customers in a wide range of endmarkets, with a particular
emphasis on the foodservice, hospitality, retail and healthcare
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Leland E. Shalgos, Esq.
     26 0 West 51st Street
     Chicago, IL 60632
     Tel: (773) 925-1700
     Fax: (773) 925-1040

     THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
     29 Broadway, Suite 2400
     New York, NY 10006
     Tel: (212) 952-0602
     Fax: (212) 952-0608


TENNESSEE: School Funding Suit Awaits Certification
---------------------------------------------------
Andy Sher, writing for Times Free Press, reported that a Davidson
County judge says she expects to rule later on whether to grant
class-action certification on a lawsuit filed by Hamilton County
and six other area school boards who say Tennessee's education
funding shortchanges them and students.

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman made the following a nearly hourlong
hearing during which Hamilton County Board of Education attorney
Scott Bennett argued for the certification while Michael Markham,
a senior counsel with the Tennessee Attorney General's office,
argued against it.

Awarding the lawsuit class-action status would allow other local
school systems to benefit, with the exception of Shelby County.
The Memphis-based district filed its own lawsuit, charging state
government has violated the Tennessee constitutional provision
mandating a free system of public education, but Shelby County is
seeking unique remedies.

"This is a matter that affects all Tennesseans," Bennett said of
the lawsuit filed by school systems in Hamilton, Bradley, Coffee,
Grundy, Marion, McMinn and Polk counties. Bennett said "every
district has a story" to tell on how inadequate state funding is
harming efforts to educate students.

Citing three previous Tennessee Supreme Court rulings on school
funding cases in the 1990s and early 2000s, Bennett said, "We're
all receiving less money than the Supreme Court has said we need.
This underfunding is a problem that belongs to every school system
in the state."

Tennessee distributes its funding through its Basic Education
Program, which was created in response to the first lawsuit filed
by smaller systems in the early 1990s. The formula, through its 43
components, distributes some $6 billion annually to 144 school
districts, which are required to share the cost based on local
ability to raise revenues.

Bennett said state underfunding of teachers is a major sore point.
Moreover, he argued, the state has continued to pile on various
mandates that impact school spending.

Markham asserted the lawsuit doesn't meet requirements for class-
action certification. These include factors such as whether one or
more members of a class may sue as representative parties on
behalf of all if the class is so numerous that having all join
individually is impractical. Other factors include whether
questions of law or fact are common to the class; the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class, and the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class.

For example, Markham noted, only Hamilton and six nearby counties
filed the original lawsuit in March. That's just seven of the 144
school systems, he said. Markham also questioned whether all the
systems have similar concerns.

Metro Nashville, he pointed out, has filed a request not to be
included in any class-action certification although it has not
ruled out joining in at some point. And Shelby school officials
are interested in going it alone in their suit, citing unique
circumstances related to being the largest system in the state
with vast numbers of low-income students.

Bennett said the seven boards filing the suit include both a large
urban system -- Hamilton -- and smaller rural counties which are
similar to the state as a whole. All school systems have a "vested
interest" in the case, he said.

He also argued that a number of other school districts were
interested in joining but backed off after state lawmakers,
furious about the lawsuit, passed a law forcing systems suing the
state to reimburse the state for its legal expenses should they
lose.

Speaking with reporters later, Bennett said that is a primary
reason for seeking class-action certification. Because Hamilton
County sued prior to the law's passage, other systems could become
part of the class action without risking having to pay for the
state's expenses if they lose, he said.

Following arguments, Bonnyman told the attorneys "I'm going to
give this some thought. My plan is to get an order out."

She said while Shelby County doesn't want to be part of the class
action, she could move its suit, which is scheduled before another
Davidson County chancellor, to her jurisdiction. The idea would
still be to keep the suits separate but to ensure consistency in
any ruling.


TIMBERTECH LTD: CPG's Motion to Strike Class Allegations Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States
District for District of New Jersey granted in part CPG's motion
to dismiss and denied without prejudice CPG's motion to strike
class allegations in the case captioned, JOHN M. PERUTO, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TIMBERTECH LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-
2166(JBS/JS).

Plaintiffs John M. Peruto and Lori A. Peruto filed a putative
class action contending that Defendants TimberTech Ltd.
(TimberTech) and CPG International LLC (CPG) marketed their
TimberTech XLM decking product line (XLM decking) as a high-
quality, low-maintenance, and longlasting alternative to
traditional wooden decking materials. Despite Defendants'
marketing and advertising claims, Plaintiffs alleged that XLM
decking was prone to discoloration and fading soon after
installation. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of implied
warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the NJCFA, and declaratory and
injunctive relief. On March 25, 2015, CPG removed this action to
the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d),
1446, 1453 and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

In the motion, CPG argued that Plaintiffs' Complaint must be
dismissed in its entirety for failure to adequately plead claims
for breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty,
negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), and declaratory relief.
Plaintiffs in opposition agreed to dismiss their breach of implied
warranty and unjust enrichment claims, but maintain that their
claims for breach of express warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, and violation of the NJCFA are sufficiently
pleaded. In the alternative, Plaintiffs requested leave to amend.

In his Opinion dated August 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/55kBwDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle held that the
motion be granted to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs'
breach of express warranty claim based on the Limited Warranty,
Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim based on an
omission, and Plaintiffs' NJCFA claim. Because the Court cannot
conclude that amendment would be futile, dismissal will be without
prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file an amended pleading curing
the identified deficiencies. The Court permitted the following
claims to proceed at this time: Plaintiffs' breach of express
warranty claim based on certain of Defendants' marketing claims;
Plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim based on certain of
Defendants' marketing statements; and Plaintiffs' claim for
declaratory relief. The Court denied as premature CPG's motion to
strike class allegations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Alessandra Cristina Phillips, Esq.
Michael Coren, Esq.
Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, PC
2001 Market St, Suite 2009
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel:(866)291-7088

CPG International LLC is represented by Lorna A. Dotro, Esq. --
ldotro@coughlinduffy.com -- Mark K. Silver, Esq. --
msilver@coughlinduffy.com -- COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP, Paul A. Williams,
Esq. -- pwilliams@shb.com -- Holly P. Smith, Esq. --
hpsmith@shb.com -- Molly S. Carella, Esq. -- mcarella@shb.com --
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP


TRINET GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of TriNet Group,
Inc. (NYSE: TNET) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, by making materially false
and misleading statements about TriNet's business prospects.

TriNet provides human resources solutions for small and medium-
sized businesses in the United States and Canada.

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

TriNet Misrepresents Its Financial Condition

According to the complaint, TriNet issued misleading statements
regarding its financial condition, as well as its quarterly and
year-end revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2014 and 2015.
Specifically, TriNet's claims analysis and forecasting processes
did not account for historical claims trends. Further, the company
failed to disclose that it was experiencing growing claims trends
in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected its
business prospects. As a result of TriNet's misrepresentations and
omissions, its stock traded at artificially inflated prices,
reaching a high of $37.88 per share on March 3, 2015.

On May 5, 2014, TriNet issued a press release announcing positive
outcomes for its first quarter fiscal 2014 financial results.
However, on March 3, 2015, the company announced that its
financial results missed revenue and income expectations due to an
increase in large medical claims. Then, on May 5, 2015, TriNet
officials held a conference call explaining that the workers
compensation accruals negatively affected the company's results,
and that it was reducing its annual outlook by $10 million.
Further, on August 3, 2015, the company reported financial results
that missed both revenue and earnings per share estimates due to
another increase in high-volume medical claims. Following this
disclosure, TriNet's stock price declined by $10.36 per share, or
38%, to close at $16.33 per share on August 4, 2015.

TriNet Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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

Darnell R. Donahue, Esq
Robbins Arroyo LLP
600 B St #1900, San Diego, CA 92101, United States
Phone:+1 619-525-3990
https://www.robbinsarroyo.com


UBER: Will Likely Appeal California Drivers' Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ride-hailing company Uber said it will likely appeal a California
Federal judge's decision to grant class action status to a suit
brought against the company by Uber drivers.

The drivers were granted class action status, asking to bring on
about 160,000 drivers, in a case alleging that drivers are
employees, not independent contractors.

The drivers also said Uber failed to reimburse them for expenses
and failed to pay them the entire tip amounts given by riders.

Uber said the court ruling narrows down the class action to less
than 15,000 drivers because it only applies to drivers in a
specific time period, does not include UberBlack drivers before
June 2014 and those who registered with Uber as a corporation.

"Despite these facts, we will likely still appeal because partners
use Uber on their own terms, and there really is no typical
driver," Abby Horrigan, Uber's managing counsel for employment,
wrote in a blog post.


UCLA HEALTH: "KoCi" Sues Over Cyber Breach of Network Systems
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Koci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. UCLA Health System, UCLA Center for Health Sciences,
University of California, Los Angeles, and the Regents of the
University of California, Case No. BC 594104 (Cal. Super. Sept. 8,
2015), seeks injunctive relief, and actual and statutory damages
arising out of the cyber breach of UCLA Health's network systems
that allegedly exposed 4.5 million current and former patients and
providers' confidential and sensitive personal information.

UCLA Health System is the governing structure for UCLA's hospitals
and medical facilities. CHS is one of the largest health-science
centers in the country and encompasses nearly all of the
university's patientcare, clinical education, and research
programs and facilities.

University of California is a public research university located
in located in Los Angeles, California.

The Board of Regents is a public trust corporation and the
governing body for the University of California system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     Adam E. Polk, Esq.
     Linh G. Vuong, Esq.
     Christopher K. Hikida, Esq.
     GIRARD GIBBS LLP
     601 California Street, 14th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Tel: (415)981-4800
     Fax: (415)981-4846
     E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
             aep@girardgibbs.com
             lgv@girardgibbs.com
             ckh@girardgibbs.com


UNIVERSAL MUSIC: To Settle Royalties Class Suit With Artists
------------------------------------------------------------
All Access reported that Universal Music Group expects to settle a
major U.S. class action lawsuit with a group of artists in the
near future.  Reportedly, the settlement includes a "significant
offer of monetary compensation."

In 2011, a group of recording artists -- including PUBLIC ENEMY's
CHUCK D, ROB ZOMBIE, WHITESNAKE, the RICK JAMES Estate, and RON
TYSON of THE TEMPTATIONS -- filed a claim seeking additional
royalties for the online sale of downloads and master ringtones.
They wanted such royalties paid on "license" terms (typically  a
50/50 split between label and artist) rather than "sale"
transaction terms (where the artist receives anywhere from 6-20%).
In 2012, FBT Productions, the production company that discovered
EMINEM, settled with Universal out of court in a similar case.
Last FEBRUARY, it was reported that WARNER MUSIC GROUP settled
with 2,000 artists for $11.5 million.

UMG owner VIVENDI has announced that a "global transaction
terminating the litigation" with the class action artists was
submitted to U.S. District Judge SUSAN ILLSTON and entered into on
APRIL 14th. The artists apparently have accepted the settlement,
which VIENDI expects "to be formally approved by the Court
shortly."


VIRGINIA: Regional Jail Suit Seeking Class Status
-------------------------------------------------
Gracie Hart Brooks, writing for Daily Progress, reported that a
multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed in June against the Central
Virginia Regional Jail has been amended into a class-action
lawsuit.

Plaintiff Sherry Lynn Thornhill filed the initial suit against
former CVRJ Superintendent Glenn Aylor, the CVRJ Authority and 11
CVRJ employees to seek substantial damages for what she called the
"deliberate torture and killing of" her son, Shawn Christopher
Berry.

Berry, 37, was arrested August 7, 2014 on outstanding warrants. He
died two days later while in custody at the jail in Orange.
The Central Virginia Regional Jail in Orange also serves the
counties of Greene, Madison, Louisa and Fluvanna.

A state autopsy revealed that Berry died from the adverse effects
of heroin and ethanol and both the state Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner and the state police ruled the death an accident.
In her suit filed June 2 in federal district court, Thornhill
alleges the "unlawful denial of adequate medical care" to Berry
while he was an inmate which she claims resulted in his death.
Thornhill entered an amended complaint. In addition to bringing
the action individually, the complaint states that she's also
bringing the action as a class action "on behalf of others who
have, or may be, harmed by defendants' pattern and practice of
civil rights violations, to obtain equitable relief, including
court supervision of CVRJ's operations, injunctive relief and/or
the appointment of a federal receiver."

The newly amended complaint contains much of the same information
as the original suit, but also adds the eyewitness account of one
of Berry's fellow inmates, named only as "Inmate A," other former
inmates and a former jail employee.

The amended lawsuit claims Inmate A was stationed in the same cell
block, four beds away from Berry and "closely observed Berry's
condition and treatment at the hands of CVRJ staff."

According to the complaint, Inmate A is said to have observed
Berry looking ill and personally requested help for him nine to 10
times.

The complaint alleges several unwritten jail policies including
that inmates who don't come forward to collect necessary items or
to request services aren't allowed to have them and are then
marked as "refusing" the items such as medication or food.

In the complaint, Inmate A paints a picture of Berry as not eating
or drinking, vomiting and defecating several times and alleges the
CVRJ staff "did nothing to assist Berry in cleaning himself or his
bunk."

"This was pursuant to another well-known unwritten policy," the
complaint states. "If an inmate soiled himself, his options were
to 'sit in it until laundry day, or wash it out in the shower
yourself,' as one correctional officer put it. The same policy
applied to bedclothes if an inmate vomited in his bunk."

However, the complaint goes on to allege that Berry's vomit
dripped into the bunk below and into that bunk owner's shoes,
allegedly triggering another policy requiring an inmate dressed in
hazmat gear to clean up the mess once "an inmate's fluids or waste
products touched another inmate's possessions."

In addition to providing accounts of Berry's treatment while at
CVRJ, both from Inmate A and several CVRJ employees, the complaint
also contains information about other current or former inmates.
"Sadly, CVRJ's deplorable treatment of Berry is not an isolated
pattern," the complaint states. "Defendants have long engaged, and
upon information and belief, continue to engage in a pattern and
practice of deliberate indifference to inmates' medical needs, as
demonstrated by the experiences of other inmates and former CVRJ
personnel."

Included among the accounts is that of Victoria Lynn Jenkins.
Jenkins, a Culpeper resident, was arrested last October following
a shooting incident on Fishback Road. She recently was found not
guilty on the charges and released from CVRJ, where she had been
held since her arrest.

In the complaint, Jenkins is said to have been suffering from
anxiety, depression and bipolar disorder which doctors were
treating with several medications, successfully managing her
symptoms and allowing her to function normally. However, the
complaint alleges that although jail staff were aware of her need
to have proper medication, it wasn't supplied.

According to the complaint, the jail's policy is that inmates may
bring medicine, have family bring medication or procure the
medication by prescription from outside the jail, administering as
directed. However, the complaint alleges that Jenkins was denied
her medication and was "accused of falsely claiming mental illness
in order to obtain drugs for recreation use."

The complaint states that Jenkins' sister spoke to a doctor and
requested that he contact the jail. However, an employee is quoted
in the amended lawsuit as stating that the jail would not
administer Xanax regardless of doctor's instructions.
The complaint also states that the sister delivered medications,
excluding Xanax, to the jail for Jenkins and that she was told the
drugs were being administered to her sister even though Jenkins
claimed they weren't.

The complaint alleges that Jenkins' sister and mother spoke to a
woman at the jail who told them that they needed to get Jenkins
out of CVRJ and into Western State Hospital for psychiatric
treatment via a court order -- a conversation the complaint
alleges took place behind closed doors with the woman speaking in
a hushed voice leaving Jenkins' family to "believe that she was
afraid of being overheard."

Jenkins' medical status is said to have deteriorated and by Nov.
7, the complaint alleges that she was pushed to madness and
transferred to Western State where she remained for a month before
being discharged back to CVRJ with specific care instructions. The
complaint states that after which, Jenkins was administered her
medications as directed.

The complaint alleges that three other inmates also suffered from
medication issues, including Inmate A who allegedly was given
ibuprofen or aspirin to treat pain from a severe back injury.
The complaint alleges that Inmate A suffers from Crohn's disease
and can't take these medications since they worsen the diseases'
effects while acetaminophen does not.

The complaint alleges that the inmate would be given loose pills
that he could not identify, which he took trusting the staff was
giving him acetaminophen, but later realized weren't after
experiencing an aggravation of his disease symptoms. Inmate A
claimed asking for identification of the pills was met with a
question as to if he were refusing medication.

Another inmate, Inmate B, is said to have not received proper
dosages of his psychiatric medications. Instead of taking the
medications once in the morning and once in the evening, Inmate B
was forced to take both daily doses of his two medications at the
morning pill call and two daily doses of his third medication at
the evening pill call -- double the directed amount in both cases
the complaint states.

The suit also alleges that all pills were given the same way -- in
a paper cup with water poured on top which the inmate would then
swallow. However, Inmate B also is alleged to have heard a fellow
inmate request that his medication not be given with water since
it wasn't supposed to be.

The suit alleges that the employee administering the medicine
continued to pour water on the pills despite being told that
shouldn't be the case.

The suit alleges that the same employee was consistently about
four hours late for evening pill call, causing some inmates to
experience withdrawal symptoms.

When asking two different officers about the tardiness, the suit
alleges that Inmate B was told the employee "was in another cell
block, selling contraband to inmates."

Meanwhile, a third inmate, Inmate C, was an elderly man and never
received his medication, which included two high blood pressure
prescriptions, according to the complaint.

After his release, the inmate visited his doctor who told him
"that CVRJ's refusal to give him his blood pressure medication had
placed him at high risk for stroke," the complaint alleges.
The suit also alleges that a former Regional Jail EMT was told to
not send inmates to the emergency room, even when one had their
"head repeatedly pounded into the floor during [a] fight," and was
never informed of manuals or rules for treating medical
conditions.

The complaint also alleges that it often took two to three days
for inmates to receive even basic medication, CVRJ regularly
refused to treat inmates for opiate withdrawal and the dentist who
treated inmates would regularly operate without numbing the
inmates first.

The complaint alleges that the former jail EMT reported that a
female inmate arriving at the jail claiming she had been raped was
forced to shower, potentially destroying evidence of the crime,
and that when the EMT attempted to console a young male who had
attempted suicide, the employee was allegedly reprimanded for
touching the inmate who "was placed in bed and left there."
The complaint alleges that "CVRJ and Aylor created a culture of
deliberate indifference to inmates' medical needs in order to save
money."

In the first of three counts, the suit states that "through CVRJ's
deliberate indifference to the known and serious medical needs of
class members, CVRJ violated class members' Eighth Amendment
rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment and their 14th
Amendment rights to due process and the equal protection of laws."
It asks that the court certify the action as a class action,
appoint Thornhill as the class representative and appoint
Thornhill's counsel, Robert Wilson and Mitchell Rotbert, as class
counsel.

It also asks for equitable relief including court-ordered
monitoring of CVRJ, injunctive relief and/or appointment of a
federal receiver to abate the acts and practices alleged herein;
award Thornhill reasonable attorney fees and costs for bringing
and maintaining the action; and award such other and/or
alternative relief as justice may require.

The defendants have until Sept. 21 to file answers to the
amendment complaint.


WAYFAIR INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Wayfair Inc. (NYSE:W) securities from October 2, 2014 through
August 31, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wayfair investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Wayfair class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-709.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

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.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Overstock is a competitor; (2)
as a result, Wayfair's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered
the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 2, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-709.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com

WILMINGTON TRUST: Fraud Lawsuit Granted Class Status
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuteers, reported that former
Wilmington Trust Co shareholders may pursue their securities fraud
lawsuit over mounting loan losses that led to the company's
discounted sale to M&T Bank Corp as a class action, a Delaware
federal judge ruled on.

U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson in Wilmington agreed with the
plaintiffs that there is a common means to calculate damages from
Wilmington's alleged concealing of several hundred million dollars
worth of troubled construction loans and commercial mortgages in
2009 and 2010.

Class actions let plaintiffs sue as a group, and can lead to
larger recoveries and lower costs than individual lawsuits.

Mounting loan losses led to Wilmington's Nov. 1, 2010 agreement to
sell itself to Buffalo, New York-based M&T Bank Corp at a 46
percent discount to its market value, ending more than a century
in business.

Several pension funds are leading the Wilmington lawsuit, which
covers shareholders from Jan. 18, 2008 to Nov. 1, 2010.

Thomas Allingham, a lawyer representing Wilmington and several
individual defendants including former Chief Executive Ted Cecala
and President Robert Harra, declined to comment. M&T spokesman
Michael Zabel also declined to comment.

Four former Wilmington executives, including Harra, were
criminally charged on Aug. 5 with lying to regulators about the
health of the bank's loans.

Harra pleaded not guilty on Aug. 20. Cecala has not been
criminally charged.

Wilmington last September agreed to pay $18.5 million to settle
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission civil charges that it
concealed delinquent loans and did not set aside enough money for
loan losses.

The case is In re: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, District of Delaware, No. 10-00990.


XOMA CORPORATION: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Xoma Corporation securities during the period from November 6,
2014 through July 21, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Xoma Corporation investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Xoma Corporation class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-684.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements that Xoma Corporation's EYEGUARD-B clinical trial would
succeed and/or exceed projections across the study's primary
endpoint. On July 22, 2015, defendants announced that the Phase 3
EYEGUARD-B study had failed. Consequently, the price of Xoma stock
fell by $3.48 per share, or more than 79%, on extremely heavy
trading volume.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 22, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-684.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016
Phone:+1 978-474-0100
Fax: 212-202-3827
toll-free: 866-767-3653
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com


YELP INC: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Curry" Case Moved
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California approved the parties'
Stipulation in the case captioned, JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP
INC., JEREMY STOPPELMAN, ROB KROLIK and GEOFFREY DONAKER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-03547.

Following Plaintiffs' filing of their First Amended Class Action
Complaint the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order
providing for a briefing and hearing schedule that took into
account scheduling conflicts of counsel, personal medical issues
and planned summer vacations.

In the Stipulation, parties agreed to reset the hearing for
Defendants' motion to dismiss at October 22, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.
subject to the approval of the court such that the proposed new
date will not have an effect on any pre-trial and trial dates as
the Court has yet to schedule the dates.

In his Stipulation and Order dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zY2hpbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar held that the
Stipulation to have a good cause ordered approval of the
provisions of the Stipulation.

Joseph Curry is represented by Shawn Williams, Esq. --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Yelp, Inc. is represented by Gilbert R. Serota, Esq. --
Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- Marjory Gentry, Esq. --
Marjory.Gentry@aporter.com -- Ryan Keats, Esq. --
Ryan.Keats@aporter.com --  ARNOLD & PORTER LLP


                            *********

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  * * *