CAR_Public/150928.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 193


                            Headlines


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Moved to Dismiss "Hughes" Case
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Church" Case
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Anger" Case
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Cassale" Case Settled in April
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Motion to Consolidate Actions Withdrawn

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces Employment Action Before Maine Commission
AMERICAN WATER: Mediation Scheduled for September 30
ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Breaded Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Laborers Local 100 Files Class Suit in N.Y.
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Jerusalem Bank Files Class Action

BLK BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Alkaline Water Products, Suit Claims
BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Wireless Smoke Alarms Due to Fire Hazard
BP WEST COAST: Persian Gulf Suit Removed to S.D. California
BRADSHAW IN'L: Recalls Roasting Pans Due to Laceration Hazard
BUMBLE BEE: Faces A-1 Diner Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation

BUMBLE BEE: Faces Central Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Fragoso" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Kennedy" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
C&J JAMES: "Ramirez" Suit Alleges False Advertisement
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Defending Against Securities Class Action

CLEGGPROMO: Recalls Power Banks Due to Fire Hazard
COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
DELTA AIR: "Lopez" Class Suit Moved to Central Dist. California
DI STEFANO: Recalls Boneless Ham Products Due to Noncompliance
DOC ABLE'S: Faces "Esquivel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. C.D. Cal. Investors Suit
DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. N.D. Cal. Antitrust Suit
ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed Pending Motion to Dismiss
ENDOCYTE INC: Continues to Defend Hage Litigation
ETHICON INC: Falsely Marketed Morcellator Products, Suit Claims

EVERCORE PARTNERS: ETC Indemnified by J.C. Penney in Class Action
FILM STAGE: Accused of Violating TCPA and Ill. Consumer Fraud Act
FIRST SECURITY: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss
FIRST SOLAR: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Commence in Smilovits
FIRST SOLAR: Faces Maverick Fund Complaint

FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
FUJITSU AMERICA: Recalls Notebook Computer Battery Packs
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defending Against City of Hialeah Action
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Actions Against Subsidiary Settled

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Claims in Goodman and Brown
GT LANDSCAPING: Faces "Garibay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: 2 Class Actions Filed on Proposed Merger
GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HERBALIFE LTD: Reconsideration of Final Settlement Order Sought

HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
HW WORLDWIDE: "Stravrev" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Mandatory Mediation Conference Scheduled
JUICECO LLC: "Prado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JURATOYS US: Recalls Fishing Games Due to Choking Hazard

KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over "Natural" Diapers and Wipes
LACORR PACKAGING: Faces "Dinkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LAND OF NOD: Recalls Mobile Products Due to Strangulation Hazard
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Data Privacy Litigation
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Appeal Remains Pending

LENDINGTREE INC: HLC Intends to Renew Appeal
LIBERTY LIFE: Sued Over Denial of LT Disability Benefits
LIFELOCK INC: Parties in Ebarle & Stamm Suit Exchange Information
LIFELOCK INC: Court Tentatively Approved Deal in "Goldman" Case
LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Filed Notice of Dismissal

LIFELOCK INC: Anticipates Filing Motion to Dismiss "Avila" Case
LOS ANGELES, CA: LAFCU Sued Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
LOTA USA: Recalls Kitchen Faucets Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Pierce" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
MAGICMIND INC: Faces "Barach" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MARKWEST ENERGY: Unitholder Class Action Complaint Filed
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Farno" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Limbacher" Suit Over Financial Reports
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Pacelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Simmons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Suit Claims
MICHAEL G. BARRETT: Chen Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued Over Gender Discriminatory Practices
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Pizza Pie Suit Over Sunday NFL Games

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces "Cain" Suit Over Alleged Illegal Detention
NIKKEI AMERICA: Faces "Iwasawa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay
PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Halogen Bulbs Due to Laceration Hazard
PIPER JAFFRAY: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Case Still Pending

PRICE SELF: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
PRIDE FAMILY: Recalls Hammock Stands Due to Fall Hazard
PROPETRO SERVICES: "Crow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PROVIA DOOR: Removes "Jacobs" Suit to Minnesota District Court
RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Washington

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Class Action Still Appeal
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Sept. 2015 Hearing to Approve Settlement
RICE BRICKELL: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RINGS: CHILD WORKS: Recalls Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard
SAN PASQUAL: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty

SANTANAS CONCRETE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SEGWAY INC: Recalls Off-Board Chargers for Personal Transporters
SR 60: "Teixeira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SYMANTEC CORP: "Zeichick" Suit Claims Unjust Enrichment
SYNAPTICS INCORPORATED: Sued Over Pacinian Merger Agreement

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Oral Argument Held in Securities Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Partial Certification of Drivers' Suit
WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Recycled Edition Bikes
XENCOR INC: Court Consolidated 205 Petition with Class Action
ZAGG INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending

ZAK DESIGNS: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Choking Hazard



                            *********


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Moved to Dismiss "Hughes" Case
------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company moved to
dismiss the case, Hughes v. Accretive Health, Inc. et al.

On May 17, 2013, the Company, along with certain of its directors,
former directors and former officers, was named as a defendant in
a putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al.). The primary allegations, relating
to its March 8, 2013 announcement that the Company would be
restating its prior period financial statements, are that its
public statements, including filings with the SEC, were false
and/or misleading with respect to its revenue recognition and
earnings prospects. On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's directors and former directors (other than
Mary Tolan).

On January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On September 25, 2014, the Court granted the Company
motion to dismiss without prejudice, however the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint on October 23, 2014. On November 10,
2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. While that motion was still pending, on January 8,
2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the second amended
complaint, seeking to add allegations regarding the recently
issued Restatement.

On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend,
and a third amended complaint was filed on May 13, 2015. The
Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on June 3,
2015.

The Company continues to believe it has meritorious defenses and
intends to vigorously defend itself, Mary Tolan, and its former
officers against these claims. The outcome is not presently
determinable.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Church" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 11, 2014,
the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary
allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts
without providing the notice required by the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and attempted to collect debts after they
were discharged in bankruptcy. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Still Defending "Anger" Case
----------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 22, 2014, the
Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary
allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts
without providing the notice required by the FDCPA. The Company
has filed a motion to dismiss which is fully briefed and pending
decision. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
and intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
outcome is not presently determinable.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Cassale" Case Settled in April
-------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 6, 2015,
the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan (Cassale v. Accretive Health, Inc.). The primary
allegations are that the Company attempted to collect debts
without complying with the provisions of the FDCPA. The case was
settled in April 2015.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Motion to Consolidate Actions Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on February 24, 2015
(amended Feb. 25, 2015), the Plaintiff in the Church action filed
a motion with the Joint Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate the Church, Anger and Cassale actions for
pretrial purposes in the Southern District of Alabama where the
Church case is currently pending.  That motion was withdrawn in
May 2015.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Faces Employment Action Before Maine Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in April 2015, the
Company was named among other defendants in an employment action
brought by a former employee before the Maine Human Rights
Commission ("MHRC") alleging that she was improperly terminated in
retaliation for uncovering alleged Medicare fraud.  The Company
filed its response with the MHRC on May 19, 2015 seeking that the
Company be dismissed entirely from the action.

On June 23, 2015, the MHRC issued its Notice of Right to Sue and
decision to terminate its process with respect to all charges
asserted by the former employee. The Plaintiff has filed a
parallel qui tam action in the District of Maine (Worthy v.
Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems) in which she makes the same
allegations.  The U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene
in the federal court action, and the case was unsealed in April
2015 but process has not been served on any defendant.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to both the
potential employment law action for which the MHRC has granted the
Notice of Right to Sue letter and the federal qui tam case, and
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. The
outcomes are not presently determinable.


AMERICAN WATER: Mediation Scheduled for September 30
----------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
action related to the West Virginia Elk River Freedom Industries'
Chemical Spill, the court has directed the parties to the Federal
action to attend mediation scheduled for September 30, 2015.

Four of the cases pending before the federal district court were
consolidated for purposes of discovery, and an amended
consolidated class action complaint for those cases ("Federal
action") was filed on December 9, 2014 by several plaintiffs who
allegedly suffered economic losses, loss of use of property and
tap water or other specified adverse consequences as a result of
the Freedom Industries spill, on behalf of a purported class of
all persons and businesses supplied with, using, or exposed to
water contaminated with crude 4-methylcyclohexane methanol
("MCHM") and provided by West Virginia-American Water Company
("WVAWC") in Logan, Clay, Lincoln, Roane, Jackson, Boone, Putnam,
and Kanawha Counties and the Culloden area of Cabell County, West
Virginia as of January 9, 2014. The amended consolidated complaint
names several individuals and corporate entities as defendants,
including American Water Works Service Company, Inc. ("AWWSC"),
WVAWC and the Company. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for
alleged business or economic losses; unspecified damages or a
mechanism for recovery to address a variety of alleged costs, loss
of use of property, personal injury and other consequences
allegedly suffered by purported class members; punitive damages
and certain additional relief, including the establishment of a
medical monitoring program to protect the purported class members
from an alleged increased risk of contracting serious latent
disease.

On April 9, 2015, the court in the Federal action denied a motion
to dismiss all claims against the Company for lack of personal
jurisdiction. A separate motion to dismiss filed by AWWSC and
WVAWC (and joined by the Company) asserting various legal defenses
in the Federal action was resolved by the court on June 3, 2015.
The court dismissed three causes of action but denied the motion
to dismiss with respect to the remaining causes of actions and
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the various claims
for damages alleged in their amended consolidated complaint. On
July 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification
of a class defined to include persons who resided in dwellings
served by WVAWC's Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant ("KVTP") on
January 9, 2014, persons who owned businesses served by the KVTP
on January 9, 2014, and hourly employees who worked for such
businesses. The plaintiffs seek a class-wide determination of
liability against the American Water defendants, among others, and
of damages to the three groups of plaintiffs as a result of the
"Do Not Use" order issued after the Freedom Industries spill. This
motion remains pending. On July 22, 2015, the court directed the
parties to the Federal action to attend mediation scheduled for
September 30, 2015. It is expected that the plaintiffs in the 53
state court cases, which were removed to federal court and are
presently subject to stayed motions to remand to state court, will
also participate in this mediation.


ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Breaded Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) is alerting consumers that frozen, raw, stuffed and
breaded chicken products produced by Aspen Foods, a division of
Koch Poultry Company, a Chicago, Ill. establishment have been
confirmed as having the same Salmonella Enteritidis outbreak
strain which was part of a July 15, 2015 recall.

Following the July 15th recall, FSIS has been conducting
intensified sampling at this establishment to ensure that the
hazard responsible for the initial contamination has been
controlled by Aspen Foods. Results from FSIS sampling revealed
twelve positive results that match the outbreak strain of
Salmonella Enteritidis to Aspen Foods products. Three illnesses
were epidemiologically linked to the original recall on July 15,
2015. FSIS continues to work with public health partners including
the Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on this ongoing
investigation.

FSIS is concerned about all frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded
chicken products produced by Aspen Foods between July 30, 2015 and
September 17, 2015. The twelve positive samples collected during
FSIS' intensified sampling efforts alerted FSIS to a systemic
problem at the establishment. FSIS cannot have confidence in the
safety of any products produced after July 30, 2015. In addition
to issuing this Alert, FSIS has directed its personnel to detain
products covered by this Alert that they find in commerce because
the company has refused to recall the products.

The frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken items may include the
following brands and be labeled as "chicken cordon bleu," "chicken
Kiev" or "chicken broccoli and cheese" and bear the establishment
number "P-1358" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products
were shipped to retail location and food service locations
nationwide.

  --- Acclaim
  --- Antioch Farms
  --- Buckley Farms
  --- Centrella Signature
  --- Chestnut Farms
  --- Family Favorites
  --- Kirkwood
  --- Koch Foods
  --- Market Day
  --- Oven Cravers
  --- Rose
  --- Rosebud Farm
  --- Roundy's
  --- Safeway Kitchens
  --- Schwan's
  --- Shaner's
  --- Spartan
  --- Sysco

These products were labeled with instructions identifying that the
product was uncooked (raw) and included cooking instructions for
preparation. As stated in the July 15, 2015 Recall Release, some
case-patients reported following the cooking instructions on the
label and using a food thermometer to confirm that the recommended
temperature was achieved. Therefore, FSIS advises consumers not to
eat these products. Special attention should be paid by the food
service industry and food handlers. Using a food thermometer to
properly cook these products will not protect the health of the
consuming public.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposure
to the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most
people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the
diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be
hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase. FSIS is concerned that some product may be
in consumers' freezers. Although the products included in this
Alert may appear to be cooked, this product is in fact uncooked
(raw) and should be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination
in the kitchen.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Laborers Local 100 Files Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laborers Local 100 and 397 Health and Welfare Fund and Laborers
Local 100 and 397 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07385 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful combinations, agreements and conspiracies to
manipulate the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and
related debt instruments issued by the United States Treasury
Department and financial products benchmarked to Treasury security
rates.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
      Randi D. Bandman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
              davem@rgrdlaw.com
              bomara@rgrdlaw.com
              randib@rgrdlaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Jerusalem Bank Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bank of Jerusalem, Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-07390 (S.D.N.Y., September 17, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful combinations, agreements and conspiracies to
manipulate the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and
related debt instruments issued by the United States Treasury
Department and financial products benchmarked to Treasury security
rates.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:


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

          - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


BLK BRANDS: Falsely Marketed Alkaline Water Products, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Schott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BLK. Brands LLC and BLK. Enterprises LLC, Case No.
32180876 (Fl. 11th Cir., September 17, 2015), arises out of the
alleged unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices of the
Defendants with respect to the marketing, advertising, labeling,
and sales of Blk. Premium Alkaline Water.

BLK. Brands LLC and BLK. Enterprises LLC are both privately held
New York corporations, headquartered in New Jersey. The Defendants
distribute, market, advertise, and sell distilled water in Florida
and throughout the rest of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared H. Beck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Lee Beck
      BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
      Corporate Park at Kendall
      12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
      Miami, FL 33186
      Telephone: (305) 234-2060
      Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
      E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
              elizabeth@beckandlee.com

         - and -

      Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq.
      ANTONINO G. HERNANDEZ P.A.
      4 SE 1st Street, 2nd Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 282 3698
      Facsimile: (786) 513 7748
      E-mail: Hern8491@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108
      Telephone: (561)676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Wireless Smoke Alarms Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bosch Security Systems Inc., Fairport, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 950 Radion wireless smoke alarms. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The alarms can fail to alert consumers to a fire, posing a fire
hazard.

This recall involves Bosch's Radion wireless round smoke alarms
installed as part of Bosch security systems. Bosch security alarm
systems use a control keypad labeled "Bosch" on the front surface.
The alarms are made of white plastic and measure 5.6 inches across
and 2.4 inches high. The alarms have a Bosch label on the back
with "RFSM-A," a bar code with "F01U263962" and a 17-digit serial
number starting with 0922320XXX. The XXX in the 8th through 10th
positions of the serial number designates the date code. Only
alarms with date codes 001 through 458 are included in the recall.

Bosch has received two reports that alarms failed to sound during
installation testing.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/LzadFH

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Security system dealers nationwide from November 2013 through
October 2014 for about $125.

Consumers should immediately contact their dealer/installer for a
free replacement alarm. Bosch has contacted dealers and installers
directly.


BP WEST COAST: Persian Gulf Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. removed the class action lawsuit
styled Persian Gulf Inc. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al.,
Case No. 37-2015-00022430-CU-A-CTL, from the Superior Court of the
State of California, San Diego County (Central Division), to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01749-
L-BGS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the putative class consists of "[a]11
persons or entities that purchased gasoline directly from a
defendant during the Class Period (February 1, 2012 to present)
and were damaged thereby."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
                  jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is represented by:

          Daniel G. Swanson, Esq.
          Steven E. Sletten, Esq.
          William E. Thomson, Esq.
          David Han, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          E-mail: dswanson@gibsondunn.com
                  ssletten@gibsondunn.com
                  wthomson@gibsondunn.com
                  dhan@gibsondunn.com

Defendant Alon USA Energy, Inc. is represented by:

          Ronald F. Wick, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          The Army and Navy Building
          1627 I Street, N.W., Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4874
          E-mail: rwick@cozen.com

               - and -

          Erik Jackson, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          601 S. Figueroa St., Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-7961
          E-mail: ejackson@cozen.com

Defendant BP West Coast Products LLC is represented by:

          Mark Holstein, Esq.
          BP LEGAL
          501 Westlake Park Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: (281) 366-8895
          E-mail: Mark.Holstein@bp.com

Defendant ConocoPhillips is represented by:

          Peter H. Mason, Esq.
          Josh D. Lichtman, Esq.
          John C. Gray, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 892-9200
          E-mail: peter.mason@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  john.gray@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Layne E. Kruse, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651-5194
          E-mail: layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com

Defendant Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US is
represented by:

          Kent M. Roger, Esq.
          Colin C. West, Esq.
          Susan J. Welch, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: kroger@morganlewis.com
                  colin.west@morganlewis.com
                  susan.welch@morganlewis.com

Defendant ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company is represented by:

          Charles C. Lifland, Esq.
          Dawn Sestito, Esq.
          Laura C. Abrahamson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: clifland@omm.com
                  dsestito@omm.com
                  labrahamson@omm.com

               - and -

          M. Randall Oppenheimer, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          E-mail: roppenheimer@omm.com

               - and -

          M. Randall Oppenheimer, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 728-5674
          E-mail: roppenheimer@omm.com

               - and -

          Frederick W. Kosmo, Jr., Esq.
          Robin A. Wofford, Esq.
          WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1050
          San Diego, CA 92101-3532
          Telephone: (619) 236-9600
          E-mail: fkosmo@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
                  rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com

Defendant Kern Oil & Refining Co. is represented by:

          William J. Brown, Esq.
          Mathew K. Wegner, Esq.
          BROWN WEGNER MCNAMARA LLP
          2603 Main Street, Suite 1050
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705-0080
          E-mail: bill@bwmllp.com
                  mwegner@bwmllp.com

Defendant Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC is represented
by:

          Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          David C. Kiernan, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th FL
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5710
          Telephone: (415) 875-5745
          E-mail: ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
                  dkiernan@jonesday.com

Defendant Valero Energy Corporation is represented by:

          Robert C. Phelps, Esq.
          Adam Friedenberg, Esq.
          GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
          One Walnut Creek Center
          100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 210-2800
          E-mail: bphelps@glynnfinley.com
                  afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com


BRADSHAW IN'L: Recalls Roasting Pans Due to Laceration Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bradshaw International Inc., of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 146,000 Roasting pan.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The roaster rim is incorrectly finished and can have sharp edges,
posing a laceration hazard.

This recall involves Good Cook Jumbo Roaster roasting pans. The
recalled pans are oval and gray have the dimensions 21 inches by
15 inches on the outside and 17 inches by 13 1/2 inches on the
inside. Each pan is stamped from a single piece of metal to form
built-in handles. Each handle has a series of indentations and the
interior of the pan has ridges in the bottom. The roasters were
sold individually in packages labeled "Jumbo Roaster." Bradshaw
International Inc. and Universal Product Code (UPC) number 0-
76753-04315-1 or 0-41220-32403-3 were on the back of the package.

Bradshaw International has received three reports of roasters with
sharp edges causing cuts on the users' fingers.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5rxaBa

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Grocery stores nationwide from August 2014 through October 2014
for between $6 and $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roasting pans
and contact Bradshaw International for a free replacement pan.


BUMBLE BEE: Faces A-1 Diner Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
A-1 Diner, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, TriUnion Seafoods LLC, and Starkist
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02068-L-JLB (S.D. Cal, September 17,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
prices for packaged seafood products ("PSPs") within the United
States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 226-1015
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1819
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
              joel@cuneolaw.com
              danielc@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Edmond Mittel, Esq.
      MITTELASEN, LLC
      PO Box 427
      Portland, ME 04112
      Telephone: (207) 775-3101
      Facsimile: (207) 871-0683
      E-mail: rmittel@mittelasen.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Central Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
----------------------------------------------------------
Central Grocers, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, f/k/a Bumble Bee
Seafoods, LLC, Triunion Seafoods, LLC, d/b/a Chicken of the Sea
International, Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-04241 (N.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers,
and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged
seafood, including tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon,
sardines, and shrimp sold in the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              lakessler@cerallp.com

         - and -

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
      Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
              mweiler@saverilawfirm.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Fragoso" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fragoso, Jason Wilson, Samuel Seidenberg, Janelle
Albarello, and Michael Coffey, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, Triunion
Seafoods, LLC, and Starkist Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-02072-DMS-WVG
(S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products ("PSPs") within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
      Paula M. Roach, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com
              proach@bholaw.com

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Roger Sachar, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.C.
      28 W. 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
      E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
              RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Kennedy" Suit Over PSP-Price Manipulation
------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Kennedy, on behalf of himself 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-02073-AJB-JMA
(S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products ("PSPs") within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirk B. Hulett, Esq.
      Dennis Stewart, Esq.
      HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1500
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1133
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
      E-mail: khulett@hulettharper.com
              dstewart@hulettharper.com

         - and -

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      Andrew Szot, Esq.
      Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 332-3400
      Facsimile: (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 Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com
              dmorris@ademilaw.com


C&J JAMES: "Ramirez" Suit Alleges False Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ramirez, and all others similarly situated v. C&J James
Automotive Group, Inc. dba Toyota of Whittier and adba Scion of
Whittier and Does 1 through 500, Case No. BC594353 (Cal. Super.,
September 10, 2015), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief for
Defendants' alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et
seq., Unlawful Acts or Practices and section 17500, et seq.,
Untrue, False and/or Misleading Advertisement.

C&J James Automotive Group, Inc. is engaged in the business of
buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general
public and taking vehicles in trade. Its principal place of
business is in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A-1
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Tel: (650) 341-0300
      Fax: (650) 341-0302


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Defending Against Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 2, April 16,
April 29, and May 4, 2015, purported securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors, executive officers, significant
stockholders and underwriters associated with its initial public
offering.

The Company said, "The lawsuits, which were consolidated on July
22, 2015, were brought by purported stockholders of our company
seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who purchased
our stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with our IPO. The lawsuits
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other relief. We
believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously."


CLEGGPROMO: Recalls Power Banks Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
CleggPromo, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Power
bank. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The power bank can overheat, explode and catch fire.

This recall involves CleggPromo CPB-100 power banks, catalog item
number 625401, which are used to provide emergency charging for
portable electronic equipment. The recalled power banks are
rectangular in shape with rounded corners and are about 3 1/2
inches long by 1 3/4 inches wide by 3/4 inches deep.  The power
banks are cream colored and have a silver panel on the top side
with a white power button, four circles and the word "POWERBANK."
The left end of the power bank has a standard USB port with the
word "Out" above it and a power indicator LED light. The front
side has a micro USB port with the word "In" below it. Input,
output and capacity information are also on the front side.

There is one reported incident of the power bank overheating,
exploding and catching fire, resulting in fire damage. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/n6Z5He

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at the
recalled power banks were not sold at retail but were promotional
items given as handouts at corporate events, meetings, trade shows
and conventions from January 2014 to April 2015.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled power bank
and contact CleggPromo to receive a free set of executive pens as
a replacement product. CleggPromo will send consumers a prepaid
shipping box and instructions on how to return the power bank free
of charge.


COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Wilhelm, and all others similarly-situated v. Coca-Cola
Enterprises, Inc., John F. Brock, Jan Bennick, Calvin Darden,
L. Phillip Humann, Orrin H. Ingram II, Thomas H. Johnson, Suzanne
B. Labarge, Veronique Morali, Andrea L. Saia, Gary Watts, Curtis
R. Welling, Phoebe A. Wood, Orange U.S. Holdco, LLC, Orange
MergeCo, LLC, and The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 11492 (Del. Ch.,
September 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed buyout
of Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. ("CCE") by Coca-Cola Iberian
Partners SA  and Coca-Cola Erfrischungsgetranke AG, a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company, which will, under the terms
of the definitive merger agreement, form a new company, Coca-Cola
European Partners Plc., as announced on
August 6, 2015 ("Proposed Transaction").

The stockholder class action seeks equitable relief compelling the
Board to properly exercise its fiduciary duties to the Company's
public stockholders, to conduct a thorough, proper, and unbiased
sales process, and to enjoin the close of the Proposed Transaction
until the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties and
related misconduct are addressed.

CCE is a Delaware corporation with its principal office at 2500
Windy Ridge Parkway, Atlanta GA 30339. The Company's common stock
is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol CCE.

The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of CCE.

The Coca-Cola Company ("KO") is a Delaware corporation with its
principal office at One Coca-Cola Plaza, Atlanta GA 30313, United
States of America. Its common stock is traded on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol KO.

Orange U.S. Holdco, LLC is a limited liability company formed
under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Orange MergeCo, LLC is a limited liability company formed under
the laws of the State of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
      Tel: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

          - and -

      Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 594-5300


DELTA AIR: "Lopez" Class Suit Moved to Central Dist. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Reynaldo Lopez, Eunice Delgadillo,
Umberto Mendoza, and Aveia Tautolo, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC586813, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
07302-SVW-SS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action: failure to provide
required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods;
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages;
failure to timely pay wages; failure to pay all wages due to
discharged and quitting employees; failure to maintain required
records; failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to indemnify employees for necessary expenditures incurred
in discharge of duties; unfair and unlawful business practices;
and penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
      Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      One Market, Spear Street Tower
      San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
      Telephone: (415) 442-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
      E-mail: rhendricks@morganlewis.com
              afrederick@morganlewis.com

         - and -

      Hien Nguyen, Esq.
      Kathy Gao, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue
      Twenty-Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
      Telephone: (213) 612-2500
      Facsimile: (2130 612-2501
      E-mail: hnguyen@morganlewis.com
              kgao@morganlewis.com


DI STEFANO: Recalls Boneless Ham Products Due to Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Di Stefano Cheese Co., a Pomona, Calif., establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,280 pounds of Parma Boneless Ham
produced in Italy that were not presented at the U.S. point of
entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the
benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health
consequences exists.

The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 15 lb. cases of "Ruliano Collezione Regale" Parma boneless
      ham with case code 14260
  --- 15 lb. cases of "Ruliano 24" Parma boneless ham with a sell
      by date of 08-02-2016

These products were sent to distributors in the California.

The problem was discovered by routine record verification in the
Public Health Information System (PHIS).

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Sasia
Mellinger, Human Resources Manager, at (909) 865-8301. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Stefano Bruno, Vice
President, at (909) 865-8301.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SGISbr


DOC ABLE'S: Faces "Esquivel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Esquivel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Doc Able's Auto Clinic,
Inc., and Steve Georgoulio, Case No. 1:15-cv-08141 (N.D. Ill.,
September 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants own and operate an auto repair business located at
936 Chicago Ave., Evanston, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. C.D. Cal. Investors Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

In August 2014, two putative shareholder class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws were filed against
the Company and several of its officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that, between
October 29, 2013 and July 29, 2014, the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made alleged material misstatements and
omissions regarding the financial performance of Turbo. The
consolidated lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of
shareholders as well as other equitable and unspecified monetary
relief.

On April 1, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the
case was dismissed with prejudice on May 19, 2015. On June 18,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against this consolidated lawsuit.

At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the
ultimate outcome of this consolidated lawsuit, nor can it
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Still Defending v. N.D. Cal. Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreamworks Animation SKG, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against an antitrust class action.

In September and October 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws
were filed against the Company and various other companies in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. These
lawsuits have been consolidated and generally assert that the
defendants agreed to restrict competition through non-solicitation
agreements and agreements to fix wage and salary ranges. The
lawsuits seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
worked for the defendants at any time from 2004 to the present.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.
At this time the Company is unable to reasonably predict the
ultimate outcome of these lawsuits, nor can it reasonably estimate
a range of possible loss.


ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery Stayed Pending Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery in a class
action lawsuit is stayed pursuant to provisions of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of a
motion to dismiss.

On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation").

On July 13, 2014, a nearly identical complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and one of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian
Oh Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh
Litigation").

On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead plaintiff ("Lead
Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen Litigation and the Oh
Litigation under the following caption: Gopichand Vallabhaneni v.
Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Vallabhaneni Litigation").

On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
securities class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth Taylor, Michael A.
Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith A. Brauer, Ann F.
Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A. Middleton, Lesley
Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and collectively with the
Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Underwriter
Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
Endocyte Defendants made false and misleading statements relating
to the efficacy of vintafolide and violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The putative class related to these allegations consists of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff
also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants
and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by,
among other things, making or allowing the Company to make false
and misleading statements regarding positive opinions about
vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee
for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary
prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on
March 28, 2014. The putative class related to these allegations
consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
April 2, 2014 public offering.

Lead Plaintiff seeks the designation of the Vallabhaneni
Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper.

Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead Plaintiff filed a motion
in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which Defendants replied on
April 20, 2015.

Discovery in this matter is stayed pursuant to provisions of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending
resolution of that motion to dismiss. The Company believes that
this lawsuit is without merit and has defended, and intends to
continue to defend, itself vigorously against the allegations made
in the Amended Complaint.


ENDOCYTE INC: Continues to Defend Hage Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has
defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself vigorously
against the allegations made in the Hage litigation.

On November 6, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company,
two of its executive officers, Merck and one of Merck's officers
in the Superior Court of Tippecanoe County, Indiana under the
following caption: Mohamad Hage and Jamele Hage v. Endocyte, Inc.,
P. Ron Ellis, Mike A. Sherman, Eric Rubin and Merck & Co., Inc.
(the "Hage Litigation"). The complaint alleged, among other
things, that the defendants: made false and misleading statements
about the efficacy of vintafolide and the likelihood that it would
be approved for sale; employed devices, schemes and artifices to
defraud; made untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made about the Company and its business operations not misleading;
and breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs. The
complaint alleged that as a result of the alleged fraudulent
misrepresentations, non-disclosures and schemes of the defendants,
plaintiffs have suffered pecuniary losses. The plaintiffs seek an
award of unspecified actual, compensatory, consequential,
incidental and punitive damages, reasonable costs, expert fees and
attorneys' fees, and such equitable/injunctive or other relief as
the court may deem just and proper. The Company believes that it
may have an obligation to indemnify Merck and its named officer in
connection with the Hage Litigation, depending on certain factors.

On January 9, 2015, the defendants filed a Motion to Stay the
Proceeding or in the Alternative to Stay Discovery (the "Motion to
Stay"). A hearing on the Motion to Stay was held on February 19,
2015. On March 20, 2015, the court ruled to stay the case pending
final resolution of the Vallabhaneni case. The plaintiffs sought
an interlocutory appeal to which the Company opposed.

On May 22, 2015, the court denied the interlocutory appeal motion.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and has
defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself vigorously
against the allegations made in the complaint.


ETHICON INC: Falsely Marketed Morcellator Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ghidella, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al., Case No. L-
3518-15 (D.N.J., September 16, 2015), is an action for damages as
a proximate result of the Defendants' and their corporate
predecessors' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale of Gynecare
Laparoscopic Power Morcellators.

Ethicon, Inc.is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling,
supplying, marketing, designing, and distributing minimally
invasive gynecological surgical products, with a principal place
of business at 737 U.S. Highway 22, Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Capotorto, Esq.
      LEYDEN, CAPOTORTO, RITACCO & CORRIGAN, P.C.
      250 Washington Street, Suite D
      Toms River, NJ 08753
      Telephone: (732) 573-6096
      Facsimile: (732) 349-6917

         - and -

      Sean Patrick Tracey, Esq.
      Rebecca B. King, Esq.
      Andrew Rubenstein, Esq.
      TRACEY & FOX
      440 Louisiana, Suite 1901
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 495-2333
      Facsimile: (866) 709-2333


EVERCORE PARTNERS: ETC Indemnified by J.C. Penney in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Evercore Trust Company,
N.A. ("ETC") is indemnified by J.C. Penney in a class action
lawsuit.

In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action
complaint against Evercore Trust Company, N.A. ("ETC") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she purports
to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney
Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at
any time between May 15, 2012 and the present.  The complaint
alleges that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in
J.C. Penney stock during that period and claims the Plan suffered
losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C.
Penney stock.  The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged Plan
losses, attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and
equitable relief.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. ETC is
indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for
reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would
be refunded should ETC not prevail.


FILM STAGE: Accused of Violating TCPA and Ill. Consumer Fraud Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Davies d/b/a Davies Home Services, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Film,
Stage & Showbiz Expo LLC, Zach Lezberg, and John Does 1-12, Case
No. 1:15-cv-08161 (N.D. Ill., September 17, 2015) seeks to put an
end on the Defendants' practice of faxing unsolicited
advertisements.  The case involves common fact questions about the
Defendants' alleged fax campaign and common legal questions under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Film, Stage & Showbiz Expo LLC is a New York limited liability
company with its principal place of business located in New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      James M. Smith, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: 312-658-5500
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
              robert@bockhatchllc.com


FIRST SECURITY: Hearing Held on Motions to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------
First Security Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing had been held
on the motions to dismiss two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits.

Two putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
connection with the merger. Knutson v. First Security
Group, Inc. et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for
Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of
its board of directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants. Meade
v. Kramer, et al., filed April 24, 2015 in the Chancery Court for
Hamilton County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of
its board of directors, FSGBank, N.A., Atlantic Capital and
Atlantic Capital Bank as defendants.

Each of these complaints alleges, among other things, that the
First Security directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger
agreement and that the other named defendants aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief,
the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing parties from
consummating the merger, rescission of the transactions completed
by the merger agreement, an award of attorney's fees and expenses
for plaintiffs and other forms of relief.

On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order consolidating
these two suits under the caption In re First Security Group, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On June 25, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated class action
complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Chattanooga.
The amended complaint repeats many of the same allegations of the
original complaints but also makes additional allegations with
respect to disclosures contained in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.

First Security believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them. First Security has not
accrued a liability for these claims. On July 24, 2015, the
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.  A
hearing on the motions to dismiss had been scheduled for August
31, 2015.


FIRST SOLAR: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Commence in Smilovits
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that expert discovery is
scheduled to commence after the motions for summary judgment have
been resolved in the case, Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively, "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties.

Merits discovery closed on February 27, 2015. Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015, and plaintiffs
filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment on the same day.
Briefing on the motions for summary judgment concluded on May 27,
2015. Oral argument on the motions for summary judgment occurred
on July 22, 2015. Expert discovery is scheduled to commence after
the motions for summary judgment have been resolved.

Given the pending motions for summary judgment, possible expert
discovery, and the uncertainties of trial, we are not in a
position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our
financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range
of potential loss, if any.


FIRST SOLAR: Faces Maverick Fund Complaint
------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a suit titled Maverick
Fund, L.D.C. v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01156-
ROS, was filed on June 23, 2015, in Arizona District Court by
putative stockholders that opted out of the Class Action. The
complaint names the Company and certain of our current and former
directors and officers as defendants, and alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and violated state law, by making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
performance and prospects. The action includes claims for
recessionary and actual damages, interest, punitive damages, and
an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously
defend this action.

The complaint has not yet been served, and the defendants have not
responded to the complaint.

"Accordingly, we are not in a position to assess whether any loss
or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable or remote
or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company
said.


FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Peck, and all others similarly-situated v. Fuel Systems
Solutions, Inc., Mariano Costamagna, James W. Nall, Marco Di Toro,
Joseph E. Pompeo, Troy A. Clarke, Anthony Harris, Colin S.
Johnston, Steven R. Becker, Westport Innovations Inc., and
Whitehorse Merger Sub Inc., Case No. 11495 (Del. Ch., September
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of
fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to merge Fuel
Systems Solutions, Inc. with Westport Innovations Inc. for
inadequate consideration.

Fuel Systems is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware. It maintains its principal
executive offices at 780 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, New
York 10017. Fuel Systems designs, manufactures, and supplies
alternative fuel components and systems for transportation,
industrial, and refueling applications worldwide. The Company was
founded in 1958, and is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select under
the symbol "FSYS."

Mariano Costamagna has served as a director of Fuel Systems since
June 2003, and on January 1, 2005, he became the Company's CEO.

Marco Di Toro has served as a director of the Company since April
1, 2005.

James W. Nall has served as a director of Fuel Systems since May
2008, and has been the Chairman of the Board since October 29,
2014.

Bill Hunter has served as a director of the Company since December
2009.

Michael G. Kauffman has served as a director of the Company since
June 2006.

W. James O'Shea has served as a director of the Company since June
2007.

Westport is a British Columbia corporation with its headquarters
located at 1750 West 75th Avenue, Suite 101, Vancouver, British
Columbia V6P 6C2. Westport provides low-emission engine and fuel
system technologies utilizing gaseous fuels. The Company is listed
on NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol "WPRT."

Whitehorse Merger Sub Inc. is a Delaware corporation, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Westport, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th St. N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290


FUJITSU AMERICA: Recalls Notebook Computer Battery Packs
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fujitsu America Inc., of Sunnyvale, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 300 Fujitsu notebook computer battery packs (in
addition, about 5 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Fujitsu lithium ion battery packs sold or
provided as replacement battery packs for the following Fujitsu
notebook computers: Celsius H720 and LIFEBOOK E752, P701, P702,
P770, P771, P772, S752, S762 and T580. The battery packs were also
sold separately. The black battery packs measure about 8 inches
long, 2 inches wide and about 0.8 inches high. Model number
CP556150-1 including all serial numbers, and model number
CP556150-2 with serial number range Z120102 through Z120512 are
included in this recall. The model and serial numbers are printed
on the white battery label. The notebook computer's model number
is printed on a label on the bottom of the notebook.

Fujitsu has received three reports of the battery packs catching
fire, including two in Japan and one in China and causing fire
damage to rugs, bedding, a desk and other furniture. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/pnJ0aY

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold Online
at www.shopfujitsu.com and other Web retailers from August 2012
through July 2015 for about $150.

Consumers should immediately turn off their Fujitsu notebook
computer, remove the battery pack and contact Fujitsu for a free
replacement battery pack. Consumers can continue to use their
Fujitsu notebook computer without the battery pack by plugging in
the AC adapter and power cord.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit, In re Genworth Financial, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief
executive officer and its current chief financial officer were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra
v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged
securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013
and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves.
The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the
same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks
the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra
lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the
Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed.

In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement
Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the
action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

"On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a memorandum
of law in opposition to our motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015,
we filed our reply memorandum of law in further support of our
motion to dismiss. The Court heard argument on our motion to
dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2015. On May 1, 2015, the court
denied the motion to dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this
lawsuit," the Company said.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Defending Against City of Hialeah Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit filed by the City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief
executive officer and its current chief financial officer were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving
certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian
mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial
public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive
relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of
the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as
of March 4, 2015. On March 25, 2015, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York denied the motion but
entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to
replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to
dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this action.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Class Actions Against Subsidiary Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuits have entered into a settlement agreement
that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to the
subsidiary.

The Company said, "Beginning in December 2011 and continuing
through January 2013, one of our U.S. mortgage insurance
subsidiaries was named along with several other mortgage insurance
participants and mortgage lenders as a defendant in twelve
putative class action lawsuits alleging that certain "captive
reinsurance arrangements" were in violation of RESPA. Those cases
are captioned as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., et al., United States District Court for the Central
District of California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial
Services Group, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank
NA, et al., United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California;
Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle,
et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison
et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et
al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et
al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court
for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar
Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc.,
et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania."

"Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance arrangements" with
providers of private mortgage insurance whereby a mortgage lender
through captive reinsurance arrangements received a portion of the
borrowers' private mortgage insurance premiums were in violation
of RESPA and unjustly enriched the defendants for which plaintiffs
seek declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages,
including restitution. The McCarn case was dismissed by the court
with prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants
on November 9, 2012.

"On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was dismissed by the court with
prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on
February 27, 2013.

"The Manners case was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March
2013. In early May 2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed
with prejudice as to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of
those dismissals, but have since withdrawn those appeals. The
White case was dismissed by the court without prejudice on June
20, 2013, and on July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint again naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a
defendant. The Menichino case was dismissed by the court without
prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on
July 19, 2013.

"Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and
Cunningham cases, the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied,
but the court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited
discovery to issues surrounding whether the case should be
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

"In the Hill case, on December 17, 2013, we moved for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint. The court granted our motion,
and in July 2014, the Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In the Riddle case, in
late November 2013, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted our motion for summary
judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.

"In October 2014, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of the Riddle action. On January 30, 2015, our U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plaintiffs in the
cases still pending as of such date entered into a settlement
agreement that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to
our subsidiary. This settlement had no impact on our financial
position or results of operations."


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Dismissed Claims in Goodman and Brown
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York has entered a
final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the
defendants in the case, Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v.
Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al.

The Company said, "In December 2009, one of our former non-
insurance subsidiaries, one of the former subsidiary's officers
and Genworth Financial, Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings,
Inc.) were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Michael J. Goodman and Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth
Management, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs allege securities law
and other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by
our former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client
Group clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

"In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state law
fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the
remaining federal claims. The District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class on April 15, 2014.

"On April 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the District
Court's denial of their motion to certify a class, which we
opposed. On July 9, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
denied plaintiffs' motion.

"Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, on March 20,
2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all
claims against the defendants."


GT LANDSCAPING: Faces "Garibay" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Pablo Garibay, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. G.T. Landscaping, LLC,
and Gilberto Toledo, Case No. 1:15-cv-08162 (N.D. Ill., September
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping,
maintenance, and snowplowing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
      Chicago, IL, 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450

         - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER
      ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: asossa@flapillinois.org


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: 2 Class Actions Filed on Proposed Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two putative class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger between Gramercy
and Chambers Street, or the Merger, have been filed in New York
Supreme Court, New York County. The actions are captioned Berliner
v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed
July 9, 2015) and Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015
(filed July 22, 2015). A third putative class action has been
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned
Jobin v. DuGan, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27,
2015). The complaints allege, among other things, that the
directors of Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to Gramercy
shareholders by agreeing to sell Gramercy for inadequate
consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection terms in
the Merger Agreement. In addition, the lawsuits allege that
Chambers Street and certain of its affiliates aided and abetted
these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The Jobin complaint
also names Gramercy as a nominal defendant and asserts a
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the
directors of Gramercy. The lawsuits seek, among other things, an
injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the
extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief, and an award
of damages. The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit.


GULF INTERSTATE: Faces "Sloane" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Sloane, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-01208-NBF (W.D. Penn., September 16, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc. provides a broad range of
services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      James A. Jones, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
              jjones@brucknerburch.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Reconsideration of Final Settlement Order Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that objectors have filed a
motion for reconsideration of the final judgment approving the
settlement in the case, Bostick, et al., v. Herbalife Int'l of
Am., Inc., et al.

On April 8, 2013, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its subsidiaries
were named as defendants in a suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, challenging
Herbalife's marketing practices and business structure under
California laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes," unfair and
deceptive business practices, and false advertising, as well as
federal RICO statutes.

On July 7, 2014, the complaint was amended to add additional
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought damages in an unspecified
amount. The federal RICO claim was dismissed.

While the Company continues to believe the suit was without merit,
and without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing, the
Company and the plaintiffs reached a settlement. Under the terms
of the settlement, the Company would (i) pay $15 million into a
fund to be distributed to qualified claimants and (ii) accept up
to a maximum amount of $2.5 million in product returns from
qualified claimants. The court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on December 2, 2014 and conditionally certified a
class. The court granted final approval of the settlement on May
14, 2015 and the final judgment was entered June 19, 2015.

As of June 30, 2015 these amounts were adequately reserved for in
the Company's financial statements. The settlement class consists
of approximately 1.5 million persons who were Members in the
United States during the period from April 1, 2009 through and
including December 2, 2014. The settlement amounts were more than
sufficient to cover the claims.

The objectors have filed a motion for reconsideration of the final
judgment approving the settlement, which motion was scheduled to
be heard on August 24, 2015.  The Company intended to oppose the
motion.

The Company has transferred $15 million to an escrow account which
was included in prepaid expenses and other current assets within
its condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2015.


HERBALIFE LTD: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company continues
to vigorously defend the purported class action suit, In re
Herbalife, Ltd. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v.
Herbalife Ltd., et al.).

On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class
of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different
shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of
counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers.

The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally
misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's
business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and
further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated
pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29,
2014.

On March 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
all claims in the Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint and dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff.
On May 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the
Company and one of its officers. The lead plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares
of the Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and March
10, 2014.

On July 28, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint by August 27, 2015.  The Company continues to vigorously
defend this purported class action suit. The Company has not
recognized a loss as it does not believe a loss is probable.
Further, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a
possible loss or range of loss.


HW WORLDWIDE: "Stravrev" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Stravrev, and other similarly situated individuals v. HW
Worldwide, LLC and Harold Williams, Case No. 1:15-cv-23498-FAM
(S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Mandatory Mediation Conference Scheduled
-------------------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
mandatory mediation conference is being scheduled in the
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and Francis
Reynolds, its former Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements related to the timing and
completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-Spinal
Scaffold. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 5, 2013
through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages.

On April 3, 2015, the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with
prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision on
May 4, 2015.  A mandatory mediation conference is being scheduled.


JUICECO LLC: "Prado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauro R. Prado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Juiceco, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-14323-JEM (S.D. Fla., September
16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Juiceco, LLC is engaged in the business of distributing single-
strength not from concentrated fresh juice products to food
service and to retail and consumer channels throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew P. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Ste. 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


JURATOYS US: Recalls Fishing Games Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Juratoys U.S. of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 14,000 Sardines Fishing Game and Starfish Fishing
Game (In addition, about 200 were sold in Canada).

The plastic worm at the end of the fishing pole line can separate,
producing small parts that pose a choking hazard to children.
Additionally, the small magnet inside the worm can liberate.
Swallowing multiple magnets can result in serious internal injury.

This recall involves two models of the Juratoys fishing game,
Sardines and Starfish. The fishing game user picks up a toy fish
using a play fishing rod with a magnetic worm. The Sardine fishing
game has a red and white sardine with a yellow eye painted on a
sardine-shaped tin and has product number J08152 printed on the
bottom of the container at the tail, and on the back of one of the
fish pieces. The Starfish fishing game has an orange starfish
painted on a starfish-shaped tin with a product number J08153
printed on the bottom of the container and on the back of one of
the fish pieces. Each set comes with two wooden fishing rods and
several wooden fish with a magnetic button in the middle. The lid
of each tin package contains the word "Janod(R)."

The firm has received about 417 reports of the plastic worm at the
end of the fishing pole line separating and releasing small parts,
including four reports of children ingesting a small part. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/RZSCLG

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Online at www.citruslane.com, www.burrogoods.com,
www.terratoys.com, www.patinastores.com; numerous retail stores
including Patina, Burro, and Terra Toys; and at Juratoys trade
shows from April 2015 through August 2015 for approximately $15 to
$20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled games and
keep them out of the reach of young children. Consumers should
contact Juratoys for a prepaid shipping envelope to return the
game. Juratoys will then send a $15 refund check for the Sardines
game and a $20 refund check for the Starfish game. Consumers who
paid more should include a receipt in the return to receive a full
refund.


KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP: Faces Suit Over "Natural" Diapers and Wipes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Franjul and Veronica Brenner, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation;
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.; and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06200 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015) is brought
on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals for
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express and
implied warranties, violations of the consumer protection laws of
New York, Massachusetts, Florida, and California, and unjust
enrichment.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located in Neenah, Wisconsin.
Kimberly-Clark manufactures Huggies(R) "pure & natural" Diapers
and Huggies(R) "Natural Care" Wipes and distributes them to
retailers nationwide for sale to consumers.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Diapers are neither pure nor natural because they contain
unnatural and potentially harmful ingredients, including
polypropylene and sodium polyacrylate.  Likewise, the Wipes are
not natural because they contain unnatural and potentially harmful
ingredients such as sodium methylparaben and
methylisothiazolinone.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  ndeckant@bursor.com
                  ykopel@bursor.com


LACORR PACKAGING: Faces "Dinkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lamont Dinkins, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. LACORR Packaging, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
Case No. BC594886 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

LACORR Packaging, LLC own and operates a packaging supply store
located at 13890 Nelson Ave E, City of Industry, CA 91746.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana L. Allen, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562. 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net


LAND OF NOD: Recalls Mobile Products Due to Strangulation Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Land of Nod, announced a voluntary recall of about 400
Mobiles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The yarn from the sheep figures can unravel, posing an
entanglement and strangulation hazard to young children.

This recall involves The Land of Nod Follow the Herd mobile. The
recalled mobile is made of white wool felt and has five sheep
figures made of white wool yarn. The sheep have black felt eyes
and brown felt ears. The mobile is about 24 inches tall, 10 inches
wide and 10 inches deep. SKU number 198234 is on a label attached
to the body of the mobile.
Incidents/Injuries

The Land of Nod has received three reports of the sheep's yarn
unraveling. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OgTj88

The recalled products were manufactured in Nepal and sold at The
Land of Nod stores nationwide and online at www.landofnod.com from
September 2013 through May 2015 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately put the recalled mobiles out of the
reach of children and contact The Land of Nod for a full refund.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Data Privacy Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend a Data Privacy Litigation.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia relating to the theft of computer back-up tapes from a
vehicle of a company employee. In May 2014, the District Court
dismissed all but two plaintiffs from the MDL action. In June
2014, Leidos and its co-defendant, TRICARE, entered into
settlement agreements with the remaining two plaintiffs who
subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Securities Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2015, that an
appeal a securities class actions remains pending.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock from April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The
consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that the Company and individual defendants made
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues,
operating income and internal controls in connection with
disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs
sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants
an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred
by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30,
2014 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
where the appeal remains pending.


LENDINGTREE INC: HLC Intends to Renew Appeal
--------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Lijkel
Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc. et al., No.
5:11-cv-152-JPB (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.WV), HLC intends to renew its
appeal.

In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia.

In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class.

With respect to the claims applicable to the named plaintiff only
(the "Individual Claims"), HLC's motions for summary judgment were
granted with respect to conversion, breach of fiduciary duty,
intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and
outrage. HLC and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual
Claims in June 2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August
2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not
yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed.

In July 2015, the district court awarded attorneys' fees to
Plaintiffs consisting of one-third of the class damages award plus
an additional $389,500. The judge also awarded prejudgment
interest to Plaintiffs.

A reserve of $3.2 million has been established for this matter in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2015,
of which some or all may be covered by insurance.

On July 30, 2015, the district court judge entered a final
judgment order in this matter; HLC intends to renew its appeal.


LIBERTY LIFE: Sued Over Denial of LT Disability Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
Troy McVay, individually and on behalf of other members of the
Comcast Disability Plan v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of
Boston, Case No. 1:15-cv-02027 (D. Colo., September 16, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's unlawful denial and refusal to
provide Plan members with long-term disability benefits, in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston is a Colorado corporation
that administers and issues Comcast employee benefit plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Bulger, Esq.
      SILVERN & BULGER, P.C.
      4800 Wadsworth Boulevard, Suite 307
      Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
      Telephone: (303) 292-004


LIFELOCK INC: Parties in Ebarle & Stamm Suit Exchange Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the
class action filed by plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle and Jeanne Stamm
continue to informally exchange information in connection with the
mediation.

The Company said, "On January 19, 2015, plaintiffs Napoleon Ebarle
and Jeanne Stamm filed a nationwide putative consumer class action
against us in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs allege that we have
engaged in deceptive marketing and sales practices in connection
with our membership plans in violation of the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act, and are seeking declaratory judgment under the Federal
Declaratory Judgment Act.  In their Complaint, the plaintiffs also
sought certification of a nationwide class of consumers who are or
were subscribers of our identity theft protection services since
January 19, 2014, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs."

"On March 6, we filed a motion to dismiss. Rather than respond to
our motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
March 27, 2015. The amended complaint dramatically expanded the
scope of the claims and the size of the asserted class, which was
expanded to include any LifeLock members since January 19, 2009.
Pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, on May 4, 2015, the
Court stayed the matter to allow the parties to participate in a
private mediation on July 1, 2015, before Justice Howard Weiner.

Following the July 1, 2015, mediation, the parties agreed to
participate in a second mediation session on August 18, 2015.  On
July 8, 2015, also pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation, the
Court further stayed this matter pending the second mediation
session on August 18, 2015. The parties continue to informally
exchange information in connection with the mediation.


LIFELOCK INC: Court Tentatively Approved Deal in "Goldman" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has
tentatively approved the class Settlement Agreement in the case
filed by Etan Goldman.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, plaintiff Etan Goldman
filed a California putative consumer class action complaint
against us in Santa Clara Superior Court in San Jose, California.
The complaint alleges that we violated California's Automatic
Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by failing to provide
required disclosures concerning our auto renewal terms and
cancellation policies.  The complaint also seeks certification of
a class consisting of all persons in California who had purchased
subscriptions to identity theft protection services from us since
December 1, 2010, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On May 15, 2015, the parties executed a class-wide Settlement
Agreement and Release. On June 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the class Settlement Agreement.
On July 10, 2015, the Court tentatively approved the class
Settlement Agreement, continued the hearing on plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval until July 24, 2015 and requested that
plaintiff submit, by July 21, 2015, additional information
concerning the amount of monthly subscription fees paid by class
members."


LIFELOCK INC: "Trax" Plaintiff Filed Notice of Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiff, Thomas A.
Trax, filed on February 2, 2015, a class action complaint against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The Company said, "The complaint asserted that we violated
California's Automatic Renewal Law and Unfair Competition Law by
failing to provide required disclosures concerning our auto
renewal terms and cancellation policies. The complaint sought
certification of a class consisting of all persons in California
who have purchased products and/or services from us as part of an
automatic renewal plan or continuous service offer since February
2, 2011, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, a
constructive trust and/or disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and
costs. On May 11, 2015, plaintiff filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal without prejudice."


LIFELOCK INC: Anticipates Filing Motion to Dismiss "Avila" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company, along with
its CEO and CFO anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the
complaint filed by Miguel Avila at a time yet to be determined.

The Company said, "On July 22, 2015, Miguel Avila, representing
himself and seeking to represent a class of persons who acquired
our securities from July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015, inclusive,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona. His complaint alleges that our CEO,
our CFO, and we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act by making materially false or misleading
statements, or failing to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, including with
regard to our information security program, advertising,
recordkeeping, and our compliance with the FTC Order. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs. We, along with our CEO and
CFO anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the complaint at a time
yet to be determined."


LOS ANGELES, CA: LAFCU Sued Over Illegal Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Mary Gray, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Los Angeles Federal Credit Union, and Does 1-10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-07266 (C.D. Cal., September 16, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' practice of charging improper overdraft fees barred by
federal regulation and the terms of its account agreement with its
credit union members.

Los Angeles Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit
union with its headquarters in Los Angeles California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq.
      McCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      James Strenio, Esq.
      Thomas A. Segal, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
              thomas@kicklawfirm.com
              thomas@kicklawfirm.com


LOTA USA: Recalls Kitchen Faucets Due to Fire and Burn Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lota USA, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 4,500 Glacier Bay and Schon kitchen faucets. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery box used to power the faucet's sensor can short
circuit, overheat and/or melt, posing fire and burn hazards to
consumers.

This recall involves Glacier Bay and Schon brand touchless kitchen
faucets that allow the user to waive a hand in front of a sensor
to start and stop the flow of water, a pull-down sprayer head with
a white LED light and a single handle to manually turn the water
on and off.  The touchless feature is powered by four 1.5V
batteries installed into a battery box connected to the faucet.
The Glacier Bay faucets include a matching soap dispenser.
Glacier Bay is printed on the base of the Glacier Bay faucets.
Schon is printed on the base of the Schon faucets. The Glacier Bay
faucets were sold in chrome, Mediterranean bronze and stainless
steel. The Schon faucets were sold in chrome and stainless steel.
The model number and the manufacturing date are printed on the
faucet's black piping that connects the faucet to the kitchen's
water pipe under the sink. Manufacturing dates are the YY-MM-DD
format, e.g. 14-10-29 was manufactured on October 29, 2014. The
faucets have the following model numbers and manufacturing dates:

  Model Number   Manufacturing     Brand        Description
  ------------   Date              -----        -----------
                 -------------
  67536-1001     14-10-29 through  Glacier Bay  Touchless
                 15-04-14                       single-handle
                                                Pull-down sprayer
                                                kitchen faucet
                                                with LED light
                                                (chrome)
  67536-1027H2   14-10-29 through  Glacier Bay  Touchless
                 15-04-14                       single-handle
                                                Pull-down sprayer
                                                kitchen faucet
                                                with LED light
                                               (Mediterranean
                                                bronze)
  67536-1008D2   14-10-29 through  Glacier Bay  Touchless
                 15-04-14                       single-handle
                                                Pull-down sprayer
                                                kitchen faucet
                                                with LED light
                                                (stainless steel)
  67558-0101     14-10-29 through  Schon        Schon modern
                 15-04-14                       kitchen modern
                                                sensor pulldown
                                                (chrome)
  67558-0108D2   14-10-29 through  Schon        Schon modern
                 15-04-14                       kitchen sensor
                                                pulldown
                                                (stainless steel)

The firm has received six reports of the faucet's battery box
overheating, melting and/or smoking, including one report of a
fire in the box and one report of a burn to a consumer's thumb.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Z6oJAo

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Home Depot stores nationwide and online at www.homedepot.com from
March 2015 through May 2015 for about $225.

Consumers should immediately unplug and remove batteries from the
faucet's battery box and contact Lota USA for a replacement
battery box for the faucet.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes "Pierce" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Pierce, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators Inc., Case No. 1516-CV07171, was transferred from the
Missouri Circuit Court, Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00593-DGK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in the state of Missouri,
who purchased flooring products from "defendant Lumber Liquidators
that exceeded the California Air Resources Board standard for
formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products and currently
own a home within the State of Missouri with the flooring products
at issue installed within that home."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
          Lauren E. McClain, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & MCCLAIN, P.C.
          221 West Lexington, Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: (816) 836-5050
          Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
          E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
                  kds@hfmlegal.com
                  lem@hfmlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Martone, Esq.
          Matthew B. Robinson, Esq.
          HESSE MARTONE, PC
          13354 Manchester Road, Suite 100
          St. Louis, MO 63131
          Telephone: (314) 862-0300
          Facsimile: (314) 862-7010
          E-mail: andymartone@hessemartone.com
                  mattrobinson@hessemartone.com


MAGICMIND INC: Faces "Barach" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Barach, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Magicmind, Inc. and Zhongdan Zhao, Case No.
6:15-cv-1527-ORL-31-TBS (M.D. Fla., September 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a vacation home management and
maintenance business in Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZELL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 337-7992
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              jriley@wfclaw.com


MARKWEST ENERGY: Unitholder Class Action Complaint Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Markwest Energy Partners, L.P. on July 11, 2015, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with MPLX LP
("MPLX"), MPLX GP LLC, the general partner of MPLX ("MPLX GP"),
Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of MPLX ("Merger
Sub" and, together with MPLX and MPLX GP, the "MPLX Entities"),
and, for certain limited purposes set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, the parent of MPLX GP
("MPC").  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into the Partnership (the "Merger"), with the
Partnership surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
MPLX.  After the Merger, the Partnership's common units will cease
to be publicly traded.

Markwest Energy Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 24, 2015, a
putative unitholder class action complaint was filed by a single
plaintiff who purports to be a unitholder of the Partnership in
the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (Case No. 11332-
VCG) against the individual members of the General Partner's board
of directors (the "Board"), the General Partner, MPLX, MPC and
Merger Sub. The complaint, styled Katsman v. Frank M. Semple, et
al., (the "Complaint") alleges that the Board breached its duties
in approving the Merger with MPLX. Generally, the Complaint
alleges that the Board breached its duties to the Partnership's
common unitholders because the Merger does not provide the
Partnership's common unitholders with adequate consideration, the
Board did not seek to maximize value for the benefit of the
Partnership's common unitholders, certain members of the
Partnership's management team will remain executive officers of
MPLX after the consummation of the Merger and the Merger Agreement
contains preclusive deal protective devices and does not provide
for appraisal rights.  The Complaint also alleges that MPC, MPLX
and Merger Sub aided and abetted in such breaches. The Complaint
seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger, or in the event
the Merger is consummated, rescission of the Merger or monetary
damages.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.
However, one of the conditions to the completion of the Merger is
that no law, order, decree, judgment or injunction of any court,
agency or other governmental authority shall be in effect that
enjoins, prohibits or makes illegal consummation of any of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement.  A preliminary
injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger,
and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.  An adverse judgment
for rescission or for monetary damages could have a material
adverse effect on the Partnership and MPLX following the Merger.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Farno" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Farno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Sehat Sutardja,
Michael Sashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh, Case No. 1:15-cv-07300
(S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, is a
fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one billion chips a
year.

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, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              mgorrie@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Steven P. Harte, Esq.
      Bradley Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
              Steven@blockesq.com
              Bradley@blockesq.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Limbacher" Suit Over Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Limbacher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Sehat
Sutardja, Michael Sashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07304 (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., a Bermuda corporation, is a
fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one billion chips a
year.

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, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              mgorrie@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Steven P. Harte, Esq.
      Bradley Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
              Steven@blockesq.com
              Bradley@blockesq.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Pacelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Pacelli v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02786-JFM (D. Md., September 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Simmons" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bettye Simmons v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02791 (D. Md., September 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Greulich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-01750-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., August 6, 2015) seeks redress for MIE's
alleged failure to secure and safeguard its users' Personally
Identifiable Information and Protected Health Information.

On June 10, 2015, MIE disclosed a data breach involving the
exposure of Personal Information of tens of thousands of
individuals from around the United States.  The Plaintiff contends
that MIE's security failures enabled intruders to access and seize
the Personal Information from within MIE's systems.

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is an Indiana corporation
headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana.  MIE operates a health
information exchange software platform that allows for the
electronic movement of information among disparate health care
information systems while maintaining the integrity and meaning of
the information being exchanged.  As part of its business, MIE
stores vast amounts of Personal Information of individuals
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'reardon II, Esq.
          Paula M. Roach, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  proach@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Willliam B. Federman, Esq.
          Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  clm@federmanlaw.com


MICHAEL G. BARRETT: Chen Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kien Chen, and all others similarly-situated v. Michael G.
Barrett, Patrick J. Kerins, Robert P. Goodman, Thomas R. Evans,
Ross B. Levinsohn, Wenda Harris Millard, James A Tholen, AOL Inc.,
and Mars Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. 11496 (Del. Ch.,
September 10, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from further
breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of
Millennial Media, Inc. at an unfair price through an unfair
process that was tilted in favor of AOL.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Proposed Acquisition is designed to
unlawfully divest Millennial's public stockholders of the
Company's valuable assets for grossly inadequate consideration and
allow Individual Defendants to reap the benefits of accelerated
vesting of unvested stock and deferred compensation. To remedy
defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and other misconduct,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief preventing consummation of the
Proposed Acquisition, unless and until the Company adopts and
implements a procedure or process to obtain a transaction that
provides the best possible terms for stockholders, or in the event
the Proposed Acquisition is consummated, to recover damages.

Michael G. Barrett is Millennial's President, CEO, and a director
and has been since January 2014.

Patrick J. Kerins is Millennial's Chairman of the Board and has
been since at least February 2014; lead director and has been
since November 2013; and a director and has been since November
2009.

Robert P. Goodman is a Millennial director and has been since June
2009.

Thomas R. Evans is a Millennial director and has been since
February 2014.

Ross B. Levinsohn is a Millennial director and has been since
February 2014.

Wenda Harris Millard is a Millennial director and has been since
May 2009.

James A. Tholen is a Millennial director and has been since May
2011.

AOL Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal executive
offices at 770 Broadway, New York, New York. Defendant AOL is a
global media technology company with a worldwide audience and a
suite of digital brands, products, and services that it offers to
consumers, advertisers, publishers, and subscribers.

Mars Acquisition Sub, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and wholly
owned subsidiary of defendant AOL. Upon completion of the Proposed
Acquisition, defendant Merger Sub will merge with and into
Millennial and cease its separate corporate existence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike,
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 504-4957

          - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 525-3990

          - and -

      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BERNARD M. GROSS, P.C.
      100 Penn Square East, Suite 450
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: (215) 561-3600


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued Over Gender Discriminatory Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Moussouris, on behalf of herself and a class of those
similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01483 (W.D. Wash., September 16, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's policy, pattern and practice of sex discrimination
against female employees in technical and engineering roles with
respect to performance evaluations, pay, promotions, and other
terms and conditions of employment.

Microsoft Corporation is a global provider of software and
software-related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1900
      Seattle, WA 98121
      Telephone: (206) 739-9059
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: slee@lchb.com

         - and -

      Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
      Anne B. Shaver, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: kdermody@lchb.com
              ashaver@lchb.com

         - and -

      Adam T. Klein, Esq.
      Cara E. Greene, Esq.
      Ossai Miazad, Esq
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: ATK@outtengolden.com
              CEG@outtengolden.com
              OM@outtengolden.com

         - and -

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      Katrina L. Eiland, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
      E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
              keiland@outtengolden.com


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
The shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware remains pending, Nabors Industries Ltd. said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with
C&J Energy and its board of directors, were sued in a putative
shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges
that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red
Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The
plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for
approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded."

"On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court").

"On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the
Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case
remains pending."


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Pizza Pie Suit Over Sunday NFL Games
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Pie & Wing Co. LLC individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL
Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC, and Does
1 through 50, Case No. 2:15-cv-07305 (C.D. Cal., September 17,
2015), seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade
that Defendants have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive
arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of
32 American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory E. Woodard, Esq.
      Shawn M. Larsen, Esq.
      LARSEN WOODARD LLP
      100 Bayview Circle, Suite 4500
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 769-6602
      Facsimile: (949) 769-6603
      E-mail: gwoodard@larsenwoodard.com
              slarsen@larsenwoodard.com

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: 612-596-4097
      Facsimile: 612-339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              ralockridge@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: 412-322-9243
      Facsimile: 412-231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, Florida 33326
      Telephone: 954 315-3454
      Facsimile: 954-315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces "Cain" Suit Over Alleged Illegal Detention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Cain, Ashton Brown, Reynaud Variste, Reynajia Variste,
Thaddeus Long, Vanessa Maxwell, et al. v. City Of New Orleans, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04479 (E.D. LA., September 17, 2015), arises
from the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court officials' alleged
illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust use of jail and threats of
jail to collect court debts from thousands of the City's poorest
people.

The City of New Orleans is a municipal government entity,
organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William P. Quigley, Esq.
      7214 St. Charles Ave.
      Campus Box 902
      New Orleans, LA 70118
      Telephone: (504) 710-3074
      Facsimile: (504) 861-5440
      E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com

         - and -

      Anna Lellelid-Douffet, Esq.
      PO Box 19388
      New Orleans, LA 70179
      Telephone: (504) 224-9670
      E-mail: lellelid.law@gmail.com

         - and -

      Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
      916 G Street, NW Suite 701
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202)-681-2409
      E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org


NIKKEI AMERICA: Faces "Iwasawa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hideki Iwasawa v. Nikkei America, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC594636 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Nikkei America, Inc. is an online newspaper publisher that markets
and sells subscriptions and advertising to consumers and retailers
in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee D. Lubin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LEE DAVID LUBIN
      16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1175
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 728-0712
      Facsimile: (818) 995-7335
      E-mail: lee.lubin@lubinlaw.net


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Broadstone, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., d/b/a Pacsun,
Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp. and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
BC594799 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the employees required reporting
time pay.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick McNicholas, Esq.
      Michael J. Kent, Esq.
      McNICHOLAS & McNICHOLAS, LLP
      10866 Witshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90024-4338
      Telephone: (310)474-1582
      Facsimile: (310)475-7871
      E-mail:

         - and -

      Jason M. Frank, Esq.
      Scott H. Sims, Esq.
      EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
      520 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949)706-7000
      Facsimile: (949)706-7050

         - and -

      Richard K. Bridgford, Esq.
      Michael H. Artinian, Esq.
      BRIDGFORD GLEASON & ARTINIAN
      26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949)831-6611
      Facsimile: (949)831-6622
      E-mail: Richard.Bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com
              Mike.Artinian@bridgfordlaw.com


PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Halogen Bulbs Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Philips Lighting North America Corporation, of Somerset, N.J.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 370,000 Halogen Bulbs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The lens of the bulb can shatter in the lamp or the lens can fall
and shatter, posing a laceration and burn hazard.

This recall involves Philips 60W PAR 16 120V halogen bulbs
manufactured from November 2013 to March 2015. Date codes that
represent the month and year of production are painted on the bulb
glass along with "PHILIPS Halogena PAR 16," "China" and
"60W/120/V." Recalled bulb date codes include:

Affected Date Codes:

  2013         2014               2015
  ----         ----               ----
  3L, 3M       4A, 4B, 4C, 4D,    5A, 5B, 5C
               4E, 4F, 4G, 4H,
               4J, 4K, 4L, 4M

Philips has received 13 reports of the lens of the bulb
shattering, including five reports of property damage totaling
about $700 and two laceration injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/THVpJQ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot stores and professional distributors nationwide and online
at www.Amazon.com  from November 2013 through March 2015 for about
$10.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled bulbs,
remove them from any fixtures and contact Philips to request
packaging materials and instructions for returning the recalled
bulbs at no cost. Philips will provide free replacement bulbs.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class action
entitled In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
1950 (Master Docket No. 08-2516), remains pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Several class action complaints were brought on behalf of a
purported class of state, local and municipal government entities
in connection with the bidding or sale of municipal guaranteed
investment contracts and municipal derivatives directly from one
of the defendants or through a broker, from January 1, 1992, to
the present. The complaints, which have been consolidated into a
single nationwide class action entitled In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (Master Docket No.
08-2516), allege antitrust violations and are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
multi-district litigation rules. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified treble damages under the Sherman Act.

Several California municipalities also brought separate class
action complaints in California federal court, and approximately
eighteen California municipalities and two New York municipalities
filed individual lawsuits that are not as part of class actions,
all of which have since been transferred to the Southern District
of New York and consolidated for pretrial purposes.

All three sets of complaints assert similar claims under federal
(and for the California and New York plaintiffs, state) antitrust
claims.

|No loss contingency has been reflected in the Company's
consolidated financial statements as this contingency is neither
probable nor reasonably estimable at this time," the Company said.
Management is currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss for these matters because alleged damages have not
been specified, the proceedings remain in the early stages, and
there are significant factual issues to be resolved.


PRICE SELF: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Price Self Storage Holdings, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02077-AJB-JLB (S.D. Cal., September 17, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of systematically continuing to
send text messages to cellular telephones after consumers have
expressly revoked their consent to receive such messages and to
obtain redress for all persons injured.

Price Self Storage Holdings, LLC is a real estate developer doing
business within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Lozeau, Esq.
      Rebecca Davis, Esq.
      LOZEAU DRURY LLP
      410 12th Street, Suite 250
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 836-4200
      Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
      E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com
              rebecca@lozeaudrury.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


PRIDE FAMILY: Recalls Hammock Stands Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pride Family Brands, Inc., of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 13,900 Destination Summer Hammock Stands
(an additional 55 units sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Z-shaped hooks that attach the hammock to the hammock stand can
bend or break, resulting in a consumer falling to the ground.

The recalled hammock stand was sold under the Bed Bath & Beyond
Destination Summer private label. The bronze-colored heavy gauge
steel hammock stand with enamel finish measures 15 feet long by
3.5 feet wide by 4 feet high.

The firm has received 13 reports of the z-shaped hooks bending or
breaking, resulting in consumers falling to the ground and
injuring various body parts.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/E3Cd0u

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bed
Bath & Beyond stores nationwide and online at
www.bedbathandbeyond.com from March 2014 through July 2015 for
about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product, dispose of
the Z-shaped hooks and contact Pride Family Brands to obtain a
free set of heavier-gauged, S-shaped replacement hooks.


PROPETRO SERVICES: "Crow" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Crow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Propetro Services, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00149 (W.D.
Tex., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Propetro Services, Inc. provides oil and gas well drilling,
stimulation, cementing, and coiled tubing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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


PROVIA DOOR: Removes "Jacobs" Suit to Minnesota District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jacobs, et al. v. ProVia Door,
Inc., et al., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
0:15-cv-03230-DWF-TNL to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kelly A. Lelo, Esq.
          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 E 7th St., Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101-4922
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: klelo@larsonking.com
                  sraiter@larsonking.com
                  jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

Defendant ProVia Door, Inc. is represented by:

          Michael S. Rowley, Esq.
          Sean J. Mickelson, Esq.
          TERHAAR ARCHIBALD PFEFFERLE & GRIEBEL LLP
          100 N 6th, Suite 600A
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 573-3007
          Facsimile: (612) 573-3030
          E-mail: mrowley@tapg-law.com
                  smickelson@tapg-law.com


RED ROBIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Lieberg and Brent King, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01242-TSZ (W.D. Wash., August 6, 2015) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Deborah M. Nelson, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq.
          NELSON BOYD PLLC
          411 University Street, Suite 1200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 971-7601
          E-mail: nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com
                  boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs' Class Action Still Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a plaintiffs'
appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending.

In July 2006, Morgan Keegan and a former Morgan Keegan analyst
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by a Canadian
insurance and financial services company and its American
subsidiary in the Circuit Court of Morris County, New Jersey.
Plaintiffs alleged claims under a civil Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") statute and claims for commercial
disparagement, tortious interference with contractual
relationships, tortious interference with prospective economic
advantage and common law conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants engaged in a multi-year conspiracy to publish and
disseminate false and defamatory information about plaintiffs to
improperly drive down plaintiffs' stock price, so that others
could profit from short positions. Plaintiffs allege that
defendants' actions damaged their reputations and harmed their
business relationships. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for a
number of categories of alleged damages, including lost insurance
business, lost financings and increased financing costs, increased
audit fees and directors and officers insurance premiums and lost
acquisitions.

In September 2012, the trial court dismissed the case with
prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal. This matter is subject
to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James, Regions
Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

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


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Sept. 2015 Hearing to Approve Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing for final
approval of the settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by
Regions' stockholders is scheduled for September 2015.

In October 2010, a class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions'
stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (the "District Court") against Regions and certain
former officers of Regions (the "2010 Claim"). In May 2015,
Regions entered into a settlement agreement to settle the 2010
Claim for $90 million, all of which had been previously reserved.
The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the court
on May 27, 2015, and Regions was subsequently reimbursed in full
by its insurance providers. As a result, a $90 million recovery
was recognized during the second quarter of 2015. A hearing for
final approval of the settlement is scheduled for September 2015.


RICE BRICKELL: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel I. Rodriguez, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Rice Brickell, LLC and Esmaeil Shabani, Case No. 1:15-cv-23505-CMA
(S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin Antonio Jara, Esq.
      JARA & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      19 West Flagler Street, Suite 504
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 372-0290
      Facsimile: (305) 675-0383
      E-mail: info@jaralaw.com


RINGS: CHILD WORKS: Recalls Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rings: Child Works, of Carollton, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 121,000 Plastic Trapeze pairs of rings in the
United States (in addition about 6,500 were sold in Canada and
about 5,500 in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rings can unexpectedly crack or break during use, posing a
fall hazard to children.

This recall involves only the yellow plastic trapeze rings. They
are triangular in shape with rounded sides and have a loop at the
top. They measure about 81/2 inches high by 61/2 inches wide. The
yellow rings come as a pair and were connected to a trapeze bar.
They were sold either as a separate component or as an attachment
on the following Rainbow(R)-branded residential wooden playsets:
All-American, Backyard Circus, Carnival, Fiesta, King Kong,
Monster, Sunray, Sunshine and Rainbow.  All of these playsets have
an aluminum plate located on the front of the wooden swing beam
with the following name stamped on it, "Playgrounds America,"
"Rainbow Play Systems Inc.," or "Sunray Premium Playgrounds."

Rainbow has received more than 100 reports of the rings cracking
or breaking including 15 with reports of injuries consisting of
bumps, bruises, lacerations, concussion and one broken finger.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7cUwjG

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Rainbow dealers nationwide from January 2007 through December
2011 and at several mass merchandisers including Sam's Club, Toys
R Us and Walmart from January 2009 through December 2009. The
playsets retailed for between $900 and $10,000.

Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled
rings, contact Rainbow for ring removal instructions, then remove
the rings from the playset and receive a $10 gift card.


SAN PASQUAL: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Carter, Deborah Martin, Christine Morales, Stanley Caraker,
Stanley Nicks, Michaela Vecht, Bert Schorling, Jeanette Breiten,
Raymond Bachar, individually and as Representatives of the
Participants and Beneficiaries of the Fleet Card Fuels
Employees Stock Ownership Plan v. San Pasqual Fiduciary Trust
Company, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01507 (S.D. Cal., September 17,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary
duty to secure and obtain the best price reasonable under the
circumstances for the benefit of the Plaintiffs and the other
vested Fleet Card Fuels Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP")
participants in connection with the class action settlement in a
case in which Fleet Card Fuels should not have been liable.

San Pasqual Fiduciary Trust Company is a California corporation
with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.
San Pasqual is the "Independent Fiduciary" of the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq.
      Alexander H. Winnick, Esq.
      TRUJILLO & WINNICK, LLP
      2919 1/2 Main Street
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 210-9302
      Facsimile: (310) 921-5616
      E-mail: atrujillo@trujillowinnick.com
              awinnick@trujillowinnick.com


SANTANAS CONCRETE: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Alba Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Santanas Concrete, Inc. and Santana Diaz,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02700 (S.D. Tex., September  16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Santanas Concrete, Inc. is a concrete and masonry contractor doing
business within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


SEGWAY INC: Recalls Off-Board Chargers for Personal Transporters
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Segway Inc., of Bedford, N.H., announced a voluntary recall of
about 17 Off-Board Charger for Segway Personal Transporter (PT).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A wire inside the charger can detach and touch the side of the
charger, posing a shock hazard.

This recall involves Segway PT Off-Board Chargers manufactured
from November 2012 to November 2014 with part number 23288-00001.
The chargers are black, box-shaped and measure 8 inches wide by
13.75 inches deep by 4 inches high. Two wires used to connect the
unit to Segway PT batteries extend from one end. The Segway brand
name is on the charger above these wires. Chargers with the
following serial numbers are being recalled: 13240C000265,
13240C000266, 13240C000268, 13240C000269, 13240C000272,
14205C000275, 14205C000278, 14205C000280, 14205C000295,
14205C000296, 14205C000297, 14205C000298, 14205C000302,
14209C000313, 14209C000314, 14209C000321 and 14209C000324. The
serial number and part number are on a silver data plate attached
to the bottom of the charger.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ImAzLU

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at authorized Segway dealers and distributors and directly from
Segway Inc. from November 2012 through September 2015 for about
$920.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chargers,
unplug and contact Segway or the Segway dealer from whom it was
purchased to receive a free replacement power cord equipped with a
ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI). Segway is contacting
consumers directly.


SR 60: "Teixeira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adelino Teixeira, Maria Ines Henriques and other similarly
situated individuals v. SR 60 Shell Inc. and Ram Presad Ghimire,
Case No. 2:15-cv-14324-RLR (S.D. Fla., September 17, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

SR 60 Shell Inc. is an enterprise owned or controlled by Ram
Presad Ghimire, having their main place of business in Indian
River County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      Joshua H. Sheskin, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, Florida 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503.5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270.5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
             JSheskin@SaenzAnderson.com


SYMANTEC CORP: "Zeichick" Suit Claims Unjust Enrichment
-------------------------------------------------------
David Zeichick and all others similarly situated v. California
State Board of Equalization (SBE), Symantec Corporation, and Does
1-100, Case No. BC594229 (Cal. Super., September 10, 2015), seeks
injunctive and equitable relief to prevent unjust enrichment of
the State of California.

The Plaintiff alleged that Symantec engages in a routine and
customary practice of charging its customers amounts represented
as sales tax or reimbursement of sales tax on transactions
involving the sale of its computer software programs purchased
over the Internet where the customer downloads the program from
Symantec's website. Such transactions are not taxable under
California state law because they are not transactions for
"tangible personal property," a prerequisite for taxability.

Symantec Corporation provides security, storage and systems
management solutions to help businesses and consumers secure and
manage their information.

Defendant SBE is a division of the State of California in charge
of administering taxes, including the sales tax. The SBE is sued
in order to avoid the unjust enrichment of the State that will
occur if the disputed sales taxes at issue in this action are not
refunded.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Blvd
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 395-2988
      Fax: (310) 395-2088

          - and -

      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego,CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423


SYNAPTICS INCORPORATED: Sued Over Pacinian Merger Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Representative Services, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company in its capacity as the Stockholders'
Representative for the Effective Time Equityholders of Pacinian
Corporation v. Synaptics Incorporated and PCAC Acquisition
Corporation, Case No. 11509 (Del. Ch., September 16, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Time Equityholders of
Pacinian Corporation to enjoin the merger agreement, whereby
Synaptics Incorporated, via its wholly owned subsidiary PCAC
Acquisition Corporation, acquired Pacinian, including rights to
Pacinian's Haptic and ThinTouch technologies and Pacinian
Intellectual Property Rights.

Pacinian Corporation creates and develops various innovative
engineering and design applications in the field of keyboard and
input device technology.

Synaptics Incorporated develops human interface solutions based on
touch, display and biometrics technologies for a large range of
mobile computing, PC, entertainment and other consumer electronic
devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley P. Lehman, Esq.
      REGER RIZZO & DARNALL LLP
      Brandywine Plaza East
      1523 Concord Pike, Suite 200
      Wilmington, DL 19803
      Telephone: (302) 477-7100
      Facsimile: (302) 652-3620
      E-mail: blehman@regerlaw.com


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Oral Argument Held in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument had been
set for August 18, 2015, in a federal securities class action.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2010, a proposed federal
securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, naming us, former chief
executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of our acquired
companies as defendants.  In the action, a former shareholder of
the acquired company alleged that the joint proxy statement
relating to our shareholder meeting in connection with the merger
with the acquired company violated Section 14(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiff claimed that the acquired company's
shareholders received inadequate consideration for their shares as
a result of the alleged violations and sought compensatory and
rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the plaintiff
and the proposed class members.  In connection with this action,
we are obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the
individual defendants, which may be covered by our directors' and
officers' liability insurance, subject to a deductible."

On March 11, 2014, the District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the claims as time-barred.  Plaintiffs appealed
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  Oral
argument had been set for August 18, 2015.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeals Partial Certification of Drivers' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc., filed a petition with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal
pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure an
order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California granting, in part, two current drivers' motion for
class certification.

The appeal raises the following issues:

   (1) Whether the fact that large numbers of absent class
       members signed arbitration agreements containing class
       waivers precludes class certification.

   (2) Whether the district court manifestly erred in finding
       that the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) were
       satisfied despite intractable conflicts of interest among
       the class, the individualized nature of the Plaintiffs'
       claims and Uber's defenses, and the arbitrariness of
       the Plaintiffs' proposed damages methodology.

The appeals case is Douglas O'connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew
Manahan, and Elie Gurfinkel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Petitioner, Case No. 15-80169 (9th
Cir.).

Uber Technologies, Inc. developed and licenses a software
application that generates leads and seamlessly permits
transportation providers to arrange trips with riders.


WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Recycled Edition Bikes
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wishbone Design Studio Limited of Yardville, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 400 Recycled Edition Bikes (an
additional 4,600 were sold outside the United States). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The handlebar can pinch fingers placed at the center where the
handlebar connects to the bike frame.

The Wishbone Recycled (RE) Bikes are made from recycled black
plastic materials with 12-inch, air-filled white rubber tires. The
adjustable seat height ranges from 9 to 20 inches. The bikes weigh
about 10 pounds. The two recalled bikes include one 3-in-1 model,
which is adjustable as a 3-wheeler or 2-wheeler with a high seat
or low seat; and one 2-wheeler model, which is adjustable with a
high or low seat. The date codes for production appear in a round
dial on the front frame of the bikes under the seat. Date codes
are either December 2013 or May 2014. The year appears in the
center of the dial and the arrow points to the month. There is
also a Wishbone logo embossed on each bike fork.

The firm received reports of four incidents, including two
injuries. One required stitches and one required restorative
surgery.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0f1hsf

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Independent toy and bike stores nationwide and online at
www.amazon.com from July 2014 through June 2015 for about $200 for
the 2-wheeler and $230 for the 3-in-1.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bike, take it away
from children and contact Wishbone or the store where the bike was
purchased for a free neoprene cover for the handlebar.


XENCOR INC: Court Consolidated 205 Petition with Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has
consolidated the 205 Petition with the class action, joined the
Company as a defendant and ordered it to file the claims in the
205 Petition as counter-claims in the class action, which the
Company has done.

On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned
DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of
the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of
action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and
Stockholder Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the
plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of
the Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period.

On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief
under Del. C. Section 205 (the "205 Petition") related to the
corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed
an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015. On July
9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the class
action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to file
the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class
action, which the Company has done.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action. Based on the
preliminary nature of the claim, the Company believes that it is
not possible to estimate a potential loss related to the claim.


ZAGG INC: Tenth Circuit Appeal Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth
Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the appeal related to
the cases, James H. Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; Ryan Draayer, et
al. v. Zagg Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah,
2:12-cv-00859.

On September 6 and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company,
Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, and Cheryl Larabee, as well as
Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former Chairman and CEO, and
Edward Ekstrom and Shuichiro Ueyama, former members of the
Company's Board of Directors. These lawsuits were subsequently
amended by a complaint filed on May 6, 2013. The plaintiffs seek
certification of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
between October 15, 2010 and August 17, 2012. The plaintiffs claim
that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's alleged December 2011 margin
account sales, the defendants initiated a succession plan to
replace Mr. Pedersen as the Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but
failed to disclose either the succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's
margin account sales, in violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and
20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9, under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
(the "Court") consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions and
assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation, and
on May 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On July
5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order
granting the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 25, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

On June 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief
appealing the Courts decision with respect to some of their
claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit heard oral
argument on the appeal on January 22, 2015. The U.S. Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit, has not yet entered a decision on the
appeal.


ZAK DESIGNS: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Zak Designs Inc., of Airway Heights, Wash., announced a voluntary
recall of about 178,000 26-ounce water bottles. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The inner plastic straw in the flip-top portion of the twist-off
cap can break, posing a choking hazard.

The recall involves Zak Designs 26-ounce plastic water bottles.
The 10 inch tall water bottles have a flip-top spout on a twist-
off cap with colored inner plastic straws in clear, blue, gray,
green, light purple or red.  The water bottles were sold
exclusively at Target stores in a "Back-to-College" promotion. The
water bottles have popular characters on the front and come in a
variety of colors including clear, gray, navy blue, pink, teal
blue, gray with colored caps in red, blue pink and yellow.
Characters include Captain America, a Batman design, Minions, My
Little Pony, Spiderman, Star Wars aircraft, a Superman logo,
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Thor and Wonder Woman. Mold number
"14158" and "Zak Designs(R)" are embossed on the bottom of the
bottles in the recall. Bottles with a black inner straw and black
twist-off cap are not included in the recall.

Zak Designs has received nine reports of the inner plastic straw
in the flip-top portion of the cap breaking, including seven
reports of plastic fragments spit out by children using the
bottle. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/63UVt3

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target stores during the "Back-to-College" promotion nationwide
from June 2015 through July 2015 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water bottles
and contact Zak Designs for instructions on receiving a free
replacement cap with straw.


                            *********

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  * * *