CAR_Public/150929.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, September 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 194


                            Headlines


AKB LC: "Ensignia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALICO INC: Stein and Dimon Lawsuits Consolidated
ALPHABET HOLDING: Class Suits Over Herbal Supplements Pending
ALPHABET HOLDING: Cases Over Glucosamine Supplements Still Open
ALPHABET HOLDING: TCPA Lawsuit v. NBTY Still Pending

AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Granted Motion to Stay
ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lozanon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending
AVX CORPORATION: Defending Cases Filed in Canada
BENONS LLC: Faces "Nicholson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BEST WESTERN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lopez" Suit Claims
BIG CITY YONKERS: "Alcantara" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Wages
BLUE CROSS: Faces DCS Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
BLYTH INC: Faces "Raftery Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover
BOEING COMPANY: Limits RSURTS Benefit Plan Coverage, Suit Claims

BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Burr" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
CALIFORNIA: Bill to Limit Juvenile Solitary Confinement Fails
CAMERON INT'L: Faces "Artzt" Suit Over Schlumberger Merger Plans
CARLO LIZZA: Faces "Little" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHA CHA: Faces "Landa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

CLEAN HARBORS: Exact Settlement Cost Not Yet Determinable
CLEAN HARBORS: 24 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Oct. 19 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
DELUXE SHARED: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces "Stout" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements

EMPIRE STATE: No Oral Argument Yet in Class Action Appeal
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Faces "Gilbert" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Court Entered Scheduling and Trial Order
FOODINK CATERING: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FIRST HORIZON: Defending Hawkins Class Suit

FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces "Nehamen" Suit Over Prop. Westport Takeover
HCA HOLDINGS: January 2016 Trial in Securities Class Action
HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Bowen" Class Suit Removed to N.J. Dist. Court
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing to Occur Later in 2015
INTERNAP CORPORATION: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

IPC HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Proposed TeamHealth Takeover
JDB CONSULTANTS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JOSPEH V. O'DONELL: Sued Over Improper Disposal of Corpses
KNOWLES CORP: Jan. 2016 Trial Set in Audience IPO Litigation
KNOWLES CORP: MOU Reached in Suit Over Audience Acquisition

LENNY & LARRY'S: Falsely Marketed Cookie Products, Suit Claims
LEGGETT & PLATT: Expects to Make Final Payment of $35.8 Million
LEGGETT & PLATT: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 15
LEGGETT & PLATT: Reached Tentative Settlement in Canadian Cases
LEGGETT & PLATT: Case Management Conference Held

LEO JAMES: Faces "Alexander" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
LIBERTY LIFE: Faces "Chirino" Suit Over Disability Benefit Claims
LIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Continues to Defend Several Class Suits
LIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Filed Appeal in Flo & Eddie Calif. Case
LIBERTY MEDIA: 2nd Cir. Granted Review in Flo & Eddie NY Case

LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Filed Appeal in Florida Case
LIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Capitol Records Case
LIBERTY MEDIA: TCPA Suits Against SIRIUS XM Still Open
LIQUID HOLDINGS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
M&T BANK: Faces "Hirst" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery
MANHATTAN BEER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Swanson" Suit Claims
MEATS ON THE BEACH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MTS TAXES: "Murat" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NBTY INC: Initial Conference Held in Herbal Supplements Case

NBTY INC: Preliminary Approval Conference Held
NBTY INC: Appeal from Case Dismissal Order Still Pending
ONEWEST RESOURCES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Pending
PALOS COMMUNITY: Sued in Ill. Over Unlawful Billing Practices

PANASONIC CORP: Inflates Price of Resistors, "Brooks" Suit Says
PANASONIC CORP: Inflates Resistor Prices, Nebraska Dynamics Says
PARKING CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
PHILIA 5: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRIME CONSULTING: "James" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PRIVATE PROTECTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Aragon" Suit Says
RICHLAND, OH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Court Workers OT Wages
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
SALLY BEAUTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims

SAND BUILDING: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Salazar" Suit Says
SANTA ROSA: Faces "Castellanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SILICON VALLEY: Faces "Fletcher" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SJK INC: Faces "Antuna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ST. LOUIS, MO: MTC Illegally Prohibits Ridesharing Operations

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Received Insurance Recoveries of $40 Million
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Fact Discovery to Close December 18
SUNTRUST BANKS: Individual Suits, Smaller Class Actions Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Finally Approved Deal in Colonial Case
SUNTRUST BANKS: Petition for Certiorari Filed in "Bickerstaff"

SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Stock Class Action Granted in Part
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Actions Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Brown et al. v. SunTrust Banks Case Still Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Morales" Class Action Settled in Q2 2015
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Reinsurance Class Action Stayed

STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Discovery Stage
STERICYCLE INC: To Make Settlement Payment in Junk Fax Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Granted Motion to Decertify
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Owner-Operator Case Still Pending
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Calif. Wage, Meal and Rest Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Action Currently Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Case Remains at Pleading Stage
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Case Removed to Federal Court
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Mediate National Customer Service Case
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Suit to Move Into Discovery

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Central Refrigerated Suit in Discovery
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss TelexFree Litigation
TALBOTS INC: "Lopez" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages
TALON AIR: "Amaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TECO ENERGY: Appeals from Class Action Dismissal Pending

THORATEC CORPORATION: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
THORATEC CORPORATION: Solak v. Grossman Class Action Filed
TORNIER NV: Consolidated Delaware Action Still Pending
TOTAL MAINTENANCE: Faces "Paganas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TOTAL THRU: Faces "Clinkingbeard" Suit over Failure to Pay OT

TRUJILLO & TRUJILLO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
UCT CLEARVIEW: Faces "Lan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Jaramillo" Trespassing Suit in Nevada
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Regents Face Suit Over Data Breach
US MILITARY: Veterans Used In Secret Experiments Files Class Suit

US SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Job-Related Expenses
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Karcsay" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Benipayo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bricker" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "D'Angelo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Redmond" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dorn" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dell'Aquila" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lau" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Levin" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lowrance" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McCabe" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mitsuda" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Netkin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Walker" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Warren Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Illegally Installs Defeat Device, Suit Claims
WASHINGTON GROUP: Faces "Paparella" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

WATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in "Ponzo" Case Filed Consolidated Suit
WATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in "Klug" Case Filed Amended Complaint
WEC ENERGY: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Held
WELCH FOODS: Faces "Atik" Suit Over Alleged Product Misbranding
WP GLIMCHER: Paid Plaintiffs' Fee Award and Expenses

ZILLOW GROUP: 2 Class Actions Filed Against Directors
ZULILY INC: "Mao" Suit Says Liberty Deal Undervalues Stock


                            *********


AKB LC: "Ensignia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Ensignia, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. AKB, LC, Balans Brickell, LLC, and Jane
Choi, Case No. 1:15-cv-23527-CMA (S.D. Fla., September 18, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Balans Restaurant in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mails: robert@kuvinlaw.com


ALICO INC: Stein and Dimon Lawsuits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------
Alico, 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 Stein and Dimon lawsuits have
been consolidated.

On March 11, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
captioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Alico, Inc., et al., No. 15-CA-000645
(the "Stein lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida,
against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and certain former
directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus
("Silver Nip"), 734 Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"), 734
Agriculture, LLC ("734 Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734 Sub")
in connection with the acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico (the
"Acquisition"). The complaint alleges that Alico's directors at
the time of the Acquisition, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture
breached fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection with
the Acquisition and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted
such breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
equitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and
expenses.

On May 6, 2015, a putative stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit captioned Ruth S. Dimon Trust v. George R. Brokaw, et al.,
No. 15-CA-001162 (the "Dimon lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County,
Florida, against Alico, its current directors, Silver Nip, 734
Investors and 734 Agriculture in connection with the Acquisition
of Silver Nip by Alico. The complaint alleges claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
tortious interference with contract against Alico's directors,
unjust enrichment against three of the directors and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Silver Nip, 734
investors and 734 Agriculture. The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, rescission of the Acquisition, an injunction prohibiting
certain payments to Silver Nip shareholders, unspecified damages,
disgorgement of profits, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees)
and expenses.

On July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Stein and Dimon lawsuits
filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating their cases
for all purposes and seeking the appointment of a lead plaintiff
and lead and liaison counsel. The court entered that proposed
order on July 21, 2015.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Class Suits Over Herbal Supplements Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. continues to defend class action
lawsuits related to herbal dietary supplements, the Company 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.

In February 2015, the New York State Office of the Attorney
General ("NY AG") began an investigation concerning the
authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated
marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing
the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and
retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the
validity of their representations and advertising in connection
with the sale of herbal supplements. NBTY has fully cooperated
with the NY AG; however until this investigation is concluded, no
final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the
amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. However, we do
not believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,
numerous putative class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and
associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection
statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the
federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district
before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases
are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States
District Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division
(the "MDL Case"). An initial conference is scheduled for August
20, 2015. Three class actions against one of our customers to
which we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred
and consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages
of litigation.

At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on
the part of NBTY; however, we do not believe the ultimate outcome
will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Cases Over Glucosamine Supplements Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. continues to defend class action
lawsuits related to glucosamine-based dietary supplements, the
Company 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.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have
certain indemnification obligations.


ALPHABET HOLDING: TCPA Lawsuit v. NBTY Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding 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 NBTY, and certain
of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-action lawsuit,
captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.; Rexall Sundown
3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.; Corporate Mailings, Inc.
d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and John Does 1-10
(originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff
alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to plaintiff and
others without invitation or permission, in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending.


AMGEN INC: 9th Circuit Granted Motion to Stay
---------------------------------------------
Amgen 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 for the
Ninth Circuit denied on May 26, 2015, Amgen's petition for
rehearing en banc in this Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) class action case, and on June 9, 2015 that court granted
Amgen's motion to stay the issuance of the court's mandate pending
Amgen's filing of a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court, such petition due on August 24, 2015.


ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lozanon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Lozanon v. Aramex International Courier, Ltd., Case No.
707869 (N.Y. Super., September 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

Aramex International Courier, Ltd. is a a courier service across
the United States, internationally, and within New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


AVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
AVX 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 an appeal of one aspect
of a class action lawsuit is still pending before the South
Carolina Supreme Court.

On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State
Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property
adjacent to our Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory claiming
property values were negatively impacted by alleged migration of
certain pollutants from our property. The parties agreed to a
settlement of the action, which was approved by the Court on
December 15, 2014 and paid in January 2015. An appeal of one
aspect of that class action is still pending before the South
Carolina Supreme Court; if resolved against AVX, it may result in
additional cost.


AVX CORPORATION: Defending Cases Filed in Canada
------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to defend a series of cases filed in
Canada, the Company 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.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2014, AVX was named as a
co-defendant in a series of cases filed in the United States and
in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia
alleging violations of United States, Canadian, and state
antitrust laws asserting that AVX and numerous other companies are
participants in alleged price-fixing in the capacitor market. The
cases in the United States were consolidated into the Northern
District of California on October 2, 2014. During the quarter
ended December 31, 2014, additional Canadian cases were filed in
the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan
and Manitoba. These cases are at the initial stages. AVX believes
it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the
cases.


BENONS LLC: Faces "Nicholson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Nicholson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Benons, LLC d/b/a Falcon Transport and Leroy Linden
Benons, Case No. 8:15-cv-02816-PWG (D. Md., September 18, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation business, with a
principal place of business at 11106 Superior Landing, Bowie,
Prince Georges County, Maryland 20720.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew E. Kiely, Esq.
      MATTHEW E. KIELY, LLC
      201 North Charles Street, Suite 1200
      Baltimore, Maryland 21201
      Telephone: (410) 625-9330
      Facsimile: (410) 625-9309
      E-mail: kiely@meklawllc.com

         - and -

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


BEST WESTERN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Lopez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose J. Lopez v. Best Western International, Inc., d/b/a Best
Western Plus Hollywood Hills Hotel, and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. BC595012, (D. Cal., September 17, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Best Western International, Inc. is an Arizona Corporation that
operates a hotel chain under brand names such as Best Western(R)
and Best Western Plus(R).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213)738-5225


BIG CITY YONKERS: "Alcantara" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henrry Alcantara, Jose Peralta, and Maximino Rosa on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Big
City Yonkers, Inc. d/b/a Big City Automotive Warehouses,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-07288 (S.D.N.Y., September, 15, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay for overtime
wages and minimum compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Big City Yonkers, Inc. operates a business enterprise consisting
of 15 auto parts stores throughout the State of New York and the
State of New Jersey. Its employees are regularly engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or in
handling, selling or otherwise working on goods and materials
which have moved in or been produced for commerce.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
     Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
     Marijana Matura, Esq.
     Garrett Kaske, Esq.
     534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 499-9100


BLUE CROSS: Faces DCS Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
-----------------------------------------------------------
DCS Industries, Inc. f/k/a Lyle Industries, Inc. and Lyle
Industries Welfare Benefit Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of
Michigan, Case No. 1:15-cv-13324-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., September
21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged misappropriation
of self-insured employee benefit plan assets.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLYTH INC: Faces "Raftery Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Raftery, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Blyth Inc., et al., Case No. 11520 (Del.
Ch., September 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Blyth Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
Blyth by The Carlyle Group L.P. through an unfair process and
inadequate consideration.

Blyth Inc. is a Delaware corporation that makes and sells
decorative and functional household products such as candles,
accessories, seasonal decorations, household convenience items and
personalized gifts, as well as health, wellness and beauty related
products.

The Carlyle Group L.P. with its numerous subsidiary and affiliated
entities is a global alternative asset manager with $193 billion
of assets under management across 128 funds and 159 fund of funds
vehicles as of June 30, 2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West St., 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 984-3800
      E-mail: bcopeland@coochtaylor.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: Scott@JohnsonandWeaver.com


BOEING COMPANY: Limits RSURTS Benefit Plan Coverage, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually, on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. The Boeing Company Master Welfare Plan, and The
Boeing Company Employee Benefit Plans Committee, Case No. 2:15-cv-
1493 (D. Wash., September 18, 2015), seeks to end Boeing's
discriminatory practice of severely limiting coverage under the
welfare benefit plan for Residential Substance Use Rehabilitation
Treatment Services (RSURTS).

The Boeing Company Master Welfare Plan is an employee welfare
benefit plan that provides health benefits for Boeing employees
and their dependents.

The Boeing Company Employee Benefit Plans Committee is the "Plan
Administrator" and is a named fiduciary under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Wampold, Esq.
      Leonard J. Feldman, Esq.
      Felix G. Luna, Esq.
      PETERSON | WAMPOLD | ROSATO | LUNA | KNOPP
      1501 4th Avenue, Suite 2800
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 624-6800
      E-mail: wampold@pwrlk.com
              feldman@pwrlk.com
              luna@pwrlk.com

         - and -

      Stephen R. Parkinson, Esq.
      Barry G. Ziker, Esq.
      JOYCE ZIKER PARKINSON PLLC
      1601 5th Avenue, Suite 2040
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 957-5960
      E-mail: sparkinson@jzplaw.com
              bziker@jzplaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Burr" Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Burr, Larry Demonaco, Michael Buff, Ellen Pinto, Robby Reed,
Blair Hysni, Dennis Yelvington, and all others similarly situated
v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, King Oscar, Inc., Starkist Company, and
Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-02095-LAB-BGS (S.D.
Cal., September 18, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood products
within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 325-0492
      Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
      E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
              atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

         - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Bill to Limit Juvenile Solitary Confinement Fails
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Levin, writing for East Bay Express, reported that California
received national attention with news that the state Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation has agreed to drastically reduce
the use of solitary confinement in its prisons. The decision was
part of a settlement with inmates who filed a class-action lawsuit
in 2012 challenging the state's long-standing practice of
isolating prisoners in cells for years on end -- often confining
them to windowless rooms simply due to their alleged gang
affiliations. As a result of the landmark settlement, roughly
1,800 inmates will move out of solitary confinement and into the
general population.

While human rights advocates celebrated the settlement as an
important step in the fight against isolating prisoners in the US,
few have paid attention to another action at the state level that
constitutes a significant setback in the campaign to curb solitary
confinement. Days before the class-action suit decision became
public, California lawmakers quietly dealt a major blow to a
critical legislative reform effort that has been in the works for
years. The Assembly appropriations committee decided to officially
put on hold Senate Bill 124, a proposal to substantially limit the
use of solitary confinement in juvenile correctional facilities.
That means the bill will not be moving forward this legislative
cycle, which ends September 11.

And now activists are lamenting that while adult inmates in
California are finally seeing major reforms, kids in jails and
prisons will continue to have to wait.

Proponents of SB 124 -- co-sponsored by state Senator Mark Leno,
D-San Francisco, and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, an
Oakland nonprofit -- have argued that the bill could go a long way
in protecting youth inmates in county and state facilities from
the inhumane and unjustified practice of isolation. The documented
psychological deterioration associated with solitary confinement -
- which was a key argument in the state class-action suit -- can
be especially damaging for vulnerable youth inmates who have often
already experienced a wide range of trauma in their lives. With
California now agreeing to dramatically curb the use of isolation
for adults and with officials increasingly acknowledging the harms
of solitary, the failure of SB 124 was particularly painful for
advocates who have been pushing versions of the bill for several
years.

"We're talking about the health and lives of young people who are
endangered by this practice," Jennifer Kim, Ella Baker Center's
director of programs, said. Kim helped write the legislation and
has repeatedly amended the bill in response to criticisms of
correction officials, who have continued to argue that isolation
of juveniles is an important tool to control "dangerous" kids. In
reference to the state lawsuit and settlement, which will have no
impact on juvenile facilities or inmates, Kim added, "Thousands of
adults are going to be ordered out of solitary confinement . . .
[because] the courts have had to intervene. . . .  And yet the
legislature has been largely not leading in the way they could
be."

SB 124, which successfully passed the Senate in June, would ban
the use of solitary confinement in juvenile facilities for longer
than four hours at a time. The legislation would also prohibit
correctional officers from using solitary as a form of punishment
and would only allow isolation when youth pose an immediate,
substantial risk to themselves or others. Facilities would also be
barred from isolating inmates who pose a threat as a result of a
mental disorder. Additionally, the legislation requires jails to
document all instances of solitary through a statewide reporting
system. Correction and probation officials across the state have
consistently opposed the measure, arguing that facilities do not
use the kind of inhumane solitary confinement tactics that
advocates describe. The opponents have also contended that the
restrictions of SB 124 would put staff and youth at risk by making
it harder for officers to isolate violent youth.

With the bill formally "held in committee and under submission,"
the legislation is effectively dead, but can start where it left
off (since the legislature is currently in the middle of a two-
year cycle). Representatives from the office of Assemblymember
Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles), who chairs the appropriations
committee, have told supporters of SB 124 that the decision to
hold back the bill had to do with the committee's analysis of the
cost of the legislation. The committee's analysis said it would
cost the state's Division of Juvenile Justice (which is part of
the corrections department) $2.7 million in the first year to
implement SB 124 -- and then $2.3 million in subsequent years. The
funding is needed for training and additional staffing, according
to the analysis.

Aaron Keshishian, Gomez spokesperson, said that the committee held
SB 124 solely because of the price tag. "Our committee's job is to
look at the fiscal and that's what they looked at," he said.

Kim, however, argued that the high fiscal estimates do not seem
justified, especially since facilities already have to reduce
staff-to-youth ratios under federal rules. "This shouldn't be
included as an added cost for the bill," she said, referring to
the staffing estimates in the committee analysis. (Keshishian said
he could not comment on the specifics of the financial report).
What's more, Kim argued, even if lawmakers could reasonably argue
that it would cost millions to implement SB 124, it would still be
fiscally responsible to pass the legislation. That's because, in
the absence of the kinds of protections written into SB 124, there
have been drawn-out legal battles over the use of juvenile
solitary confinement that have resulted in significant and costly
court settlements. If SB 124 became law, families and advocates
would not have to keep suing to protect children from harmful
isolation, and the state could actually save money in the long
run, Kim said.

For example, in a recent settlement agreement ending the use of
solitary confinement in Contra Costa Juvenile Hall, the county
resolved litigation by agreeing to pay more than $2 million.

"[SB 124] is aimed at protecting young people and saving the state
millions and millions of dollars in further litigation," Kim said.
And regarding the claims of Gomez's office that the bill is to
costly, she added, "That is a really unacceptable response
considering what is at stake."


CAMERON INT'L: Faces "Artzt" Suit Over Schlumberger Merger Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Artzt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cameron International Corporation, et al., Case No.
11514 (Del. Ch., September 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all
the public shareholders of Cameron International Corporation to
enjoin the proposed merger transaction, pursuant to which Cameron
will be acquired by Schlumberger N.V., through its affiliates,
Schlumberger Holdings Corporation and Rain Merger Sub LLC through
a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Cameron International Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
provides flow equipment products, systems, and services to
worldwide oil and gas industries.

Schlumberger N.V. is a supplier of technology, integrated project
management, and information solutions to the international oil and
gas exploration and production industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
      THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
      521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10175
      Telephone: (212) 292-4441
      E-mail: contact@grantlawfirmpllc.com

         - and -

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      E-mail: kcooper@whafh.com
              nespole@whafh.com


CARLO LIZZA: Faces "Little" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Little and Terrence Johnson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Carlo Lizza & Sons Paving, Inc.,
Ships Point Industries Ltd., A&B Contractors LLC and Elia Aly
Lizza, Case No. 1:15-cv-07423-PAE (S.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


CHA CHA: Faces "Landa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candida Landa, Obet Hernandez, Jose Manuel Chuc-Carillo, Filimon
Torrero-Chica, and Adan Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees v. Cha Cha Cha Taqueria, Inc. and
Francisco Javier Diaz-Hurtado, Case No. 3:15-CV-1778 (D. Oreg.,
September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in Portland,
Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Quinn E. Kuranz, Esq.
      THE OFFICE OF Q.E. KURANZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      815 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 757-4749
      Facsimile: (503) 200-1289
      E-mail: quinn@kuranzlaw.com


CLEAN HARBORS: Exact Settlement Cost Not Yet Determinable
---------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 exact settlement
cost is not yet determinable, but it is not expected to be
material, in the Fee Class Action.

In October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, alleging that Safety-Kleen improperly assessed fuel
surcharges and extended area service fees. In 2012, similar
lawsuits were filed by the same law firm in California and
Missouri.

On January 15, 2015, the Company reached a tentative settlement of
the pending class action lawsuits, which were broadened to include
similar claims on behalf of customers in Florida, West Virginia
and Arkansas. The final settlement was approved by the court in a
fairness hearing in June 2015. The exact settlement cost is not
yet determinable, but it is not expected to be material.


CLEAN HARBORS: 24 Product Liability Claims Settled or Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 from January 1, 2015 to
June 30, 2015, 24 product liability claims were settled or
dismissed.

Safety-Kleen is named as a defendant in various lawsuits that are
currently pending in various courts and jurisdictions throughout
the United States, including approximately 52 proceedings
(excluding cases which have been settled but not formally
dismissed) as of June 30, 2015, wherein persons claim personal
injury resulting from the use of Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning
equipment or cleaning products. These proceedings typically
involve allegations that the solvent used in Safety-Kleen's parts
cleaning equipment contains contaminants and/or that Safety-
Kleen's recycling process does not effectively remove the
contaminants that become entrained in the solvent during their
use. In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen
failed to warn adequately the product user of potential risks,
including an historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace
amounts of toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene.

Safety-Kleen maintains insurance that it believes will provide
coverage for these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured
retentions and deductibles in certain limited cases), except for
punitive damages to the extent not insurable under state law or
excluded from insurance coverage. Safety-Kleen believes that these
claims lack merit and has historically vigorously defended, and
intends to continue to vigorously defend, itself and the safety of
its products against all of these claims. Such matters are subject
to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with
assurance. Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial
impact with respect to these matters as of June 30, 2015.

From January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015, 24 product liability claims
were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these claims and
the related insurance, the Company did not incur any expense as
Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for all such
claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional lawsuits
in the future, including claims for which insurance coverage may
not be available.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Oct. 19 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Delcath Systems, 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 set a Final
Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015, in the In re Delcath
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 13-cv-3116).

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants"). The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver. The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including May 2,
2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle that, if
approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the claims
brought by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the class it seeks to
represent. The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund
of $8,500,000 in return for a release of all claims in this
litigation, which is expected to be covered by its insurance and
is not expected to result in any additional expense in the
Company's financial statements.

On June 24, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a
Final Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015. Pursuant to the
Court's Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will be
mailed to class members and class members will have an opportunity
to submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to object
to the settlement. At the Final Approval Hearing the Court will
consider the notice process and results, any objections, and other
relevant information. The Court will then decide whether to
finally approve the class settlement. If the settlement is finally
approved, the settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in
the settlement agreement and the Court's orders.


DELUXE SHARED: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas E. Hull, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Deluxe Shared Services Inc., Deluxe 3D LLC,
and Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC595144 (Cal. Super.,
September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide meal breaks in violation of the California Labor Code.


The Defendants own and operate a financial service company
operating within the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Darren M.Cohen, Esq.,
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsieykingsley.com
              dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


EINSTEIN NOAH: Faces "Stout" Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Stout, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG15786192 (D. Cal., September 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements showing the start date of the
pay period to which each respective wage statement corresponds.

Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. operates a bagel and coffee
restaurant chain with locations in California and throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Craig Clark, Esq.
      James M. Treglio, Esq.
      CLARK & TREGLIO
      205 West Date Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-1321
      Facsimile: (888) 273-4554
      E-mail: craig@clarktreglio.com
              jim@clarktreglio.com

         - and -

      Walter Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562) 256-1047
      Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
      E-mail: info@californialaborlaw.info


EMPIRE STATE: No Oral Argument Yet in Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty 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 an appeal in a
class action lawsuit is fully submitted and the court has not yet
scheduled oral argument.

In March 2012, five putative class actions, or the "Original Class
Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County by investors in certain of the existing entities
(constituting the predecessor and the non-controlled entities)
(the "existing entities") on March 1, 2012, March 7, 2012, March
12, 2012, March 14, 2012 and March 19, 2012. The plaintiffs
asserted claims against our predecessor's management companies,
Anthony E. Malkin, Peter L. Malkin, the estate of Leona M.
Helmsley, our operating partnership and us for breach of fiduciary
duty, unjust enrichment and/or aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty. They alleged, among other things, that the terms
of the consolidation and the process by which it was structured
(including the valuation that was employed) are unfair to the
investors in the existing entities, the consolidation provides
excessive benefits to Malkin Holdings LLC (now our subsidiary) and
its affiliates and the then-draft prospectus/consent solicitation
with respect to the consolidation filed with the SEC failed to
make adequate disclosure to permit a fully-informed decision about
the consolidation. The complaints sought money damages and
injunctive relief preventing the consolidation. The Original Class
Actions were consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel were
appointed by the New York State Supreme Court by order dated June
26, 2012. Further, an underlying premise of the Original Class
Actions, as noted in discussions among plaintiffs' counsel and
defendants' counsel, was that the consolidation had been
structured in such a manner that would cause investors in Empire
State Building Associates L.L.C., 60 East 42nd St. Associates
L.L.C. and 250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C. (the "subject
LLCs") immediately to incur substantial tax liabilities.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated
September 28, 2012, resolving the Original Class Actions. The
Stipulation of Settlement recites that the consolidation was
approved by overwhelming consent of the investors in the existing
entities. The Stipulation of Settlement states that counsel for
the plaintiff class satisfied themselves that they have received
adequate access to relevant information, including the independent
valuer's valuation process and methodology, that the disclosures
in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, as amended, are
appropriate, that the consolidation presents potential benefits,
including the opportunity for liquidity and capital appreciation,
that merit the investors' serious consideration and that each of
the named class representatives intends to support the
consolidation as modified. The Stipulation of Settlement further
states that counsel for the plaintiff class are satisfied that the
claims regarding tax implications, enhanced disclosures,
appraisals and exchange values of the properties that would be
consolidated into our company, and the interests of the investors
in the existing entities, have been addressed adequately, and they
have concluded that the settlement pursuant to the Stipulation of
Settlement and opportunity to consider the proposed consolidation
on the basis of revised consent solicitations are fair,
reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the plaintiff
class.

The defendants in the Stipulation of Settlement denied that they
committed any violation of law or breached any of their duties and
did not admit that they had any liability to the plaintiffs.
The terms of the settlement include, among other things (i) a
payment of $55.0 million, with a minimum of 80% in cash and
maximum of 20% in freely-tradable shares of common stock and/or
freely-tradable operating partnership units to be distributed,
after reimbursement of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
expenses and payment of plaintiffs' counsel's court-approved
attorneys' fees (which are included within the $55.0 million
settlement payment) and, in the case of shares of common stock
and/or operating partnership units, after the termination of
specified lock-up periods, to investors in the existing entities
pursuant to a plan of allocation to be prepared by counsel for
plaintiffs; (ii) defendants' agreement that (a) the Offering would
be on the basis of a firm commitment underwriting; (b) if, during
the solicitation period, any of the three subject LLCs' percentage
of total exchange value is lower than what was stated in the final
prospectus/consent solicitation with respect to the consolidation
by 10% or more, such decrease would be promptly disclosed by
defendants to investors in the subject LLCs; and (c) unless total
gross proceeds of $600.0 million are raised in the Offering,
defendants will not proceed with the consolidation without further
approval of the subject LLCs; and (iii) defendants' agreement to
make additional disclosures in the prospectus/consent solicitation
with respect to the consolidation regarding certain matters (which
are included therein). Investors in the existing entities will not
be required to bear any portion of the settlement payment. The
payment in settlement of the Original Class Actions will be made
by the estate of Leona M. Helmsley and affiliates of Malkin
Holdings LLC (provided that none of Malkin Holdings LLC's
affiliates that would become our direct or indirect subsidiary in
the consolidation will have any liability for such payment) and
certain investors in the existing entities who agree to
contribute. We will not bear any of the settlement payment.

The settlement further provides for the certification of a class
of investors in the existing entities, other than defendants and
other related persons and entities, and a release of any claims of
the members of the class against the defendants and related
persons and entities, as well as underwriters and other advisors.
The release in the settlement excludes certain claims, including
but not limited to, claims arising from or related to any
supplement to the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that is
declared effective to which the plaintiffs' counsel objects in
writing, which objection will not be unreasonably made or delayed,
so long as plaintiffs' counsel has had adequate opportunity to
review such supplement. There was no such supplement that
plaintiff's counsel objected to in writing. The settlement was
subject to court approval. It was not effective until such court
approval is final, including the resolution of any appeal.
Defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the allegations in the Original Class Actions.

On January 18, 2013, the parties jointly moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, for permission to send notice of the
settlement to the class, and for the scheduling of a final
settlement hearing. On January 28, 2013, six of the investors in
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. filed an objection to
preliminary approval, and cross-moved to intervene in the Original
Class Actions and for permission to file a separate complaint on
behalf of the investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
On February 21, 2013, the court denied the cross motion of such
objecting investors, and the court denied permission for such
objecting investors to file a separate complaint as part of the
Original Class Actions, but permitted them to file a brief solely
to support their allegation that the buyout would deprive non-
consenting investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. of
"fair value" in violation of the New York Limited Liability
Company Law. The court rejected the objecting investors' assertion
that preliminary approval be denied and granted preliminary
approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to a decision issued on April 30, 2013, the court
rejected the allegation regarding the New York Limited Liability
Company Law and ruled in Malkin Holdings LLC's favor, holding that
such buyout provisions are legally binding and enforceable and
that investors do not have the rights they claimed under the New
York Limited Liability Company Law.

On May 2, 2013, the court held a hearing regarding final approval
of the Original Class Actions settlement, at the conclusion of
which the court stated that it intended to approve the settlement.
On May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order. The court
rejected the objections by all objectors and upheld the settlement
in its entirety. Of the approximately 4,500 class members who are
investors in all of the existing entities included in the
consolidation, 12 opted out of the settlement. Those who opted out
will not receive any share of the settlement proceeds, but can
pursue separate claims for monetary damages.

Also on May 17, 2013, the court issued its Opinion and Order on
attorneys' fees. Class counsel applied for an award of $15.0
million in fees and $295,895 in expenses, which the court reduced
to $11.59 million in fees and $265,282 in expenses (which are
included within the $55.0 million settlement payment).

The investors who challenged the buyout provision filed a notice
of appeal of the court's April 30, 2013 decision and moved before
the appellate court for a stay of all proceedings relating to the
settlement, including such a stay as immediate interim relief. On
May 1, 2013, their request for immediate interim relief was
denied. On May 13, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its brief in
opposition to the motion for the stay. On June 18, 2013, the
appellate court denied the motion for the stay. On July 16, 2013,
these investors filed their brief and other supporting papers on
their appeal of the April 30, 2013 decision, which are required to
perfect the appeal. On September 4, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC
filed its brief on the appeal, and also moved to dismiss the
appeal on the grounds that these investors lack standing to pursue
it. Malkin Holdings LLC contended that these investors were not
entitled to appraisal under the New York Limited Liability Company
Law because, among other reasons (i) they are not members of
Empire State Building Associates L.L.C., and only members have
such rights; (ii) the transaction in question is not a merger or
consolidation as defined by statute, and appraisal only applies in
those transactions; and (iii) when Empire State Building
Associates L.L.C. was converted into a limited liability company,
the parties agreed that no appraisal would apply.

Moreover, Malkin Holdings LLC contended that only the 12 investors
who opted out of the class action settlement could pursue
appraisal, because that settlement contains a broad release of
(and there is an associated bar order from the court preventing)
any such claims. Malkin Holdings LLC further noted that of the six
investors attempting to pursue the appeal, only two had in fact
opted out of the class action settlement. On September 13, 2013,
these investors filed their reply brief on the appeal, and opposed
the motion to dismiss.

On September 19, 2013, Malkin Holdings LLC filed its reply brief
on the motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2013, the appeals court
denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to address the
matter directly on the appeal, effectively referring the issues
raised in the motion to the panel that was to hear the appeal
itself. The appeals court heard argument on November 21, 2013, and
in a Decision and Order dated February 25, 2014, it affirmed the
trial court's ruling.

In addition, on June 20, 2013, these same investors, and one
additional investor who also opposed the settlement of the
Original Class Action, filed additional notices of appeal from the
trial court's rulings in the Original Class Actions. These notices
of appeal related to (i) the order entered February 22, 2013
granting preliminary approval of the Original Class Action
settlement and setting a hearing for final approval; (ii) the
order entered February 26, 2013, refusing to sign a proposed order
to show cause for a preliminary injunction regarding the
consolidation; (iii) an order entered April 2, 2013, denying the
motion to intervene and to file a separate class action on behalf
of Empire State Building Associates L.L.C. investors; (iv) the
order entered April 10, 2013, refusing to sign the order to show
cause seeking to extend the deadline for class members to opt out
of the Original Class Action settlement; (v) the Final Judgment
and Order entered May 17, 2013; (vi) the order entered May 17,
2013 approving the Original Class Action settlement; and (vii) the
order entered May 17, 2013 awarding class counsel attorneys' fees
and costs. On January 6, 2014, Class counsel moved to dismiss
these additional appeals on the grounds that they were not timely
perfected by filing an appellate brief and record. On February 6,
2014, the appeals court granted the motion unless the appeals were
perfected by March 17, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, the investors who challenged the buyout
provision moved in the appellate court for reargument or in the
alternative for leave to appeal the appeals court's ruling to the
New York Court of Appeals. Opposition to the motion was filed on
April 7, 2014. The appellate court denied the motion on May 22,
2014. The investors moved in the New York Court of Appeals for
leave to appeal on June 26, 2014. Opposition to this motion was
filed on July 11, 2014 and the court dismissed the motion by order
dated September 18, 2014. On October 20, 2014, the investors moved
to re-argue that dismissal. That motion was denied on December 17,
2014, and counsel for these investors has represented that the
investors do not intend to pursue further appellate review of the
court's April 30, 2013 ruling rejecting the challenge to the
buyout provision.

On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion with the
court for its approval of distribution of the net settlement fund.
In that motion plaintiffs' counsel also asked for additional fees
and expenses to be paid out of the fund. On March 20, 2015, Malkin
Holdings LLC filed a response to that motion in which it supported
distribution of the fund and took no position on additional fees
and expenses. No opposition to the motion was filed and the court
granted the motion. The parties are preparing to distribute the
net settlement fund to the class.

On March 14, 2014, one of the investors who had filed a notice of
appeal from the trial court's rulings in the Original Class
Actions perfected an appeal from the court's May 17, 2013 Final
Judgment and Order and orders approving the Original Class Action
Settlement and awarding class counsel attorneys' fees and costs.
By stipulation of all counsel to the appeal dated September 12,
2014, the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. No other appeals
were filed by the March 17, 2014 deadline set by the appeals court
in its February 6, 2014 order. The Original Class Actions
Settlement is final and non-appealable.

In addition, commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class
actions, or the "Second Class Actions," were filed in New York
State Supreme Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC,
Peter L. Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on
behalf of former investors in Empire State Building Associates
L.L.C. Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly
enriched. One of the Second Class Actions named us and our
operating partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty. The Second Class Actions
were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class counsel was
appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which did not name us or our
operating partnership as defendants. It seeks monetary damages. On
March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss
was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014. On January 12, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal
to include additional materials from the Original Class Action,
which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied on March 5,
2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing their brief
and the appellate record with the court on March 23, 2015. The
appeal is fully submitted and the court has not yet scheduled oral
argument.

"We will incur costs in connection with this litigation. If an
appeal were successful and the court were ultimately to rule
against the defendants there is a risk that it could have a
material adverse effect on us, which could take the form of
monetary damages or other equitable relief."


EXCELLUS HEALTH: Faces "Gilbert" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Gilbert, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., Case No. 6:15-
cv-06570 (W.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to protect the confidential information of
millions of consumers -- including their names, dates of birth,
mailing addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers,
medical information, financial information, and other protected
health information.

Excellus Health Plan, Inc. is a healthcare insurance company in
the State of New York and is also a participant in the national
Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas R. Monks, Esq.
      THOMAS R.MONKS, ESQ.
      183 East Main Street, Suite 1400
      Rochester, NY 14604
      Telephone: (585) 232-3900
      E-mail: trm@tmonkslaw.com

         - and -

      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com


FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Court Entered Scheduling and Trial Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity & Guaranty Life 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 U.S. court has
entered its scheduling and trial order in the case, Dale R.
Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company,
Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri,
captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty
Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front
Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. and docketed at 4:15-CV-0001-DGK. The
complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") requests injunctive and
declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the
putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble
damages, and other relief, and claims the plaintiff overpaid at
least $0 for her annuity. The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and intends to vigorously defend the litigation.

On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a joint
motion to dismiss the complaint that was filed by all of the
defendants. The motion has been fully briefed and is pending
before the Court. As of June 30, 2015, the Company did not have
sufficient information to determine whether the Company is exposed
to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably
estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1 million,
which was accrued during the three months ended June 30, 2015.

On April 2, 2015, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which
required the parties to: (i) hold a discovery conference by June
1, 2015; (ii) submit a discovery plan by June 15, 2015, with
Plaintiff's counsel taking the lead "in preparing the proposed
plan"; (iii) designate a mediator by June 15, 2015 (unless the
discovery conference is held earlier, and then the designation is
fourteen days after the conference); (iv) hold a mediation within
75 days after June 1, 2015, which would be approximately August
15, 2015. As ordered by the Court, the parties held their
discovery conference and, on June 15, 2015, filed their discovery
plan with the Court. The parties intend to hold the ordered
mediation. On July 13, 2015 the Court entered its Scheduling and
Trial Order, which provides that "[t]he trial will be scheduled by
further order of the Court."


FOODINK CATERING: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Warren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Foodink Catering, Inc., Kate Paul, and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. BC594417 (Cal. Super., September 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a catering business in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Benowitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310)844-5141
      Facsimile: (310)492-4056
      E-mail: louis@benowitzlavv.com

         - and -

      David Pourati, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID POURATI, APC
      12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 494-7900, Extension 160
      Facsimile: (310)494-7901
      E-mail: david@pourati.com


FIRST HORIZON: Defending Hawkins Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
First Horizon National 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 First
Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in
connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the
method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day
was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee
Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby
County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks
actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of
fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other
things.

FHN's estimate of reasonable possible loss ("RPL") for this matter
is subject to significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class
will be certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims
as to which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies
that might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of
potentially significant motions such as motions to dismiss, or for
summary judgment; and the incomplete status of the discovery
process.


FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces "Nehamen" Suit Over Prop. Westport Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Nehamen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 11517
(Del. Ch., September 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Fuel by Westport Innovations Inc. and
Whitehorse Merger Sub Inc., through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Fuel Systems is a designer, manufacturer, and supplier of proven,
cost-effective alternative fuel components and systems for use in
transportation and industrial applications.

Westport Innovations Inc. provides low-emission engine and fuel
system technologies utilizing gaseous fuels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
              mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


HCA HOLDINGS: January 2016 Trial in Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
HCA Holdings, 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 trial is set for
January 2016 in the Securities Class Action Litigation.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief. The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering. It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors. The action alleged various deficiencies
in the Company's disclosures in the Registration Statement.

Subsequently, two additional class action complaints, Kishtah v.
HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et
al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011 and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.

On May 3, 2012, the court appointed New England Teamsters &
Trucking Industry Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the
consolidated action. On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members
of the board of directors, and certain underwriters in the
offering. It further asserts a claim under Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the same members of the board of
directors and Hercules Holding II, LLC, a majority shareholder of
the Company at the time of the initial public offering. The
consolidated complaint alleges deficiencies in the Company's
disclosures in the Registration Statement and Prospectus relating
to: (1) the accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and
2010 reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain
effective internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012. The court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013. The action proceeded to discovery on the
remaining claims. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification
was granted on September 22, 2014. The court certified a class
consisting of all persons that acquired HCA stock on or before
October 28, 2011 (the date of the lawsuit) pursuant to the
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering. A request to the court of appeals to hear
an immediate appeal of this ruling was denied. Trial is currently
set for January 2016.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: "Bowen" Class Suit Removed to N.J. Dist. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Deedra L. Bowen, individually
and for all persons similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America
and John Doe Individuals And Businesses 1-10, Case No. ATL-L-1750-
15 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Atlantic County to the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:15-cv-06942-RBK-AMD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts that HMA's service agreements contain
multiple statements which violate the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
      Jacqueline M. Weyand, Esq.
      BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
      Incorporated in Pennsylvania
      550 Broad Street, Suite 810
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 273-9800
      E-mail:  christopher.dalton@bipc.com
               jacqueline.weyand@bipc.com


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing to Occur Later in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, 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 briefing in a class
action appeal is scheduled to occur during the remainder of 2015.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities
exchanges that are participants in each of the three national
market system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated Tape
Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and
the Options Price Reporting Authority, or the Plans, -- which are
established under the Exchange Act and regulated by the SEC. On
August 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended complaints in each of the
three lawsuits but did not alter the named defendants. New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, which are
our subsidiaries, are among the defendants named in one or more of
the suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of him and all
other similarly situated subscribers to the market data
disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that the
exchange participants in the Plans breached agreements with
subscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatory
manner in that other "preferred" customers allegedly received
their data faster than the proposed class. The complaints seek,
among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
of the putative class's subscription fees paid to the defendants,
disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-called preferred
customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On April 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion and
order granting the motion and dismissing the three lawsuits with
prejudice. The court determined that the claims were preempted by
a "comprehensive federal regulatory scheme", and that in any event
Lanier had failed to state a claim for breach of contract. On May
20, 2015, Lanier filed a notice of appeal of the dismissal of the
lawsuits. Briefing in the appeals is scheduled to occur during the
remainder of 2015.

              Update on High Frequency Trading Suit

In April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange
Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency
Trading) Defendants", which we refer to as the City of Providence
lawsuit. New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of
the Company's subsidiaries, were among the named Exchange
Defendants.

On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all
purposes, and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims
against only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants,
including New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., and
also asserting claims against Barclays PLC, or Barclays, a
subsidiary of which operates an alternative trading system known
as Barclays LX. The lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class
of "all public investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18,
2009 to the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by
the remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amended
complaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendants
of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Exchange Act, and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly
and severally, as well as various forms of equitable relief. The
defendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint asserting the same legal claims and
substantially the same factual allegations. On January 23, 2015,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On October 2, 2014, Barclays filed a motion before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or the MDL Panel,
requesting that a separate lawsuit filed against Barclays in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California be
transferred to the Southern District judge handling the City of
Providence lawsuit for consolidated or coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.

On December 12, 2014, the MDL Panel entered an order granting
Barclays' motion and transferring the matter to the Southern
District. Depending on the outcome of further pre-trial
proceedings to occur in the Southern District, the scope of this
litigation could be expanded.


INTERNAP CORPORATION: Faces Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gary A. Grisolia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Internap Corporation, Charles B. Coe, Patricia L.
Higgins, Gary M. Pfeiffer, Michael A. Ruffolo, Daniel C.
Stanzione, Debora J. Wilson, and Jefferies Finance LLC, Case No.
15-cv-265926 (Ga. Super., September 18, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged breach of their fiduciary duties, specifically
by agreeing to provisions in the Company's credit agreement with
Jefferies Finance LLC that trigger the lender's right to
accelerate the debt if there is an election of a majority of
directors whose initial nomination arose from an actual or
threatened proxy contest.

Internap Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located at One Ravinia Drive, Suite 1300,
Atlanta, Georgia 30346. Internap is an Internet infrastructure
provider that offers cloud hosting, colocation, Internet Protocol
services, data center and Content Delivery Network services.

Jefferies Finance LLC is a commercial finance company that
provides senior secured debt to middle market and growth companies
in the form of term and revolving loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael I. Fistel, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770)200-3104
      Facsimile: (770)200-3101
      E-mail: MichaelF@JohnsonandWeaver.com

         - and -

      Kessler Topaz, Esq.
      Eric L. Zagar
      MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610)667-7706
      Facsimile: (267)948-2512
      E-mail: ktopaz@ktmc.com
              ezagar@ktmc.com


IPC HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Proposed TeamHealth Takeover
------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Spencer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 11516 (Del.
Ch., September 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to maximize stockholder value in connection with the sale
of the Company to Team Health Holdings, Inc. and Intrepid Merger
Sub, Inc.

IPC Healthcare, Inc. provides acute hospitalist and post-acute
care services in the United States.

TeamHealth Holdings is a Delaware corporation and physician
staffing company with its headquarters located at 265 Brookview
Centre Way, Suite 400, Knoxville, TN 37919.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290


JDB CONSULTANTS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Deranleau v. JDB Consultants, Inc., Jonathan D. Brown, and
Does 1 through 25, Case No. BC594957 (Cal. Super., September 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the business of providing IT consulting and
related technology services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin G. Schmidt, Esq.
      SCHMIDT LAW
      17011 Beach Blvd., Ste. 900
      Huntington Beach, CA92647
      Telephone: (714) 596-7944
      Facsimile: (714)492-8241


JOSPEH V. O'DONELL: Sued Over Improper Disposal of Corpses
----------------------------------------------------------
Neal Simpson, writing for WCVB.com, reported that a Florida law
firm says it is preparing a class-action lawsuit against a former
funeral director accused of defrauding customers and dumping a
dozen bodies in a Weymouth storage unit, the Patriot Ledger
reported.

Joseph V. O'Donnell, the former director of the now-defunct
O'Donnell and Mulry Funeral Home in Dorchester, is already facing
278 criminal charges, including multiple counts of improper
disposal of human remains, embezzlement and acting as a funeral
director without a valid license.

Now, David H. Charlip, an attorney whose firm specializes in
funeral law and death care, says he is preparing to bring civil
action against O'Donnell on behalf of the unknown number of people
whose loved ones' remains may have been misplaced or mishandled by
him.

Charlip says his firm has been retained by Gina Hinckley, a
Massachusetts woman who has been trying to figure out what
happened to the remains of her father, Edward Hinckley, after they
were turned over to O'Donnell to be cremated.

Hinckley's family had buried what they believed were his remains
in the National Cemetery in Bourne after his death in 2012, but
investigators later found evidence suggesting that Hinckley's
ashes may have been given to the family of a Dorchester woman who
died around the same time.

"The family is obviously suffering through severe emotional stress
in that the remains they thought were Mr. Hinckley's they are now
told were not and they don't know where the remains are," Charlip
said.

O'Donnell was initially arrested on a larceny charge in April 2014
after police say he took $12,000 in pre-payments from an elderly
couple, then closed up shop and was unable to refund their money.
But when investigators went to search his storage unit in Weymouth
three months later, they say they found a dozen bodies, some
decomposing, stashed in boxes and caskets.

Prosecutors have since accused O'Donnell of defrauding dozens of
people, including many who came to him in grief after losing a
loved one, while illegally working as a funeral director after his
license expired in 2008. In some cases, prosecutors say O'Donnell
never bothered to cremate the remains entrusted to him and later
gave families ashes that had come from someone else.

Investigators have spent more than a year trying to determine
where those ashes came from, a task made nearly impossible because
the cremation process destroys DNA evidence, and O'Donnell's
record-keeping is considered unreliable. It's not known how many
remains he may have misplaced, but prosecutors say O'Donnell had
handled 201 bodies after his funeral director license expired.

Charlip said the number of potential plaintiffs for his lawsuit
could be in the thousands because each person whose remains were
mishandled by O'Donnell could have several family members who are
affected. He said these kinds of cases are particularly painful
for loved ones of the deceased because they violate their sense of
having provided a "final resting place."

"There is a terrible sense of loss -- above and beyond the loss of
losing a loved one -- when you feel, number one, you've failed to
fulfill their last wishes and, number two, you don't know where
they are," he said.

Charlip said the defendants in the lawsuit could include a
nonprofit organization that he says may have arranged to send the
people it served to O'Donnell; a Boston funeral home where he
believes O'Donnell was allowed to work; and the state's Division
of Professional Licensure, which is responsible for licensing
funeral home directors.

Charlip said his firm is still working to identify potential
plaintiffs and build a case against O'Donnell. He said his firm is
preparing a complaint that would be filed in Suffolk Superior
Court, the same court where O'Donnell is facing criminal charges.

"We're trying to move quickly, but we never like to shoot from the
hip," he said. "We're trying to gather as much information from as
many of the affected individuals as possible."


KNOWLES CORP: Jan. 2016 Trial Set in Audience IPO Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles 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 trial has been
scheduled for January 25, 2016, in the Audience IPO-Related
Litigation.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against Audience, Inc., the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of Audience's initial public offering ("IPO"). An
amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purported
to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Audience's
common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors of
Audience and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice.
The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by
filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed
a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other
grounds. The court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. On
January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify
a class. A trial has been scheduled for January 25, 2016.

On July 23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the action
was reached, subject to approval of the court. The parties are in
the process of negotiating formal settlement documents. Any
settlement is subject to approval by the court and members of the
class may opt out of, or object to, the settlement.  There can be
no assurance that the court will approve the settlement and class
members may opt out of the settlement and file individual actions.


KNOWLES CORP: MOU Reached in Suit Over Audience Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Knowles 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 in the Audience
Acquisition-Related Litigation, an agreement-in-principle has been
reached providing for the settlement of the litigation on the
terms and conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU").

Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similar
putative class action lawsuits challenging the proposed
acquisition of Audience, Inc. were filed in the Superior Court of
California, Santa Clara County, against the members of Audience's
board of directors and the Company, among others. The lawsuits
were subsequently consolidated into a single action. The
complaints allege that the members of Audience's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Audience shareholders
in connection with the proposed acquisition and that the Company
aided and abetted these alleged violations. The plaintiffs seek to
enjoin the acquisition, as well as, among other things,
compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs.

On June 10, 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the litigation on the terms and
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the
claims in the litigation have merit or that any supplemental
disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplemental
and amended disclosures in its statement in support of the
acquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
MOU further provides that, following the successful completion of
confirmatory discovery, among other things: (a) the parties to the
MOU will enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the court for
review and approval; (b) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the litigation; (c) the Stipulation will include a
general release of defendants to the litigation and certain other
persons or entities acting for or on behalf of any of them and
each of them of claims relating to the transaction; and (d) the
proposed settlement is conditioned on final approval by the court
after notice to Audience shareholders. There can be no assurance
that the settlement will be finalized or that the court will
approve the settlement.


LENNY & LARRY'S: Falsely Marketed Cookie Products, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Schott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lenny & Larry's, Inc., Case No. 32179380 (11th Cir.
Fla., September 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who purchased Lenny & Larry's baked cookie products,
that were falsely marketed by the Defendants as "vegan" and "all
natural".

The products at issue are not "vegan" or "all natural" because
they contain various artificial and synthetic ingredients
including thiamine mononitrate and riboflavin

Lenny & Larry's, Inc. manufactures, markets, distributes, and
sells a variety of vegan "all natural" cookies and other similar
baked good products throughout the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared H. Beck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
      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@beckandlce.com
              elizabeth@beckandlee.com

         - and -

      Antonino G. Hernandez, Esq.
      ANTONINO G HERNANDEZ PA
      4SE 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, PA
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33108
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobricnlaw.com


LEGGETT & PLATT: Expects to Make Final Payment of $35.8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated expects to make the final payment of
$35.8 million in the next 12 months to resolve the U.S. direct
purchaser class action cases, the Company 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, "We were named as a defendant in three pending
direct purchaser class action cases (the first on November 15,
2010) on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
polyurethane foam products. The direct purchaser class action
cases were all filed in or were transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of direct
purchasers, seek three times the amount of damages allegedly
suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in the price of
polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the present. Each
plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against future
violations.

"We filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct purchaser class
actions, for failure to state a legally valid claim, which were
denied by the Ohio Court. A motion for class certification was
filed on behalf of the direct purchasers.

"A hearing on the motion was held and the Court certified the
direct purchaser class. We filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal from Class Certification Order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which was denied. The Court
ordered all parties to attend non-binding mediation with a
mediator of their choosing.

"We reached a tentative settlement of the U.S. direct purchaser
class action cases on August 14, 2014, by agreeing to pay an
aggregate amount of $39.8 million, inclusive of plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs. We continue to deny all allegations in
the cases, but settled the direct purchaser class cases to avoid
the risk, uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The
settlement was subject to Court approval. We recorded a $39.8
million (pre-tax) accrual for the settlement in the third quarter
2014.

"In the fourth quarter of 2014, we paid $4 million to the Court
related to the settlement. The deadline for direct purchasers to
exclude themselves from the litigation and settlement classes was
January 26, 2015. A final fairness hearing was held on February 3,
2015, and on February 26, 2015, the Court entered a memorandum
opinion and order granting the motion for final approval of the
class settlement.  Subsequently, final judgments of dismissal with
prejudice were entered on March 13, 2015.

"On March 20, 2015, an objector filed a notice of appeal of the
order approving the class settlement to the Federal Circuit Court
of Appeals.  On March 27, 2015, the direct purchaser class
plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
transfer the appeal. On May 1, 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals denied the motion to dismiss and transferred the appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. We
expect to make the final payment of $35.8 million to resolve this
matter in the next twelve months.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled for December 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 final fairness
hearing is scheduled for December 15, 2015, on the settlement
reached in the U.S. indirect purchaser class action cases.

The Company said, "We were named as a defendant in an indirect
purchaser class consolidated amended complaint filed on March 21,
2011 and were subsequently sued in an indirect purchaser class
action case filed on May 23, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio under the name In re: Polyurethane
Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MD-2196. The plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and/or a class of indirect purchasers,
bring damages claims under various states' antitrust and consumer
protection statutes, and are seeking three times an amount of
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations.

"We filed motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action,
for failure to state a legally valid claim. The Ohio Court denied
the motions to dismiss. Discovery is substantially complete in
this case. A motion for class certification was filed on behalf of
the indirect purchasers. A hearing on the motion was held and the
Court certified the indirect purchaser class. The deadline for
indirect purchasers to exclude themselves from the litigation was
March 13, 2015.

"We filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal from Class
Certification Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit, which was denied. On November 18, 2014, we filed a
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which
was denied on March 2, 2015. The Ohio Court ordered all parties to
attend non-binding mediation with a mediator of their choosing.

"We reached a tentative settlement in the U.S. Indirect Class
Action cases on May 18, 2015, by agreeing to pay an amount not
materially different from the amount previously accrued for this
claim. We continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but
settled the indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlement
is subject to Court approval. The Court preliminarily approved the
class settlement on July 31, 2015. A final fairness hearing is
scheduled for December 15, 2015. We expect to make payment of the
settlement amount into escrow in the third quarter of 2015."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Reached Tentative Settlement in Canadian Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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
reached a tentative settlement in all Canadian class action cases.

The Company said, "We were named in two Canadian class action
cases (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products), both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co.
Limited and Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-
10-15164 (amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued
December 30, 2011). In each of these Canadian cases, the
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a class of purchasers,
seek from over 13 defendants restitution of the amount allegedly
overcharged, general and special damages in the amount of $100
million, punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and the costs of the investigation and the
action. The first issued class action is on behalf of a class of
purchasers of polyurethane foam. The second issued class action is
on behalf of purchasers of carpet underlay.

"We are not yet required to file our defenses in these or any
other Canadian actions.

"In addition, on July 10, 2012, plaintiff in a class action case
(for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products)
styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v. Produits
Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et al. in the Quebec Superior Court of
Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed an amended
motion for authorization seeking to add us and other manufacturers
of polyurethane foam products as defendants in this case, which
was granted. This action has a pending motion for certification,
which has been postponed indefinitely."

"We also were notified in June 2014 of two motions to add us as
parties to two class proceedings in British Columbia. Those
proceedings are similar to the Ontario proceedings in that one
proposes a class of purchasers of polyurethane foam (Majestic
Mattress Mfg. Ltd. v. Vitafoam Products et al., No. VLC-S-S-106362
Vancouver Registry) and one proposes a class of purchasers of
carpet underlay (Trillium Project Management Ltd. v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company et al., No.S106213 Vancouver
Registry). The motion to add us as parties to these actions was
heard on April 7, 2015 and the British Columbia Supreme Court
ordered our addition as parties to the two actions in British
Columbia. The British Columbia actions involve British Columbia
purchasers only whereas the Ontario actions propose classes of
Canadian purchasers."

"We reached a tentative settlement in all Canadian Class Action
cases on June 12, 2015 by agreeing to pay an amount not materially
different than the amount previously accrued for these claims. We
continue to deny all allegations in the cases, but settled the
direct and indirect purchaser class cases to avoid the risk,
uncertainty, expense and distraction of litigation. The settlement
is subject to Court approval. We made payment of the settlement
amount into escrow."


LEGGETT & PLATT: Case Management Conference Held
------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated 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 a Missouri class
action lawsuit, a case management conference was scheduled for
September 14, 2015, during which the Court and parties were to
discuss remaining pre-trial and trial deadlines.

The Company said, "On June 22, 2012, we were made a party to a
lawsuit brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson
County, Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption
"Dennis Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated vs. Leggett & Platt, Incorporated." The plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of
polyurethane foam products in the State of Missouri, alleged that
we violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon
our alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane foam
products. The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages, punitive
damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees.

"We filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied.
Discovery has commenced and plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification. A hearing on the motion was held, and the Court
subsequently entered an order denying plaintiff's motion for class
certification on March 18, 2015. Plaintiff filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order on March 30, 2015, which was also
denied. Plaintiff did not timely appeal this ruling. Plaintiff
intends to pursue the claims individually. A case management
conference is scheduled for September 14, 2015, during which the
Court and parties will discuss remaining pre-trial and trial
deadlines."


LEO JAMES: Faces "Alexander" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jed Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leo, James Mae & Associates Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07326 (C.D. Cal., September 18, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of using an automatic telephone dialing
system to contact consumers in their cellular telephone, in an
attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt owed by a third
party.

Leo, James Mae & Associates Inc. is in the business of purchasing
consumer debts and collecting thereon from debtors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY LIFE: Faces "Chirino" Suit Over Disability Benefit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Chirino v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Case
No. 0:15-cv-61966-JIC (S.D. Fla., September 17, 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:

      Alicia Paulino-Grisham, Esq.
      DI LAW GROUP
      4151 Hollywood Boulevard
      Hollywood, FlL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 989-9000
      Facsimile: (954) 989-9999
      E-mail: alicia@dilawgroup.com


LIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Continues to Defend Several Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 SIRIUS XM is a
defendant in several purported class action suits, which were
commenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015, April 2015
and July 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida that allege that SIRIUS XM, or certain call center vendors
acting on its behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The
plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that
SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and,
in one of the actions, that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's call
time restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking
various forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 for
each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages
of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the
TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the TCPA
in the future. Plaintiffs in certain of these suits have filed a
motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer these purported class actions, and other allegedly
related cases, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois for consolidated or coordinated
pretrial proceedings. SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial
defenses to the claims asserted in these actions and intends to
defend them vigorously.

SIRIUS XM has notified certain of its call center vendors of these
actions and requested that they defend and indemnify it against
these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or
former agreements with SIRIUS XM. SIRIUS XM believes it has valid
contractual claims against certain call center vendors in
connection with these claims and intends to preserve and pursue
its rights to recover from these entities.

With respect to the SIRIUS XM matters described above, it was
determined, based on current knowledge, that the amount of loss or
range of loss that is reasonably possible is not reasonably
estimable.  However, these matters are inherently unpredictable
and subject to significant uncertainties, many of which are beyond
SIRIUS XM's control.  As such, there can be no assurance that the
final outcome of these matters will not materially and adversely
affect the business, financial condition, results of operations,
or cash flows.


LIBERTY MEDIA: SIRIUS XM Filed Appeal in Flo & Eddie Calif. Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 in the Flo & Eddie
California Case, SIRIUS XM filed a motion with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking interlocutory
review of that class certification decision.

In August and September 2013, SIRIUS XM was named as a defendant
in three class action suits and one additional suit, which
challenge SIRIUS XM's use and public performance via satellite
radio and the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February
15, 1972 under California, New York and/or Florida law. The
plaintiffs in each of these cases seek compensatory and punitive
damages and injunctive relief.

These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et
al., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.),
Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-
5784-CM (S.D.N.Y.), and Capitol Records LLC et al. v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., No. BC-520981 (Super. Ct. L.A. County). Additional
information concerning each of these actions is publicly available
in court filings under their docket numbers.

In September 2014, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California ruled that California Civil Code
Section 980(a), which provides that the owner of a pre-1972
recording has "exclusive ownership" therein, includes the
exclusive right to control public performances of that recording.
The Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for summary judgment on
liability, holding that SIRIUS XM was liable for unfair
competition, misappropriation, and conversion under California law
for publicly performing Flo & Eddie's pre-1972 recordings without
authorization.  SIRIUS XM intends to appeal that decision.  In May
2015, the Court granted Flo & Eddie's motion for class
certification and certified a class of owners of pre-1972
recordings that have been performed and used by SIRIUS XM in
California without authorization.  In June 2015, SIRIUS XM filed a
motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit seeking interlocutory review of that class certification
decision.


LIBERTY MEDIA: 2nd Cir. Granted Review in Flo & Eddie NY Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 in the Flo & Eddie New
York Case, in November 2014, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York ruled that New York common law
grants a public performance right to owners of pre-1972
recordings.  The Court denied SIRIUS XM's motion for summary
judgment on liability.  In April 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit granted SIRIUS XM's petition for
interlocutory review of that decision.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Filed Appeal in Florida Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 in the Flo & Eddie
Florida Case, in June 2015, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida ruled that Florida common law
does not grant a public performance right to owners of pre-1972
recordings.  In July 2015, Flo & Eddie filed a notice of appeal of
that decision.


LIBERTY MEDIA: Continues to Defend Capitol Records Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corporation continues to defend a class action
lawsuit involving Capitol Records, the Company 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.

In October 2014, the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles adopted the Flo & Eddie California
court's interpretation of California law and granted plaintiffs'
motion for a jury instruction providing, in relevant part: "The
owner of a sound recording 'fixed' (i.e., recorded) prior to
February 15, 1972, possesses a property interest and exclusive
ownership rights in that sound recording . . . [that] include[s]
the exclusive right to publicly perform, or authorize others to
publicly perform, the sound recording by means of digital
transmission."  The Court did not make any finding of liability.
In June 2015, SIRIUS XM entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs, Capitol Records LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG
Recordings, Inc., Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music &
Records, Inc., to settle that case in its entirety.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, SIRIUS XM agreed to pay the
plaintiffs, in the aggregate, $210 million on or before July 31,
2015 and the plaintiffs will dismiss the Capitol Records case with
prejudice.  The settlement resolves all past claims as to SIRIUS
XM's use of pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the
plaintiffs and enables SIRIUS XM, without any additional payment,
to reproduce, perform and broadcast such recordings in the United
States through December 31, 2017.  As part of the settlement,
SIRIUS XM has the right, to be exercised before December 31, 2017,
to enter into a license with each plaintiff to reproduce, perform
and broadcast pre-1972 recordings owned or controlled by the
plaintiffs from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2022.  The
royalty rate for each such license will be determined by
negotiation or, if the parties are unable to agree, binding
arbitration.  The plaintiffs have represented and warranted to
SIIRIUS XM that in the United States they own, control or
otherwise have the right to settle with respect to approximately
80% of the pre-1972 recordings SIRIUS XM has historically played.

In addition, in August 2013, SoundExchange, Inc. filed a complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
alleging that SIRIUS XM underpaid royalties for statutory licenses
during the 2007-2012 rate period in violation of the regulations
established by the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB") for that
period. SoundExchange principally alleges that SIRIUS XM
improperly reduced its calculation of gross revenues, on which the
royalty payments are based, by deducting non-recognized revenue
attributable to pre-1972 recordings and Premier package revenue
that is not "separately charged" as required by the regulations.
SoundExchange is seeking compensatory damages, payment of late
fees and interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In August 2014, the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia granted SIRIUS XM's motion to dismiss the complaint
without prejudice on the grounds that the case properly should be
pursued before the CRB rather than the district court. In December
2014, SoundExchange filed a petition with the CRB requesting an
order interpreting the applicable regulations. SIRIUS XM believes
it has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in this action
and intends to defend this action vigorously.

This matter is titled SoundExchange, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio,
Inc., No.13-cv-1290-RJL (D.D.C.), and Determination of Rates and
Terms for Preexisting Subscription Services and Satellite Digital
Audio Radio Services, United States Copyright Royalty Board, No.
2006-1 CRB DSTRA. Additional information concerning each of these
actions is publicly available in filings under their docket
numbers.


LIBERTY MEDIA: TCPA Suits Against SIRIUS XM Still Open
------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 SIRIUS XM is a
defendant in several purported class action suits, which were
commenced in February 2012, January 2013, January 2015, April 2015
and July 2015, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida that allege that SIRIUS XM, or certain call center vendors
acting on their behalf, made numerous calls which violate
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other
things, that SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic
telephone dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent and,
in one of the actions, that SIRIUS XM violated the TCPA's call
time restrictions. The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking
various forms of relief, including statutory damages or, in the
alternative, treble damages for each knowing and willful violation
of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting violations of the
TCPA in the future. SIRIUS XM believes it has substantial defenses
to the claims asserted in these actions and intends to defend them
vigorously.

SIRIUS XM has notified certain of its call center vendors of these
actions and requested that they defend and indemnify SIRIUS XM
against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing
or former agreements with SIRIUS XM. SIRIUS XM believes it has
valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in
connection with these claims and intends to preserve and pursue
its rights to recover from these entities.

These cases are titled Erik Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No.
12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.) and Brian Trenz v. Sirius XM
Holdings, Inc. and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-cv-
0044LBLM (S.D. Cal), Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and
Career Horizons, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.) and Anthony
Parker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D.
Fla). Additional information concerning each of these actions is
publicly available in court filings under their docket numbers.


LIQUID HOLDINGS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert De Vito, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Liquid Holdings Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06969-KM-JBC (D.N.J., September 21, 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, issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering.

Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. is a cloud-based technology and
managed services provider to the global hedge fund and active
trading markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


M&T BANK: Faces "Hirst" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Stefanie Hirst and Modupe Beckley, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. M & T Bank and M & T Bank Corp., Case
No. 511428 (N.Y. Super., September 17, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a commercial bank holding company, with
current assets of $83.2 billion and over 725 branches.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000

         - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties are
currently engaged in the discovery phase of the lawsuit, In Re
Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR).

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's
financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of
securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust
moved to dismiss. The Court issued an order denying Wilmington
Trust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The parties are
currently engaged in the discovery phase of the lawsuit.


MANHATTAN BEER: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Swanson" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Swanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Manhattan Beer Distributors, LLC, Manhattan Beer
Distributors, Inc. and Simon Bergson, Case No. 1:15-cv-05383-ENV-
RLM (E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a beverage distribution company
headquartered in the Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
      J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
      Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
      WITTELS LAW, P.C.
      18 Half Mile Road
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 319-9945
      Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
      E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
              jbm@wittelslaw.com
              tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com


MEATS ON THE BEACH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Bedard and Zakiya Lawrie Newton, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Meats on the Beach, LLC d/b/a
Quality Meats Miami Beach, Case No. 1:15-cv-23510-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Meats on the Beach, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800)-407-1718
      E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com


MTS TAXES: "Murat" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Murat, and other similarly situated individuals v. MTS Taxes
& More, LLC d/b/a Tax USA, Mitchlin Delivrance, and Finder
Delivrance, Case No. 1:15-cv-23528-UU (S.D. Fla., September 18,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

MTS Taxes & More, LLC is a Florida limited liability company that
is engaged interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NBTY INC: Initial Conference Held in Herbal Supplements Case
------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, 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 an initial conference was
scheduled for August 20, 2015, in the class action lawsuits over
herbal dietary supplements.

The Company said, "In February 2015, the New York State Office of
the Attorney General ("NY AG") began an investigation concerning
the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated
marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing
the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and
retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the
validity of their representations and advertising in connection
with the sale of herbal supplements. NBTY has fully cooperated
with the NY AG; however until this investigation is concluded, no
final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the
amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. However, we do
not believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial statements."

"Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,
numerous putative class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and
associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection
statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the
federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district
before a single judge were granted on June 9, 2015, and the cases
are consolidated before Judge John W. Darrah of the United States
District Court, North District of Illinois -- Eastern Division
(the "MDL Case:"). An initial conference was scheduled for August
20, 2015. Three class actions against one of our customers to
which we may have a duty to indemnify have not been transferred
and consolidated with the MDL Case, and are at the initial stages
of litigation.

"At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on
the part of NBTY; however, we do not believe the ultimate outcome
will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements."


NBTY INC: Preliminary Approval Conference Held
----------------------------------------------
NBTY, 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 settlement in the class
actions related to Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements have been
submitted to the court for preliminary approval and a preliminary
conference was held before the court on July 22, 2015.

The Company said, "Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class
actions have been filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its
subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies
as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the marketing of glucosamine- based dietary
supplements, under various states' consumer protection statutes.
The lawsuits against NBTY and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v.
NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, on behalf of a putative class of California consumers
seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of
restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive
relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011)
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts
consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory damages; and
Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California (the
"Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of California
consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages based on
theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief,
as well as other cases in California and Illinois against certain
Consumer Products Group customers as to which we may have certain
indemnification obligations.

"In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with
plaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for
payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice
and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October
4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the court
issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified
(the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014
(the "Judgment").

"Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the
Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal on February 3, 2014. In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a
provision of $12,000,000 reflecting its best estimate of exposure
for payments to the class together with attorney's fees and notice
and administrative costs in connection with this class action
settlement. As a result of the court's approval of the settlement
and the closure of the claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of
exposure to $6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure
was reflected in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal
2014.

"On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision
granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision. In April 2015,
NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certain
plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providing
for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class,
together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs
estimated to be in the amount of $9,000,000, which resulted in an
additional charge of $4,300,000 in the second quarter results for
fiscal 2015.

"On May 14, 2015, the settlement was submitted to the court for
preliminary approval and a preliminary conference was held before
the court on July 22, 2015. Until the cases are resolved, no final
determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY."


NBTY INC: Appeal from Case Dismissal Order Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, 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's appeal to the court's
dismissal of the action, Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim,
is pending.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending.


ONEWEST RESOURCES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Patel, in her representative capacity v. OneWest Resources,
LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC595038 (Cal. Super.,
September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay regular and overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

OneWest Resources, LLC owns and operates a financial service
company with its principal place of business located at 888E.
7 Walnut Street, Pasadena, California 91101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris Baker, Esq.
      Mike Curtis, Esq.
      BAKER & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-1064
      Facsimile: (415)520-0446
      E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com
              mcurtis@bakerlp.com


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Bid to File 2nd Amended Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, 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 not yet granted SEPTA permission to file its proposed second
amended complaint.

The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, "Orrstown Defendants") are
defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") on May 25, 2012,
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants
was expanded to include the Company's independent registered
public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March
2010 public offering of common stock. The complaint, as amended,
alleges among other things that (i) in connection with the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated February 23,
2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23, 2010, and (ii)
during the purported class period of March 15, 2010 through April
5, 2012, the Company issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's lending practices and financial
results, including misleading statements concerning the stringent
nature of the Bank's credit practices and underwriting standards,
the quality of its loan portfolio, and the intended use of the
proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public offering of common
stock. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.

On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's
amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA
failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed
amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the
amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22,
2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended
complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations
of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended
complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not
publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls
over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting
during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal
securities laws.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's proposed
second amended complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself against those claims.

Given that the Court has not yet granted SEPTA permission to file
its proposed second amended complaint, and that defendants have
not yet filed their opposition to SEPTA's motion to amend or had
the opportunity to challenge the legal sufficiency of the proposed
second amended complaint by motion to dismiss, it is not possible
at this time to estimate reasonably possible losses, or even a
range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with SEPTA's
proposed second amended complaint.


PALOS COMMUNITY: Sued in Ill. Over Unlawful Billing Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Nanfeldt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Palos Community Hospital, filed in Illinois Circuit
Court on September 18, 2015, arises out of the Defendant's alleged
unreasonable, unconscionable and unlawful pricing, billing and
collection practices for emergency care with respect to self-pay
patients.

Palos Community Hospital owns and operates a number of healthcare
facilities in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Lynch, Esq.
      James L. Thompson, Esq.
      LYNCH STERN THOMPSON, LLC
      150 S. Wacker Drive #2600
      Chicago IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 346-1600
      E-mail: dlynch@lstllp.com

         - and -

      Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTOROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
      11 Broadway #2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 847-8315
      E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com

         - and -

      Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER
      9550 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. 253
      Las Vegas, NV 89123
      Telephone: (702) 778-6090
      E-mail: kramerlaw@aol.com


PANASONIC CORP: Inflates Price of Resistors, "Brooks" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brooks, and all others similarly-situated v. Panasonic
Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic
Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, Koa Corporation, Koa
Speer Electronics, Inc.,Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Murata
Electronics North America, inc., Rohm Co. Ltd., Rohm Semiconductor
U.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Yageo Corporation, and
Yageo America Corporation, Case 5:15-cv-04206 (N.D. Cal.,
September 15, 2015), to recover damages and injunctive relief
under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, California's
Unfair Competition Law, and the Federal Antitrust Laws.

The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among the world's leading manufacturers of resistors, engaged in a
collusion to fix, raise, stabilize, and maintain the price of
resistors throughout the United States.

Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America ("PIDS"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic, a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located at Two Riverfront Plaza,
Newark, New Jersey 07102. PIDS is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors. PIDS -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States, including in this District.

KOA Corporation ("KOA") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located at 2-17-2 Midori-Cho, Fuchu-
Shi, Tokyo 183-0006, Japan. KOA is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors. KOA -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

KOA Speer Electronics, Inc. ("KOA Speer") is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 199
Bolivar Drive, Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701. KOA Speer is one of
the world's leading manufacturers of resistors and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of KOA. KOA Speer -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ("Murata") is a Japanese
corporation with its principal place of business located at 10-1,
Higashikotari 1-chome, Nagaokakyo-shi, Kyoto 617-8555, Japan.
Murata is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors.
Murata -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it
wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or
sold resistors that were purchased throughout the United States,
including in this District.

Murata Electronics North America, Inc. ("MNA") is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd., a Texas corporation
with its principal place of business located at 2200 Lake Park
Drive SE, Smyrna, Georgia 30080-7604. MNA is one of the world's
leading manufacturers of resistors. MNA -- directly and/or through
its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States, including in this District, during
the Class Period. Indeed, MNA maintains teams of Technical Sales
Managers in several major hubs across the United States.

ROHM Co., Ltd. ("ROHM") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located at 21 Saiin Mizosaki-cho,
Ukyo-Ku, Kyoto 615-8585, Japan. ROHM is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors. ROHM -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC ("ROHM USA") is a Delaware limited
liability corporation with its principal place of business located
at 2323 Owen Street, Suite 150, Santa Clara, California 95054.
ROHM USA is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors,
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of ROHM. ROHM USA -- directly
and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or
controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that
were purchased throughout the United States.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located at 63 Lancaster
Avenue, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355. Vishay is one of the world's
leading manufacturers of resistors. Vishay -- directly and/or
through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled
-- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were
purchased throughout the United States.

Yageo Corporation ("Yageo") is a Taiwanese corporation with its
principal place of business located at 3F, 233-1, Baoqiao Rd.
Xindian Dist., New Taipei City 23145, Taiwan. Yageo is one of the
world's leading manufacturers of resistors. Yageo -- directly
and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or
controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that
were purchased throughout the United States.

Yageo America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 2550 North First St., Suite
480, San Jose, CA 95131. Yageo America Corporation is one of the
world's leading manufacturers of resistors. Yageo America
Corporation -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it
wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or
sold resistors that were purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Guido Saveri, Esq.
     R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
     Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     706 Sansome Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 217-6810
     Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
     E-mail: guido@saveri.com
             rick@saveri.com
             cadio@saveri.com

          - and -

     Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
     Joel C. Meredith, Esq.
     MEREDITH & NARINE
     100 S. Broad Street, Suite 905
     Philadelphia, PA 19110
     Telephone: 215-564-5182
     Facsimile: 267-687-1628
     E-mail: knarine@m-npartners.com
             jmeredith@m-npartners.com


PANASONIC CORP: Inflates Resistor Prices, Nebraska Dynamics Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska Dynamics, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v.
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, KOA
Corporation, KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co.
Ltd., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., ROHM Co. Ltd., ROHM
Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Yageo
Corporation, and Yageo America Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-04201
(N.D. Cal., September 15, 2015), to recover damages and injunctive
relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and
the Federal Antitrust Laws.

The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among the largest the worlds' largest manufacturers of linear
resistors, along with other presently unknown co-conspirators
agreed, combined, and conspired to inflate, fix, raise, maintain
or artificially stabilize prices of linear resistors sold in the
United Sates. The suspected conspiracy targeted various
individuals and entities that purchased linear resistors from
distributors. The conspiracy succeeded, requiring purchasers,
including the Plaintiffs and all other purchasers, to pay
artificially inflated prices for linear resistors throughout the
United States.

Panasonic Corporation ("Panasonic") is a Japanese corporation with
its principal place of business located at 1006 Oaza Kadoma,
Kadoma-shi, Osaka 571-8501, Japan. Panasonic is one of the world's
leading manufacturers of resistors. Panasonic -- directly and/or
through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled
-- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were
purchased throughout the United States, including in this
District.

Panasonic Corporation of North America ("PNA"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of Panasonic, is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at Two Riverfront Plaza,
Newark, New Jersey 07102. PNA is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors. PNA -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America ("PIDS"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of Panasonic, a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business located at Two Riverfront Plaza,
Newark, New Jersey 07102. (Panasonic, PNA and PIDS are
collectively referred to as the "Panasonic Defendants".) PIDS is
one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors. PIDS --
directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned
and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors
that were purchased throughout the United States.

KOA Corporation ("KOA") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located at 2-17-2 Midori-Cho, Fuchu-
Shi, Tokyo 183-0006, Japan. KOA is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors. KOA -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

KOA Speer Electronics, Inc. ("KOA Speer") is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business located at 199
Bolivar Drive, Bradford, Pennsylvania 16701. KOA Speer is one of
the world's leading manufacturers of resistors and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of KOA (collectively, the "KOA Defendants"). KOA
Speer -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly
owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold
resistors that were purchased throughout the United States.

Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. ("Murata") is a Japanese
corporation with its principal place of business located at 10-1,
Higashikotari 1-chome, Nagaokakyo-shi, Kyoto 617-8555, Japan.
Murata is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors.
Murata -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries, which it
wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or
sold resistors that were purchased throughout the United States.

Murata Electronics North America, Inc. ("MNA") is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Murata (collectively, the "Murata Defendants"), a
Texas corporation with its principal place of business located at
2200 Lake Park Drive SE, Smyrna, Georgia 30080-7604. MNA is one of
the world's leading manufacturers of resistors. MNA -- directly
and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or
controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that
were purchased throughout the United States.

ROHM Co., Ltd. ("ROHM") is a Japanese corporation with its
principal place of business located at 21 Saiin Mizosaki-cho,
Ukyo-Ku, Kyoto 615-8585, Japan. ROHM is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors. ROHM -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

ROHM Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC ("ROHM USA") is a Delaware limited
liability corporation with its principal place of business located
at 2323 Owen Street, Suite 150, Santa Clara, California 95054.
ROHM USA is one of the world's leading manufacturers of resistors,
and is a wholly owned subsidiary of ROHM (collectively, the "ROHM
Defendants"). ROHM USA -- directly and/or through its
subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled --
manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were purchased
throughout the United States.

Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located at 63 Lancaster
Avenue, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355. Vishay is one of the world's
leading manufacturers of resistors. Vishay -- directly and/or
through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or controlled
-- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that were
purchased throughout the United States.

Yageo Corporation ("Yageo") is a Taiwanese corporation with its
principal place of business located at 3F, 233-1, Baoqiao Rd.
Xindian Dist., New Taipei City 23145, Taiwan. Yageo is one of the
world's leading manufacturers of resistors. Yageo -- directly
and/or through its subsidiaries, which it wholly owned and/or
controlled -- manufactured, marketed, and/or sold resistors that
were purchased throughout the United States.

Yageo America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 2550 North First St., Suite
480, San Jose, CA 95131. Yageo America Corporation is one of the
world's leading manufacturers of resistors, and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Yageo (collectively, the "Yageo Defendants"). Yageo
America Corporation -- directly and/or through its subsidiaries,
which it wholly owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed,
and/or sold resistors that were purchased throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
     Steven N. Williams, Esq.
     Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
     Elizabeth T. Tran, Esq.
     Joyce Chang, Esq.
     COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
     840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
     Burlingame, CA 94010
     Telephone: 650-697-6000
     Facsimile: 650-697-0577
     E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
             swilliams@cpmlegal.com
             dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com
             etran@cpmlegal.com
             jchang@cpmlegal.com


PARKING CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Barrera v. Parking Corporation and Does 1- 25, inclusive,
Case No. BC594870 (Cal. Super., September 17, 2015), arises out of
the Defendant's alleged employment discriminatory practices on the
basis of disability or perceived disability.

Parking Corporation owns and operates a carwash business in Los
Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Perko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO
      26895 Aliso Creek Road, Suite B66
      Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
      Telephone: (949) 390-4442
      Facsimile: (949) 916-1039
      E-mail: jackperko@hotmail.com


PHILIA 5: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Philia 5 GROUP, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC595207 (Cal. Super., September 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Philia 5 GROUP, LLC owns and operates Abigail Restaurant located
at 130L Manhattan Ave., Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County,
California 90254.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel V. Santiago, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. SANTIAGO, P.C.
      KPMG Tower
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (760) 652-9801
      Facsimile: (760) 652-9802
      E-mail: dvs@dvslawoffices.com


PRIME CONSULTING: "James" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cicely James, and Ken Rice, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prime Consulting Group, Inc., Keith
Bruce, and Chihuahtha Compton, Case No. 4:15-cv-02745 (S.D. Tex.,
September 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-
judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Prime Consulting Group, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation, which
provides claims management services to insurance companies through
a work force of claims adjusters, and maintains a presence and
corporate address in Stafford, Fort Bend County, Texas 77477.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      April L. Walter, Esq.
      Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
      STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Telephone: (281) 364-7261
      Facsimile: (281) 364-7533
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
              awalter@starzyklaw.com
              mmitchell@starzyklaw.com


PRIVATE PROTECTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Ramirez v. Private Protective Services, Inc., and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. BC595021 (Cal. Super., September 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Eisenberg, Esq.
      Daniel Nomanim, Esq.
      EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES
      3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 201-9331
      Facsimile: (213) 382-4083

         - and -

      Adam Goldfarb, Esq.
      GOLDFARB LAW
      3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (310) 477-4653
      Facsimile: (213) 536-2015


PRO OILFIELD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Aragon" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Aragon, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Pro Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02734
(S.D. Tex., September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Pro Oilfield Services, LLC is a corporation providing third party
services, including multi-service line, multi-basin provider of
drilling and completion services throughout the United States.

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


RICHLAND, OH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Court Workers OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Downey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The County Of Richland, Ohio, Marilyn John, County
Commissioner, in her official capacity, Gary Utt, County
Commissioner, in his official capacity, and Tim Wert, County
Commissioner, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-1934
(N.D. Ohio, September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay personnel at the Richland County Common Pleas
Courts overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The County of Richland, Ohio was established in 1813 and employs
personnel at the Richland County Common Pleas Courts, which are
located in the County Administrative Building at 50 Park Avenue
East, Mansfield, Ohio 44902.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com


ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas E. Rich, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC,
Central Cal Transportation, LLC., Morgan Southern, Inc., and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07330 (C.D. Cal.,
September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages and provide meal and rest breaks to its
employee drivers.

The Defendants provide various shipping services throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
      Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
      KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
      644 S. Figueroa Street
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 217-5000
      Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
      E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
              jhh@kbklawyers.com


SALLY BEAUTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Daniels, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc. and Beauty
Systems Group LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-13326-GCS-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
September 21, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of sending unauthorized automated text messages to
consumer's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendants own and operate CosmoProf store, a full-service
distributor offering exclusive salon products and equipment to
licensed professionals in the salon and spa industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


SAND BUILDING: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Salazar" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leobardo Salazar, an individual v. Sand Building Materials Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC595011 (Cal. Super.,
September 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay all wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to pay a minimum wage for all hours
worked, and for violation of California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a construction materials company
providing masonry, landscaping and building materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 738-5225


SANTA ROSA: Faces "Castellanos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon A. Castellanos, and all others similarly situated v. Santa
Rosa Insulation & Fireproofing, LLC, Rafael Puig, Raul Puig, Case
No. 1:15-cv-23543-MGC (S.D. Fla., September 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Santa Rosa Insulation & Fireproofing, LLC is an insulation
contractor that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SILICON VALLEY: Faces "Fletcher" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fletcher, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Silicon Valley Bank and
Does 1 through 100, Case No. 115-cv-285790 (Cal. Super., September
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Silicon Valley Bank owns and operates a commercial bank in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden A venue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


SJK INC: Faces "Antuna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Antuna, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated
v. SJK, Inc. d/b/a Fremont Ford, and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
RG15786390 (Cal. Super., September 18, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

SJK, Inc. owns and operates the Fremont Ford dealership in Newark,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn C. Nunes, Esq.
      Anthony J. Nunes, Esq.
      NUNES LAW GROUP, APC
      2425 Olympic Blvd, Suite 4000-W
      Santa Monica, CA 90404
      Telephone: (424) 252-4240
      Facsimile: (424) 252-4301
      E-mail: glenn@nuneslawgroup.com
              tony@nuneslawgroup.com


ST. LOUIS, MO: MTC Illegally Prohibits Ridesharing Operations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha Robyn Wallen, Patrick Andert, Patrick Fox, Kneeshe
Parkinson, Uber USA, LLC, and Rasier LLC v. St. Louis Metropolitan
Taxicab Commission, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01432 (E.D. Mo.,
September 18, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' failure to permit ridesharing companies to operate
even though these companies are operating safely and efficiently
in every State of the Union (except South Dakota) and in over 60
countries across six continents.

St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission regulates vehicles for
hire, their drivers, and vehicle for-hire companies operating in
the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James F. Bennett, Esq.
      John C. Danforth, Esq.
      John D. Comerford, Esq.
      Sheena R. Hamilton, Esq.
      DOWD BENNETT LLP
      7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1900
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 889-7300
      Facsimile: (314) 863-2111
      E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com
              jdanforth@dowdbennett.com
              jcomerford@dowdbennett.com
              shamilton@dowdbennett.com

          - and -

      Douglas R. Cole, Esq.
      Erik J. Clark, Esq.
      ORGAN COLE LLP
      1330 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 481-0900
      Facsimile: (614) 481-0904
      E-mail: drcole@organcole.com
              ejclark@organcole.com


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Received Insurance Recoveries of $40 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company received
insurance recoveries of $40 million related to the March 2010
Securities Class Action Litigation.  The Company said it continues
to pursue collection of the remaining insurance recovery,
including interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit related to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which sought unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleged that the
defendants failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a
slowdown in demand for its products and was not receiving
anticipated orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class
members alleged that the defendant's failure to disclose the above
information resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical
stock at an artificially inflated price.

In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to
dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action and the discovery phase of the case closed in
September 2013.

In October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion for
leave to proceed with a motion to decertify the class, which the
Court denied in December 2014.

On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a written
settlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification to
class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement,
the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve all
of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during
the fourth quarter of 2014.

The Company had estimated its damages exposure on the claims
alleged to be approximately $475 million. A preliminary order
approving the settlement was entered by the District Court on
March 9, 2015 with the final settlement order and judgment closing
the case entered on June 12, 2015.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance
recoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue collection of
the remaining insurance recovery, including interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Fact Discovery to Close December 18
-----------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that fact discovery closes
December 18, 2015 in a securities litigation.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period.

On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011
and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims
and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled
on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting
the motion in part. On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint. Like the original consolidated amended
complaint, the plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of
compensation in the second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
January 15, 2015. The Company will file a response by September
16, 2015, plaintiffs will file a reply by November 16, 2015, and a
hearing before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certification
will be scheduled at some point in the future. Fact discovery
closes December 18, 2015 and the case is expected to be ready for
trial in February 2017. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Individual Suits, Smaller Class Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 number of individual
lawsuits and smaller putative class actions remained following the
class settlement in the Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. Litigation.

Beginning in October 2008, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or
STRH, along with other underwriters and individuals, were named as
defendants in several individual and putative class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and state and federal courts in Arkansas,
California, Texas, and Washington. Plaintiffs alleged violations
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or state
law for allegedly false and misleading disclosures in connection
with various debt and preferred stock offerings of Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman Brothers") and sought unspecified damages.
All cases were transferred for coordination to the multi-district
litigation captioned In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
claims asserted in the class action.

On July 27, 2011, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss the claims against STRH and the other
underwriter defendants in the class action. A settlement with the
class plaintiffs was approved by the Court and the class
settlement approval process was completed.

A number of individual lawsuits and smaller putative class actions
remained following the class settlement. STRH settled two such
individual actions. The other individual lawsuits were dismissed.
In two of such dismissed individual actions, the plaintiffs were
unable to appeal the dismissals of their claims until their claims
against a third party were resolved. In one of these individual
actions, the plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In the other remaining action, it
is unclear whether the plaintiffs will file a notice of appeal.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Finally Approved Deal in Colonial Case
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 Colonial
BancGroup Securities Litigation, a settlement has been finally
approved by the court.

Beginning in July 2009, SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. or STRH,
certain other underwriters, the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.
("Colonial BancGroup") and certain officers and directors of
Colonial BancGroup were named as defendants in a putative class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama entitled In re Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The complaint was brought by purchasers of certain
debt and equity securities of Colonial BancGroup and seeks
unspecified damages. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11
and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and
misleading disclosures in the relevant registration statement and
prospectus relating to Colonial BancGroup's goodwill impairment,
mortgage underwriting standards, and credit quality.

On February 3, 2015, the parties agreed to a settlement of this
matter which was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 13,
2015 and finally approved on June 19, 2015.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Petition for Certiorari Filed in "Bickerstaff"
--------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 in the case,
Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, filed a petition for certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the
complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an
interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate.

SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16,
2012, the Court entered an order holding that SunTrust's
arbitration provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff
in the case had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms.
The Court explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on
the question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out
for the putative class members. SunTrust filed an appeal of this
decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that
the appeal was prematurely granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification on February
26, 2014. On March 30, 2015, this appeal was denied by the Georgia
Court of Appeals. Plaintiff filed a petition for certiorari with
the Georgia Supreme Court on May 4, 2015.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Bid to Dismiss Stock Class Action Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 court has entered an
order granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss the Company Stock Class Action.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a putative
class action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an
investment option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"Plan"). The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the Company stock in their Plan
accounts from May 2007 to the present and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

The Company Stock Class Action was originally filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida but was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia, Atlanta Division, (the "District Court") in November
2008. On October 26, 2009, an amended complaint was filed. On
December 9, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the
Circuit Court decided this appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On
March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the
case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its
decision in The Home Depot case. On September 26, 2013, the
District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal of this decision in the Circuit Court.
Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that
employee stock ownership plan fiduciaries receive no presumption
of prudence with respect to employer stock plans. The Eleventh
Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court for further
proceedings in light of Dudenhoeffer.

On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Actions Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 continues
to defend the Mutual Funds Class Actions.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims.

On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in this
action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated a
substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. SunTrust filed a motion
to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.

On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal. On March 18, 2014,
the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for reconsideration with
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014, plaintiffs in the
original action filed a Motion for Consolidation of Appeals
requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly with the
appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on October 9,
2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on December
16, 2014.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Brown et al. v. SunTrust Banks Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 and certain
current and former officers, directors, and employees of the
Company were named on June 27, 2014, in another putative class
action alleging breach of fiduciary duties associated with the
inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in the
Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On November
12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay this case
until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Tibble v. Eidson
International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty, separate and
apart from investment selection, to monitor and remove imprudent
investments. After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were
remanded to the District Court.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Morales" Class Action Settled in Q2 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 "Morales" SunTrust
Mortgage Lender Placed Insurance Class Action was settled in the
second quarter of 2015.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. or STM was named in four putative class
actions similar to those that other financial institutions are
facing which allege that STM violated various duties by failing to
properly negotiate pricing for force placed insurance and by
receiving kickbacks or other improper benefits from the providers
of such insurance. Three of the cases involve activity relating to
STM's relationship with QBE First Specialty as STM's lender placed
insurance vendor.

The first case, Timothy Smith v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et al.,
was pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The second case, Carina Hamilton v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. et
al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The third case, Yaghoub Mahdavieh et al. v. SunTrust Mortgage,
Inc. et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

STM has entered into an agreement to settle these cases in the
context of a nationwide settlement class, which was approved by
the Court on October 24, 2014. The plaintiffs in Mahdavieh opted
out of the class action settlement and settled separately from the
Hamilton settlement.

The fourth case, Douglas Morales v. SunTrust Mortgage, et al,
involved activity relating to STM's relationship with Assurant as
its lender placed insurance vendor. Morales was settled in the
second quarter of 2015.


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Thurmond" Reinsurance Class Action Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 "Thurmond" SunTrust
Mortgage Reinsurance Class Action has been stayed pending a ruling
in a similar case currently before the Third Circuit.

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. of STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company
("Twin Rivers") have been named as defendants in two putative
class actions alleging that the companies entered into illegal
"captive reinsurance" arrangements with private mortgage insurers.
More specifically, plaintiffs allege that SunTrust's selection of
private mortgage insurers who agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers
certain loans referred to them by SunTrust results in illegal
"kickbacks" in the form of the insurance premiums paid to Twin
Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that this arrangement violates the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust
enrichment to the detriment of borrowers.

The first of these cases, Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc. et al., was filed in February 2011 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This
case was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time. The
second of these cases, Acosta, Lemuel & Maria Ventrella et al. v.
SunTrust Bank, SunTrust Mortgage, Inc., et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in
December 2011. This case was stayed pending a decision in the
Edwards case also.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court withdrew its grant of
certiorari in Edwards and, as a result, the stays in these cases
were lifted. SunTrust has filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond
case which was granted in part and denied in part, allowing
limited discovery surrounding the argument that the statute of
limitations for certain claims should be equitably tolled.
Thurmond has been stayed pending a ruling in a similar case
currently before the Third Circuit. The Acosta plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their case.

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


STERICYCLE INC: MDL Action in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 MDL action is in
the discovery stage.

The Company said, "we were served on March 12, 2013 with a class
action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of ours. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that we imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on our
customers in breach of our contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The
complaint sought certification of the lawsuit as a class action
and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief."

"The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
a settlement with the State of New York of an investigation under
the New York False Claims Act (which the class action complaint
describes at some length). The New York investigation arose out of
a qui tam (or "whistle blower") complaint under the federal False
Claims Act and comparable state statutes which was filed under
seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois in April 2008 by a former employee of ours. The qui tam
complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14 states
and the District of Columbia. On September 4, 2013, we filed our
answer to Plaintiff-Relator's Second Amended Complaint, generally
denying the allegations therein. Also, as previously disclosed,
Tennessee, Massachusetts, Virginia and North Carolina have issued
civil investigative demands to explore the allegations made on
their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided
whether to join the Illinois action. The qui tam case is in the
discovery stage.

"Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
we were served with class action complaints filed in federal court
in California, Florida, Illinois, Mississippi and Utah and in
state court in California. These complaints asserted claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint. All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to our settlement with the State of New
York. On August 9, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL) granted our Motion to Transfer these related
actions to the Northern District of Illinois for centralized
pretrial proceedings. On December 10, 2013, we filed our answer to
the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the MDL action,
generally denying the allegations therein. The MDL action is in
the discovery stage."


STERICYCLE INC: To Make Settlement Payment in Junk Fax Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 anticipates
making payments from the settlement fund in the Junk Fax lawsuit
sometime during the fourth quarter of 2015.

The Company said, "on May 20, 2015, we entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve all claims made against us and certain of our
subsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH
07190 (the "TCPA Action"), a class action complaint pending in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court"). The TCPA
Action is the successor lawsuit to the class action complaint
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have previously disclosed
and that was dismissed pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation
of dismissal. The TCPA Action alleges that from 2010 to 2014 we
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending facsimile
advertisements to plaintiffs or putative class members that either
were unsolicited and/or did not contain a valid opt-out notice. We
have denied all liability for the claims made in the TCPA Action
but have agreed to settle to avoid the expense, burden and
inherent risk and uncertainty of litigation."

"Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the
two class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of
$45.0 million (the "Settlement Fund") to pay class members who
submit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay an
incentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay fees
and expenses to plaintiffs' attorneys, and to pay fees and costs
of a third-party settlement administrator (the "TCPA Settlement").
The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking fees of one-third of the
Settlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket expenses, to be paid from the
Settlement Fund. As part of the TCPA Settlement, we do not admit
to any of the allegations in the TCPA Action and will be
completely released from any claims related to faxes sent by us or
on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through April 30, 2015.

"The Settlement has been preliminarily approved by the Court and
is awaiting final approval. In view of the TCPA Settlement, we
have recorded an accrual of $45.0 million in accrued liabilities
on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet and a pre-tax charge
of $45.0 million in "Selling, general and administrative expenses"
on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the three-
and six-months ending June 30, 2015. We anticipate making payments
from the Settlement Fund sometime during the fourth quarter of
2015."


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Granted Motion to Decertify
-------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 U.S. district
court has granted Swift's motion to decertify the entire class in
the Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 ("the Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's
petition for class certification. The plaintiff appealed and on
August 6, 2008, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished
Memorandum Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class
certification and remanding the case back to the trial court. On
November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to the
Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class certification
as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration
by the Court of Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals, opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination. Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed
the motion for class certification and expanded it to include all
persons who were employed by Swift as employee drivers or who
contracted with Swift as owner-operators on or after January 30,
1998, in each case who were compensated by reference to miles
driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with
respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's
motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to
decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no
breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class
size based on statute of limitations. On November 13, 2014, the
court denied plaintiff's motion to add new class representatives
for the employee class and therefore the employee class remains
without a plaintiff class representative.

On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for
summary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee
class since there is no class representative; and (2) to dismiss
plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing.

On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's motion to decertify
the entire class. The Company intends to defend any appeal pursued
by the plaintiff.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Owner-Operator Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 so-called Ninth
Circuit Owner-Operator Misclassification Class Action Litigation
remains pending in district court and is currently in discovery.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York ("the Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 450 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit. Upon Swift's motion, the matter was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States District Court in
Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the district court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed, pending
the outcome of arbitration. The district court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification.

The district court also denied plaintiff's request to arbitrate
the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the district court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn the district court's
September 30, 2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that the
agreement to arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1
of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of
plaintiffs allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration
agreements.

On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly
held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for
arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision
of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on
February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether
the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the
contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act.

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Company's petition for writ of certiorari. The matter remains
pending in the district court and is currently in discovery.

The Company has filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the
district court's order that effectively denies the Company's
motion to compel arbitration. The writ and appeal were accepted by
the Ninth Circuit and are proceeding simultaneously with discovery
in the district court. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against any proceedings. The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition cannot be determined at this
time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Defending Calif. Wage, Meal and Rest Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to defend wage, meal and
rest employee class actions in California, the Company disclosed
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.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino ("the Burnell
Complaint"). On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the
matter was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The
putative class includes drivers who worked for Swift during the
four years preceding the date of filing alleging that Swift failed
to pay the California minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest periods and failed to timely pay wages upon separation
from employment.

On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act. On May 29, 2013, the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on
alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the
California Labor Code.

Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.

Based on the Circuit Court's holding in a different case, it
remanded the plaintiff's meal and rest break claims to the
district court. The district court has not yet addressed the
merits of those claims. Minimum wage claims (specifically that
pay-per-mile fails to compensate drivers for non-driving-related
services), timeliness of such pay and the issue of class
certification remain pending.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Action Currently Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 Peck action is
currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and Rudsell
cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the claims in
those earlier filed cases.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation Company, Case No. CIVDS
1200255, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Bernardino (the "Rudsell Complaint"). The Rudsell Complaint was
stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell Complaint.

On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside ("the Peck Complaint"). The
putative class includes current and former non-exempt employee
truck drivers who performed services in California within the
four-year statutory period, alleging that Swift failed to pay for
all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to
compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

Peck is currently stayed, pending a resolution in the Burnell and
Rudsell cases, based on the similarity of the Peck claims to the
claims in those earlier filed cases.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Mares" Case Remains at Pleading Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 Sadashiv Mares
filed on February 27, 2015, a complaint in the California Superior
Court for the County of Alameda alleging five Causes of Action
arising under California state law on behalf of himself and a
putative class against Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
(the "Mares Complaint").  On June 19, 2015, Swift filed a demurrer
because plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim under Cal.
Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(e) and was uncertain, ambiguous and
unintelligible under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Sec. 430.10(f).  On July
13, 2015, the case was removed to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act.  The case remains at the pleading stage.
Management believes the case involves similar claims to those
alleged in the Burnell, Rudsell and Peck Complaints.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Case Removed to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 complaint was
filed on or about April 15, 2015, in the Superior Court of the
State of California in and for the County of San Bernardino:
Rafael McKinsty et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
LLC, et al., Case No. CIVDS 1505599 (the "McKinsty Complaint").
The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class action, alleges
violation of California rest break laws and is similar to the
Burnell, Rudsell, Peck and Mares Complaints.  The case was removed
to federal court and was related to the Burnell, Rudsell and Peck
actions.

The issue of class certification must first be resolved before the
court will address the merits of these cases, and the Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages, pending
a determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend certification of the class in all of these
matters, as well as the merits of these matters, should the
classes be certified. The final disposition of these cases and the
impact of such final dispositions of these cases cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Mediate National Customer Service Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 mediate the National Customer Service Misclassification Class
Action Litigation.

On April 15, 2014, a collective and class action was filed by a
former Swift Customer Service Representative level four ("CSR
IV"), Lorraine Flores, individually and on behalf of herself and
all similarly-situated persons against Swift Transportation Co. of
Arizona, LLC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. CV 14-2900-AB(Ex) (the "Flores
Complaint").  The operative complaint alleges failure to pay
overtime under the FLSA, as well as California state law claims
including failure to pay timely final wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime, and violation of
the unfair competition law (four-year statute of limitations).

On October 3, 2014, the California District Court compelled, to
individual arbitration, CSR IVs who signed Arbitration Agreements.

On October 30, 2014, Flores' overtime claim under the FLSA was
conditionally certified and notice was issued to all CSR IVs.
Thirty-three CSR IVs who signed valid Arbitration Agreements filed
individual arbitrations with the American Arbitration Association
("AAA").  Approximately thirty-two CSR IVs who did not sign
Arbitration Agreements opted into the collective action.
The parties have agreed to mediate this matter.

On July 1, 2015, an Order was entered which stayed the matter so
that the parties may participate in mediation.  The derivative
arbitrations are also stayed while the parties pursue mediation.
Swift intends to mediate this case within the next two months.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition of this case cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Wash. OT Suit to Move Into Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 Washington
Overtime Class Action is now anticipated to move into discovery.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy
Slack, et al v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift
Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County ("the Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was
removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-
114380. The putative class includes all current and former
Washington state-based employee drivers during the three-year
statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and through
the present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and
overtime in accordance with Washington state law and that they
suffered unlawful deductions from wages.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as
it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other
class, including any class related to over-the-road drivers. The
parties dispute the definition of "dedicated" as used by the court
and a class notice has not yet been issued. The matter is now
anticipated to move into discovery.

The Company retains all of its defenses against liability and
damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend the merits of
these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Central Refrigerated Suit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company 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 parties are
currently conducting discovery in a class and collective action
involving Central Refrigerated Services, Inc.

On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree
filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit against
Central Refrigerated Services, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as
"Central"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. Through this action,
the plaintiffs alleged that Central misclassified owner-operator
drivers as independent contractors and were therefore liable to
these drivers for minimum wages and other employee benefits under
the FLSA. The complaint also alleged a federal forced labor claim
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595.

Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, the
district court issued an Order compelling arbitration and directed
that the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA should
proceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor claims
would proceed as separate individual arbitrations. A collective
arbitration was subsequently initiated with the AAA. Notice of the
collective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operators
who worked for Central Refrigerated Services, Inc. and leased a
vehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. The
parties are currently conducting discovery. No trial date has been
set by the arbitrator.

In addition to the collective arbitration that is pending before
the AAA, the three named plaintiffs, along with more than 310
other owner-operators, have initiated a series of individual,
bilateral proceedings against Central with the AAA.
Central intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
plaintiffs' claims in both the collective and individual
arbitration proceedings. The final disposition of this case and
the impact cannot be determined at this time.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Dismiss TelexFree Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Financial 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 the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the TelexFree Litigation.

On October 22, 2014, several pending lawsuits were consolidated
into a multi-district putative class action case captioned In re:
TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Number 4:14-md2566-TSH,
United States District Court District of Massachusetts. Synovus
Financial Corp. and Synovus Bank were named as defendants with
numerous other defendants in the purported class action lawsuit.
An Amended Complaint was filed on March 31, 2015 which
consolidated and amended the claims previously asserted. The
claims against Synovus Financial Corp. were dismissed by
Plaintiffs on April 10, 2015 so now, as to Synovus-related
entities, only claims against Synovus Bank remain pending.
TelexFree was a merchant customer of Base Commerce, LLC "Base
Commerce", an independent sales organization/member service
provider sponsored by Synovus Bank. The purported class action
lawsuit generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper
multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol
telephone services and that the various defendants, including
Synovus Bank, provided financial services to TelexFree that
allowed TelexFree to conduct its business operations. Synovus Bank
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on June 1, 2015.

Synovus Bank believes it has substantial defenses related to these
purported claims and intends to vigorously defend the claims
asserted. Synovus currently cannot reasonably estimate losses
attributable to this matter.


TALBOTS INC: "Lopez" Action Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Lopez, and others similarly situated v. The Talbots, Inc.,
Case No. RG 15785672 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, September
14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay for
overtime wages, unpaid overtime, untimely payment of wages, and
minimum compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.

The proposed class is defined as: "all current and former hourly
paid or non-exempt employees who worked for any of the Defendants
within the State of California at any time during the period from
four years preceding the filing of this Complaint to final
judgment."

The Plaintiff reserves the right to establish subclasses as
appropriate.

According to the complaint, The Talbots, Inc. is an unknown
business entity whose employees are engaged throughout the State
of California, including the County of Alameda.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: ((818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


TALON AIR: "Amaya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Amaya, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Talon Air Inc. and Adam Katz, Case No. 2:15-cv-05403
(N.D.N.Y., September 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing charter flights,
and aircraft management and maintenance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


TECO ENERGY: Appeals from Class Action Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Teco Energy, Inc. and Tampa Electric Company said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
appeals from the dismissal of class action lawsuits are pending.

In February 2011, New Mexico Gas Company experienced gas shortages
due to weather-related interruptions of electric service, weather-
related problems on the systems of various interstate pipelines
and in gas fields that are the sources of gas supplied to NMGC,
and high weather-driven usage. This gas supply disruption and high
usage resulted in the declaration of system emergencies by NMGC
causing involuntary curtailments of gas utility service to
approximately 28,700 customers (residential and business).

In March 2011, a customer purporting to represent a class
consisting of all "32,000 [sic] customers" who had their gas
utility service curtailed during the early-February system
emergencies filed a putative class action lawsuit against NMGC. In
March 2011, the Town of Bernalillo, New Mexico, purporting to
represent a class consisting of all "New Mexico municipalities and
governmental entities who have suffered damages as a result of the
natural gas utility shut off" also filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NMGC, four of its officers, and John and Jane Does
at NMGC. In July 2011, the plaintiff in the Bernalillo class
action filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff
purporting to represent a class of all "similarly situated New
Mexico private businesses and enterprises."

The two purported class action suits (three purported classes)
were consolidated. The court dismissed the class actions in their
entirety with prejudice in October 2014 and appeals from the
dismissal were taken by the plaintiffs in November 2014 and are
pending.


THORATEC CORPORATION: Parties Await Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, the parties in a class action
lawsuit are awaiting a ruling by the Court on Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

The Company said, "On January 24, 2014, we and three of our
present and former officers were named as defendants in a putative
shareholder class action entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case
No. 4:14-cv-00360, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California. The action asserts violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 21, 2014, the Court
appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff.

"On June 20, 2014, Mr. Cooper filed an amended class action
complaint ("Amended Complaint"), adding a former officer of the
Company as a defendant. The Amended Complaint alleged that during
proposed class period (April 29, 2010 to November 27, 2013,
inclusive), Defendants made false or misleading statements in
various SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and
healthcare conferences regarding the Company's business and
outlook, focusing primarily on Defendants' alleged failure to
disclose that there was a purported, known increase in the rate of
pump thrombosis for patients using the HeartMate II Left
Ventricular Assist Device during the proposed class period.
Plaintiff sought unspecified damages, among other relief.

"Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim on August 19, 2014, which the Court
granted in its entirety with leave to amend on November 26, 2014.
Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 20, 2015
(the "Second Amended Complaint").

"In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff amended the class
period from May 11, 2011 to August 6, 2014, inclusive, dropped a
former officer of the Company as a defendant, and added Plaintiff
Todd Labak, who is intended to replace Mr. Cooper as the Lead
Plaintiff because Mr. Cooper no longer has Thoratec stock
purchases within the proposed class period, among other changes.

"On March 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The motion
to dismiss is now fully briefed and the parties are awaiting a
ruling by the Court."


THORATEC CORPORATION: Solak v. Grossman Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company and its
directors were named on July 23, 2015, as defendants in a
purported class action shareholder lawsuit entitled Solak v.
Grossman, which was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda in connection with the Company's entry into a
merger agreement with St. Jude Medical, Inc. and certain other
parties named therein.

The Company said, "The lawsuit generally alleges that the members
of our Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in
negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement, that the Merger
Agreement undervalues the Company, that our stockholders will not
receive adequate or fair value for their common stock in the
Merger, and that the terms of the Merger Agreement impose improper
deal protection terms that preclude competing offers."

"Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to declare that the action
is properly maintainable as a class action and to enjoin the
Company from consummating the proposed Merger in the manner
provided for by the Merger Agreement. Plaintiffs further seek
unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' and experts' fees.

"Although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain,
based on the information currently available, we do not believe
the ultimate resolution of the above named actions will have a
material effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of
operations."


TORNIER NV: Consolidated Delaware Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Tornier N.V. continues to defend a consolidated class action
lawsuit filed in Delaware district court, the Company disclosed in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
28, 2015.

On November 25, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (Delaware Chancery
Court), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10400-CB. An amended complaint in the action was filed on February
6, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants Wright, the
Company, Trooper Holdings Inc. (Holdco), Trooper Merger Sub Inc.
(Merger Sub) and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,
among other things, that the members of the Wright board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright
shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Wright, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright
board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

Also on November 25, 2014, a second class action complaint was
filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the
Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (Tennessee Chancery
Court), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical
Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1721-1. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 7, 2015. On February 23, 2015, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action, as pending in the
Tennessee Chancery Court, without prejudice. Later on February 23,
2015, the plaintiff refiled the action in the Delaware Chancery
Court under the caption Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan
Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB.
The complaint names as defendants Wright, the Company, Holdco,
Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the Wright board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
merger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.
The complaint further alleges that Wright, the Company, Holdco and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated Paul
Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB,
and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright
Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption
In re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No.
10400-CB (Consolidated Delaware Action).

On November 26, 2014, a third class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial
District, at Memphis (the "Tennessee Circuit Court"), by a
purported shareholder of Wright under the caption City of Warwick
Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An
amended complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The
amended complaint names as defendants Wright, the Company, Holdco,
Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,
among other things, that the members of the Wright board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright
shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a fourth class action complaint was filed in
the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
Wright, the Company, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and
the members of the Wright board of directors. The amended
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the Wright board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
merger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.
The amended complaint further alleges that Wright, the Company,
Warburg Pincus, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 24, 2015, a fifth class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court, by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al.,
C.A. No. 10829-CB. The complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Wright
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Wright shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The complaint further alleges that
Wright, the Company, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs. In an order dated May 22, 2015, the
Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Prince action into the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1 (Consolidated Tennessee Action). In an order
dated April 9, 2015, the Tennessee Chancery Court stayed the
Consolidated Tennessee Action pending completion of the merger.

On May 28, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action
reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the cases, which has
been memorialized in a memorandum of understanding. In connection
with the contemplated settlement, Wright and the Company agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures in the Company's publicly-
filed Securities and Exchange Commission Form S-4 registration
statement, which were sought by the plaintiffs in connection with
the Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the Consolidated
Delaware Action also expect that, in connection with the
contemplated settlement, counsel for plaintiffs will make an
application for an award of attorneys' fees. The contemplated
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
completion of appropriate settlement documentation, approval by
the court, notice to the class and a hearing, and consummation of
the merger. There can be no assurance that the contemplated
settlement will be finalized or that court approval will be
granted.

None of the lawsuits has formally specified an amount of alleged
damages. As a result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
lawsuits. If any injunctive relief sought in these lawsuits were
to be granted, it could delay or prohibit the closing of the
merger. The Company believes that these lawsuits are without
merit.

In the opinion of management, as of June 28, 2015, the amount of
liability, if any, with respect to these matters, individually or
in the aggregate, will not materially affect the Company's
consolidated results of operations or financial position.


TOTAL MAINTENANCE: Faces "Paganas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Paganas v. Total Maintenance Solution, LLC, Aron Weber and
Reggie Tartagglione, Case No. 1:15-cv-05424(E.D.N.Y., September
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Total Maintenance Solution, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the
laws of the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Powers, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT S. POWERS
      1540 August Road
      North Babylon, NY 11703
      Telephone: (613) 940-7121


TOTAL THRU: Faces "Clinkingbeard" Suit over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ehren Clinkingbeard, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Total Thru Tubing Services, LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00823 (W.D. Tex., September 18, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Total Thru Tubing Services, LLC is an oilfield services company
that provides fishing services, through tubing, and milling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


TRUJILLO & TRUJILLO: Fails to Pay Employees OT, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, v. Trujillo & Trujillo Corp.,
d/b/a Tacos & Burritos Rancho Grande, and Jorge A. Trujillo, Case
No. 1:15-cv-08236 (N.D. Ill., September 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage rate and
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 3444 Ridge
Road, Lansing, 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


UCT CLEARVIEW: Faces "Lan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Doun Fuh Lan, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated v. UCT Clearview Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Peking
House, Lung Gang Chen, Annie Wang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05456 (E.D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage rate and
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate Peking House restaurant located at
185-23 Union Turnpike, Flushing, New York 11366 from April 2008 to
April 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Jaramillo" Trespassing Suit in Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio M. Jaramillo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P. f/k/a Santa
Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D", and
Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00478-HDM-VPC (D. Nev.,
September 18, 2015), is a class action that seeks to recover to
the class of Nevada property owners unpaid rents, damages, and
interest, as a result of the Defendant's trespass upon the class's
real property and wrongful occupation with the railroad to use the
subsurface of the railroad right-of-way.

The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runs
beneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
through El Paso County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. O'Mara, Esq.
      THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
      311 East Liberty Street
      Reno, Nevada 89501
      Telephone: (775) 323-1321
      Facsimile: (775) 323-4082
      E-mail: info@omaralaw.net

         - and -

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: mail@bottinilaw.com


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Regents Face Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Cyrus Jenani and Donna Arnds, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. The Regents of the University of
California and Does 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC595049
(Cal. Super., September 18, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
negligence and failure to exercise reasonable care in safeguarding
and protecting the Plaintiffs' and Class members' personally
identifiable information and medical records and private health
information.

The Regents of the University of California administers various
medical facilities within the University of California including
the various components of UCLA Health such as Ronald Reagan UCLA
Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, Resnick
Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel Children's Hospital
UCLA, and the UCLA Medical Group with a wide-reaching system of
primary-care and specialty-care offices throughout southern
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Bruce A. Broillet, Esq.
      Scott H. Carr, Esq.
      GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP
      100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2100, P.O. Box 2131
      Santa Monica, CA 90407-2131
      Telephone: (310) 576-1200
      Facsimile: (310) 570-1220

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zIk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com


US MILITARY: Veterans Used In Secret Experiments Files Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caitli Dickerson, writing for NPR, reportd that American service
members used in chemical and biological testing have some
questions: What exactly were they exposed to? And how is it
affecting their health?

Tens of thousands of troops were used in testing conducted by the
U.S. military between 1922 and 1975. As one Army scientist
explained, the military wanted to learn how to induce symptoms
such as "fear, panic, hysteria, and hallucinations" in enemy
soldiers. Recruitment was done on a volunteer basis, but the
details of the testing and associated risks were often withheld
from those who signed up.

Many of the veterans who served as test subjects have since died.
But, those who are still alive are part of a class action lawsuit
against the Army. If they're successful, the Army will have to
explain to anyone who was used in testing exactly what substances
they were given and any known risks. The Army would also have to
provide those veterans with health care for any illnesses that
result, in whole or in part, from the testing.

The law firm representing the veterans estimates at least 70,000
troops were used in the testing, including World War II veterans
exposed to mustard gas, whom NPR reported on earlier this summer.

Bill Blazinski has chronic lymphocytic leukemia, which he thinks
may have been caused by the military tests. He was 20 years old
when he volunteered in 1968.

"There would be a guaranteed three-day pass every weekend unless
you had a test," he says. "There would be no kitchen police
duties, no guard duties. And it sounded like a pretty good duty."

What sounded more like a vacation than military duty quickly
changed, he says. In one test, doctors said they would inject him
with an agent and its antidote back to back.

"We were placed in individual padded cells. And you know the nurse
left and I'm looking at this padded wall and I knew it was solid
but all of a sudden started fluttering like a flag does up on a
flag pole," he recalls.

To learn about what substances made him hallucinate, in 2006,
Blazinski requested the original test documents under the Freedom
of Information Act. "It showed an experimental antidote for nerve
agent poisoning with known side effects, and another drug designed
to reverse the effects of the first," he says."

Researchers kept information about which agents they were
administering from test subjects to avoid influencing the test
results. A lawyer representing the veterans, Ben Patterson of the
law firm Morrison and Foerster, says that's a problem.

"They don't know what they were exposed to. You know, some of
these substances were only referred to by code names," Patterson
says.

Code names such as CAR 302668. That's one of the agents, records
show, that researchers injected into Frank Rochelle in 1968.

During one test, Rochelle remembers that the freckles on his arms
and legs appeared to be moving. Thinking bugs had crawled under
his skin, he tried using a razor blade from his shaving kit to cut
them out. After that test, he says he hallucinated for 40 hours.

"There were animals coming out of the walls," he says. "I saw a
huge rabbit and he was solid white with red eyes."

In 1975, the Army's chief of medical research admitted to Congress
that he didn't have the funding to monitor test subjects' health
after they went through the experiments. Since then, the military
says it has ended all chemical and biological testing.

Test subjects like Rochelle say that's not enough.

"We were assured that everything that went on inside the clinic,
we were going to be under 100 percent observation; they were going
to do nothing to harm us," he says. "And also we were sure that we
would be taken care of afterwards if anything happened. Instead we
were left to hang out to dry."

The Department of Justice is representing the Army in the case and
declined to comment for this story. In June, an appeals court
ruled in favor of the veterans. The Army filed for a rehearing.


US SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Job-Related Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamad Fatchmahamad, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No.
709766 (N.Y. Super., September 17, 2105), seeks to recover
security guards' job-related expenses such as their costs and
expenses for cleaning and maintaining work uniforms, maximum
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs of the
action, pursuant to New York Labor Law.

U.S. Security, Inc. is engaged in the business of providing
security services within New York State, throughout the United
States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000-
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Karcsay" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Karcsay, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02110-BAS-MDD (S.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or
leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI
diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally
manipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent the
Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      Capstone Law APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
              Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Benipayo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Benipayo, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-04314-DMR (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or
leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI
diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally
manipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent the
Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
      125 University Avenue, Suite 102
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 868-2626
      Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
      E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Johnson Sr. and Michael E. Johnson Jr. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07394 (C.D. Cal., September 21,
2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California who
purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with
2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which
illegally manipulate the emissions control systems and
misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
      Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 400-3000
      Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
      E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
              skaplan@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Darren J. Check, Esq.
      Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
      Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              dcheck@ktmc.com
              pmuhic@ktmc.com
              namjed@ktmc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Bennett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02106-LAB-JMA (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is brought
on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or leased any
Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel
engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the
emissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'
emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
      Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SHACK
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (858) 485-6535
      Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
      E-mail: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
              natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bricker" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bricker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-01785-PK (D. Oreg., September 20, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all persons in Oregano who purchased or leased any
Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel
engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the
emissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'
emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David F. Sugerman, Esq.
      DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC
      707 SW Washington Street, Suite 600
      Portland, OR 97205
      Telephone: (503) 228-6474
      Facsimile: (503) 228-2556
      E-mail: david@davidsugerman.com

         - and -

      Tim Alan Quenelle, Esq.
      TIM QUENELLE, PC
      4248 Galewood St
      Lake Oswego, OR 97035
      Telephone (503) 675-4330
      E-mail: tim.quenelle@gmail.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "D'Angelo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. D'Angelo, an individual on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07390 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or
leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI
diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally
manipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent the
Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Vendler, Esq.
      Kevin M. Pollack, Esq.
      MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
      1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 417-5100
      Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
      E-mail: DVendler@mpplaw.com
              KPollack@mpplaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Redmond" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Davis Redmond, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-01648-MHH (N.D. Ala., September 21, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all persons in Alabama who purchased or leased any
Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel
engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the
emissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'
emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
      301 Washington St., Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com
              artrip@mastandoartrip.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dorn" Suit in Ill. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Dorn and Peter Haralovich, individually and as
representatives of all similarly situated persons v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08286 (N.D. Ill.,
September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in
Illinois who purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles
equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as "defeat
devices", which illegally manipulate the emissions control systems
and misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
      Edward R. Moor, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
              smm@cliffordlaw.com
              erm@cliffordlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dell'Aquila" Suit Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Dell'Aquila and Carrie Ullmer, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01525 (C.D. Cal., September 21,
2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California who
purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with
2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which
illegally manipulate the emissions control systems and
misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
      Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
      DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES
      440 West First Street, Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714) 953-1010
      Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
      E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
              skokonas@donahoo.com
              jcamilleri@donahoo.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lau" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Lau and Elaine Herman, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 5:15-cv-04302-HRL (N.D. Cal., September
21, 2015), et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01525 (C.D. Cal., September
21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California who
purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with
2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which
illegally manipulate the emissions control systems and
misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Andre M. Mura, Esq.
      Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
      Steve Lopez, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
              amm@girardgibbs.com
              smg@girardgibbs.com
              sal@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
      Shiho Yamamoto, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
              jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
              sy@pritzkerlevine.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Levin" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ari Levin, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06985-JLL-
JAD (D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
persons in New York who purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi
vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as
"defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the emissions control
systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during
emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay J. Rice, Esq.
      Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
      Diane E. Sammons, Esq.
      Randee Matloff, Esq.
      NAGEL RICE, LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 618-0400
      E-mail: jrice@nagelrice.com
              bnagel@nagelrice.com
              dsammons@nagelrice.com
              rmatloff@nagelrice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lowrance" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa K. Lowrance, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Autonation V. Imports of Delray Beach, LLC, Case
No. 0:15-cv-61993-UU (S.D. Fla., September 21, 2015), is brought
on behalf of all persons in Florida who purchased or leased any
Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel
engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the
emissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'
emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 SE Third Avenue
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 320-9507
      Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
      E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
              jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
              jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McCabe" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCabe, Madelyne McCabe, Peter Armon, Regina Armon, Scott
Wetzel, Kristin Green, & Christopher Woods, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01930 (C.D. Cal., September 20,
2015), is brought on behalf of all persons in California who
purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with
2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which
illegally manipulate the emissions control systems and
misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mitsuda" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Mitsuda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen of
America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07375 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is brought
on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or leased any
Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel
engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the
emissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'
emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.
are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States
of America.

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, 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
              dcw@mccunewright.com
              jkk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: JGS@chimicles.com
              MDS@chimicles.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Netkin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Netkin, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Does 1 to
10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07367 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or
leased any Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI
diesel engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally
manipulate the emissions control systems and misrepresent the
Class Vehicles' emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.
are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States
of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Starr, Esq.
      Adam Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
      23277 Ventura Boulevard
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
              adam@starrlaw.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC
      6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 924-3103
      Facsimile: (818) 924-3079
      E-mail: stephen@smh-legal.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Walker" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Walker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07395 (C.D. Cal., September 21, 2015), is brought
on behalf of all persons in California who purchased or leased any
Volkswagen or Audi vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel
engines, known as "defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the
emissions control systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles'
emissions during emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.
are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States
of America.

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Andre M. Mura, Esq.
      Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
      Steve Lopez, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
              amm@girardgibbs.com
              smg@girardgibbs.com
              sal@girardgibbs.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
      Shiho Yamamoto, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
              jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
              sy@pritzkerlevine.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Warren Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Manufacturing Incorporated, Warren Truck and Trailer
Incorporated, Warren Incorporated, Warren Truck and Trailer LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01655-JHE
(N.D. Ala., September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
persons in Alabama who purchased or leased any Volkswagen or Audi
vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines, known as
"defeat devices", which illegally manipulate the emissions control
systems and misrepresent the Class Vehicles' emissions during
emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc.
are engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, distributing, and selling automobiles and other motor
vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States
of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood,
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
              chood@hgdlawfirm.com
              taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

      James F. McDonough III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (404) 996-0869
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Illegally Installs Defeat Device, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Fiol, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04278 (N.D.
Cal., September 18, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
illegal installation of defeat device in the MY 2009-2015 VW
Jetta, MY 2009-2015 VW Beetle, MY 2009-2015 VW Golf, MY 2014-2015
VW Passat, and MY 2009-2015 Audi A3 vehicles.

The defeat device reduces the effectiveness of emissions control
system during normal driving conditions.

Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. manufactures, distributes, sell,
leases, and warrants vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand
names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN
      125 University Ave, Suite 102
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 868-2626
      Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
      E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com


WASHINGTON GROUP: Faces "Paparella" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vittorio Paparella, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. The Washington Group,
LLC and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC594871 (Del.
Super., September 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Washington Group, LLC is a California limited liability
company doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian S. Molnar, Esq.
      Ruzan Stepanyan, Esq.
      CHRISTIAN S. MOLNAR LAW CORPORATION
      12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180
      Los Angeles, CA 9025
      Telephone: (310) 820-9900
      Facsimile: (310) 820-9926
      E-mail: christian@christiansmolnarlaw.com


WATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in "Ponzo" Case Filed Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, 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 28, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
three actions have filed a consolidated amended complaint, Ponzo
v. Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors.

On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint, Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in
an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.


WATTS WATER: Plaintiffs in "Klug" Case Filed Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, 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 28, 2015, plaintiffs in Klug v.
Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., have filed an amended
complaint.

In February 2015, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts
Regulator Co. were named as defendants in a putative nationwide
class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et
al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska)
seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged
failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors.  On June 26, 2015,
the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint.  In
response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska. The complaint seeks
among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.


WEC ENERGY: Preliminary Settlement Approval Hearing Held
--------------------------------------------------------
WEC Energy 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 in the litigation
relating to the acquisition of Integrys, a court was slated to
hold a hearing for September 8, 2015 for preliminary approval of
the settlement.

Since the announcement of the acquisition, Integrys and its board
of directors, along with WEC Energy Group, have been named as
defendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits filed
in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases -- Rubin v.
Integrys, et al., Blachor v. Integrys, et al., and Albera v.
Integrys, et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases -
- Amo v. Integrys, et al. and Inman v. Integrys, et al.), Cook
County, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys, et al.
and Curley v. Integrys, et al.), and the federal court for the
Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v.
Integrys, et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys, et al., and
Collison v. Integrys, et al.).

In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, WEC Energy Group's CEO was also
named as a defendant. The cases were brought on behalf of proposed
classes consisting of shareholders of Integrys. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the Integrys board members
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value
to be received by Integrys' shareholders, that WEC Energy Group
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the
joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material misstatements
and omissions.

The Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed in
favor of the Milwaukee County actions.

On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding which provides the basis for a complete settlement
of these actions. A Stipulation of Settlement was presented to the
Court in late July 2015.

The Court has scheduled a hearing for September 8, 2015 for
preliminary approval of the settlement.


WELCH FOODS: Faces "Atik" Suit Over Alleged Product Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aliza Atik and Winnie Lau, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Welch Foods, Inc. and The Promotion in
Motion Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05405 (E.D.N.Y.,
September 18, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendants' deceptive
practices in misrepresenting the fruit content and the nutritional
and health qualities of Welch's fruit snacks.

Welch Foods, Inc. is a Michigan corporation that manufactures
grape juices, jams and jellies.

The Promotion in Motion Companies, Inc. is a maker of fruit
snacks, fruit rolls, and private label confections and food
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kim E. Richman, Esq.
      THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      195 Plymouth Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Telephone: (212) 687-8291
      Facsimile: (212) 687-8292
      E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Stephen Gardner, Esq.
      Amanda Howell, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
      E-mail: steve@consumerhelper.com
              ahowell@stanleylawgroup.com


WP GLIMCHER: Paid Plaintiffs' Fee Award and Expenses
----------------------------------------------------
WP Glimcher Inc. has paid the plaintiffs' fee award and expenses
in the aggregate amount of $443,000 in a class action lawsuit, the
Company 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.

Two shareholder lawsuits challenging the Merger-related
transactions have been filed in Maryland state court, respectively
captioned Zucker v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-005675
(Circ. Ct. Baltimore City), filed on October 2, 2014, and Motsch
v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-006011 (Circ. Ct.
Baltimore City), filed on October 23, 2014. The actions were
consolidated, and on November 12, 2014 plaintiffs filed a
consolidated shareholder class action and derivative complaint,
captioned In re Glimcher Realty Trust Shareholder Litigation, 24-
C-14-005675 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City) (the "Consolidated
Action"). The Consolidated Action names as defendants the then
members of the Glimcher Board of Trustees (the "trustees"), and
alleges these defendants breached fiduciary duties. Specifically,
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action allege that the trustees of
Glimcher agreed to sell Glimcher for inadequate consideration and
agreed to improper deal protection provisions that precluded other
bidders from making successful offers. Plaintiffs further allege
that the sales process was flawed and conflicted in several
respects, including the allegation that the trustees failed to
canvas the market for potential buyers, failed to secure a "go-
shop" provision in the merger agreement allowing Glimcher to seek
alternative bids after signing the merger agreement, and were
improperly influenced by WPG's early suggestion that the surviving
entity would remain headquartered in Ohio and would retain a
significant portion of Glimcher management, including the
retention of Michael Glimcher as CEO of the surviving entity and
positions for Michael Glimcher and another trustee of Glimcher on
the board of the surviving entity. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action additionally allege that the Preliminary Registration
Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") on October 28, 2014, failed to disclose material
information concerning, among other things, (i) the process
leading up to the consummation of the Merger Agreement; (ii) the
financial analyses performed by Glimcher's financial advisors; and
(iii) certain financial projections prepared by Glimcher and WPG
management allegedly relied on by Glimcher's financial advisors.
The Consolidated Action also names as defendants Glimcher, WPG and
certain of their affiliates, and alleges that these defendants
aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty.
Plaintiffs sought, among other things, an order enjoining or
rescinding the transaction, damages, and an award of attorney's
fees and costs.

On December 22, 2014, defendants, including the Company, in the
Consolidated Action, by and through counsel, entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action providing for the settlement of the
Consolidated Action. Under the terms of the MOU, and to avoid the
burden and expense of further litigation, the Company and Glimcher
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
then-proposed Merger, all of which were set forth in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed by Glimcher with the SEC on December 23,
2014. On January 12, 2015, at the Special Meeting of Glimcher
shareholders, the shareholders voted to approve the Merger, and on
January 15, 2015 the Merger closed.

The MOU contemplated that the parties would enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The parties entered into such a
stipulation on March 30, 2015. The stipulation of settlement was
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Glimcher's common shareholders. Additionally,
in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City for an award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to
exceed $425,000 and reasonable, documented expenses in an amount
not to exceed $20,000, to be paid by the Company. Accordingly, the
Company accrued $445,000 related to this matter, which expense is
included in merger and transaction costs for the six months ended
June 30, 2015 in the accompanying consolidated and combined
statements of operations and comprehensive income.

On June 17, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel requested a fee award of
$425,000 plus expenses of $18,000, which amounts are covered by
our accrual. A hearing was held on July 17, 2015 at which the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City considered the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. Following the
hearing, the court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving
the settlement and dismissing the Consolidated Action. The Order
and Final Judgment approved plaintiffs' fee award and expenses in
the aggregate amount of $443,000, which the Company paid on July
23, 2015.


ZILLOW GROUP: 2 Class Actions Filed Against Directors
-----------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2015, that in July
2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against
Zillow Group, Inc. and each of our directors in the Superior Court
of the State of Washington in King County, alleging, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the approval of the issuance of non-voting Class C
capital stock as a dividend, previously announced on July 21, 2015
(the "Class C Dividend"). The complaints seek, among other things,
injunctive relief and unspecified monetary damages.

A hearing was held on August 5, 2015 regarding the plaintiffs'
motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the issuance of
the Class C Dividend. On August 5, 2015, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. As a result and
as previously announced, holders of Zillow Group Class A common
stock and Class B common stock as of the close of business on July
31, 2015, the record date for the dividend, will receive on August
14, 2015 a dividend of two shares of Class C capital stock for
each share of Class A and Class B common stock held by them as of
the record date.

"On the first trading day following the issuance date of the
dividend, we expect our Class C capital stock will trade,
beginning on August 17, 2015, on the NASDAQ Global Select Market
("NASDAQ") under the symbol "Z" and our Class A common stock will
trade on the NASDAQ under the symbol "ZG"," the Company said.


ZULILY INC: "Mao" Suit Says Liberty Deal Undervalues Stock
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Mao, and all others similarly-situated v. zulily, Inc.,
Darrell Cavens, Mark Vadon, W. Eric Carlborg, John Geschke, Mike
Gupta, Youngme Moon, Michael Potter, Spencer Rascoff, Liberty
Interactive Corporation, Mocha Merger Sub, Inc., and Ziggy Merger
Sub, LLC, Case No 2:15-cv-01479 (W.D. Wash., September 15, 2015),
seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief under Sections
14(d)4 , 14(e) and 20(a) of the securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The stockholder class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among Zulily's co-founders and Board Members, who will
collectively make more than $1 billion should the materially
incomplete and misleading Proposed Transaction that undervalues
Zulily shares, is consummated.

On August 17, 2015, zulily and Liberty jointly announced that they
had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Reorganization
pursuant to which Liberty will commence an exchange offer to
acquire all of zulily's outstanding common stock for consideration
comprised of:

     (i) $9.375 per share of zulily common stock in cash, and

    (ii) 0.3098 of a share of Liberty's Series A QVC Group Common
Stock, plus cash in lieu of any fractional shares.

The Complaint points out that while the Company's stock went
public at $22 per share in November 2013 and skyrocketed to $73.50
in February 2014, the Company's stockholders now stand to receive
consideration valued at only $18.75 a share.

zulily is a Delaware corporation that maintains its principal
executive offices in Seattle, Washington. The Company is an online
retailer that focuses on selling merchandise to moms purchasing
for their children, themselves, and their homes. The Company
offers its products through a flash sales model using its desktop
and mobile websites and mobile applications.

Defendant Darrell Cavens is one of zulily's co-founders, and has
served as the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer and a
member of the Board since October 2009. From July 2008 to October
2009, Cavens served as a director at Microsoft Corporation. From
1999 to 2008, Cavens held various positions at Blue Nile, an
online jewelry retailer. From 1996 to 1999, Cavens served as a
staff engineer at Starwave Corp., a software and website company
that merged with InfoSeek Corporation, an internet search and
navigation company, and was later acquired by The Walt Disney
Company. Cavens is a citizen of Washington.

Defendant Mark Vadon is one of zulily's co-founders, has served as
Chairman of the Board since October 2009, and has been an employee
of the Company since July 2013. From 1999 to February 2008, Vadon
was Chief Executive Officer of Blue Nile, which he founded in
1999. Vadon also served as Chairman of the board of directors of
Blue Nile from 1999 to December 2013. From 1992 to 1999, Vadon was
a consultant for Bain & Company, a management consulting firm.
Vadon is also on the board of directors of The Home Depot Inc.
Vadon is a citizen of Washington.

Defendant W. Eric Carlborg has served as a member of the Board
since October 2011. Since June 2010, Carlborg has served as a
partner at August Capital, a venture capital firm. From April 2006
to June 2010, Carlborg served as a partner at Continental
Investors LLC, an investment company. From 2005 to 2006, Carlborg
served as Chief Financial Officer of Provide Commerce, Inc., an e-
commerce company. From 2001 to 2004, Carlborg was a managing
director of investment banking with Merrill Lynch & Co. Carlborg
previously served on the board of directors of Big Lots, Inc., a
discount chain of retail stores, and Blue Nile, Inc. Carlborg is
currently on the board of directors of various privately held
companies. Carlborg is a citizen of California.

Defendant John Geschke has served as a member of the Board since
February 2014. Since July 2012, Geschke has served as Senior Vice
President, General Counsel and Secretary of Zendesk, Inc., a
software development company. From April 2010 to June 2012,
Geschke served as General Counsel of Norwest Venture Partners, a
venture capital firm. From March 1996 to April 1998 and from May
1999 to March 2010, Geschke practiced law at Cooley LLP. Geschke
is a citizen of California.

Defendant Mike Gupta has served as a member of the Board since
January 2015. Since September 2014, Gupta has served as Senior
Vice President of Strategic Investments at Twitter, Inc. Prior to
that, Gupta served as Chief Financial Officer of Twitter from
December 2012 to August 2014 and as Vice President of Corporate
Finance and Treasurer from November 2012 to December 2012. From
May 2011 to November 2012, Gupta served in two roles at Zynga
Inc., an online provider of social game services, including as
Senior Vice President and Treasurer. From February 2003 to May
2011, Gupta served in several roles at Yahoo! Inc. Gupta is a
citizen of California.

Defendant Youngme Moon has served as a member of the Board since
July 2013. Moon is currently a dean and professor at Harvard
Business School, where he joined the faculty in June 1998. From
1997 to 1998, Moon was a professor at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. Moon is a citizen of Massachusetts.

Defendant Michael Potter has served as a member of the Board since
March 2011. From October 2011 to March 2012, Potter served as
zulily's Chief Operating Officer. From 1991 to 2005, Potter held
various positions with Big Lots, most recently serving as
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer. Potter previously
served on the board of directors of Newegg Inc., an online
retailer, Coldwater Creek Inc., a retailer of clothing and
household goods, and Big Lots. Potter also currently serves on the
board of directors of Blue Nile. Potter is a citizen of Oregon.

Defendant Spencer Rascoff has served as a member of the Board
since June 2013. Since September 2010, Rascoff has been the Chief
Executive Officer of Zillow, Inc., a provider of real estate and
home-related information marketplaces. From 2003 to 2005, Rascoff
served as Vice President of Lodging for Expedia, Inc., an online
travel company. In 1999, Rascoff co-founded Hotwire, Inc., an
online travel company, and managed several of Hotwire's product
lines before Hotwire was acquired in 2003 by IAC/InterActiveCorp,
Expedia's parent company at the time. Rascoff is also on the board
of directors of Zillow, Julep Beauty Incorporated, an online
beauty brand company, and TripAdvisor Incorporated, a travel
services company. Rascoff faced conflicts of interest as a result
of his various board positions, and was thus purportedly required
to recuse himself from discussions and deliberations of the Board
regarding the Proposed Transaction. Rascoff is a citizen of
Washington.

Ziggy Merger Sub, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company and
a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty, and was created for
purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

Mocha Merger Sub, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and a direct,
wholly owned subsidiary of Ziggy Merger Sub, LLC, and was created
for purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

QVC, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Interactive
Corporation, and is the world's leading video and ecommerce
retailer. QVC sells its customers thousands of the most innovative
and contemporary beauty, fashion, jewelry and home products. Its
programming is distributed to approximately 340 million homes
worldwide through operations in the U.S., Japan, Germany, United
Kingdom, Italy, France and a joint venture in China. Based in West
Chester, Pennsylvania and founded in 1986, QVC has evolved from a
TV shopping company to a leading ecommerce and mobile commerce
retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
     Roger Townsend, Esq.
     1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Tel: (206) 652-8660
     Fax: (206) 652-8290
     E-mail: Rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

          - and -

     POMERANTZ LLP
     Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
     Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
             sjadams@pomlaw.com


                            *********

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  * * *