CAR_Public/151001.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 196


                            Headlines


AAC HOLDINGS: "Tenzyk" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
AIR METHODS: Faces "Griffith" Suit Over Excessive Fees
ALERE INC: Class Action Parties Reached Settlement in Principle
ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Sued Over Contaminated Cucumbers

ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Lead
ANTHEM INC: Judge Appoints Lead Counsel in Data Breach Litigation
APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Red Apple Slices Due to Listeria
APPLIED MACHINERY: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over FLSA Violations

ARGENTINA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Bond Dispute Appeal
BIG GREEK'S: "Sandercock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
BILL COSBY: Judge Denies Motions in Sexual-Assault Lawsuit
BITCOIN SAVINGS: Founder Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud
BORGATA HOTEL: Court Tosses "Borgata Babes" Discrimination Claims

BP PLC: 5th Circuit Certifies "Postpill" Class of Investors
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
CARPENTER CO: December 15 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Wage Class Action Can Proceed
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Settles Female Workers' Civil Rights Suit

CUSTOM PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
DOLE FOOD: 3rd Cir. Rejects Farmworkers' Appeal in Pesticide Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Greer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DUKE ENERGY: Delaware Court Stays Coal Ash Derivative Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Oppositions to Class Cert. Motion Filed

DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Altaflo Case
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Sentry Case Held Informal Talks

ENVIVIO INC: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Ericsson Merger
ESG SECURITY: Dropped From State Fair Stage Collapse Class Action
EXXON MOBIL: Environmental Groups Revive Settlement Challenge
FACEBOOK INC: Defends $20MM Sponsored Stories Settlement
FISKER AUTOMOTIVE: Judge Allows Shareholders' Suit to Proceed

FREEMAN CO: Akin Gump Gets $1MM in Fees in Background Check Case
FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces "Barrie" Suit Over Proposed Westport Merger
GEB MEDICAL: Jury Awards $4.5MM in Pregnancy Discrimination Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Penalties Not Enough, Critics Say
GENERAL MOTORS: Employees May Still Face Charges Despite Pact

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: New Zofran Birth-Defect MDL Heads to Pa. Court
GLOBAL CONTACT: Faces "Motta" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
GODADDY: Faces Suit Related to Ashley Madison Data Breach
GOOGLE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged Email Scanning
GOOGLE INC: Judge Slashes "No-Poach" Lawyers' Fees in Half

GRUENENTHAL: Spain's Supreme Court Upholds Thalidomie Ruling
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settles Shareholder Action for $2.75MM
HP ENTERPRISE: Families of Navy Yard Shooting Victims File Suit
IOWA SELECT: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Misbranding
JACOBY & MEYERS: Faces Second Billing-Practices Suit

JAMES PEISTER: Gets 6-Year Prison Sentence Over Ponzi Scheme
JESS RG: "Pena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
KAROUN DAIRIES: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Oct. 8 Hearing on Case Dismissal Bid
LOTERIA GRILL: "Cano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MAXIM INTEGRATED: Judge OK's Damages Expert Testimony in App MDL
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces "Morishige" Suit Over Defective Windshields
MEDISTAT RX: Recalls Sterile Drug Products Due to Contamination
MICROSOFT CORP: Female Employees File Discrimination Class Action
MID-AMERICA SOUND: Court to Decide on State Fair Stage Case

MIDAMAR CORP: Pleads Guilty of Exporting Misbranded Beef Products
MILBERG LLP: Appeals Court Paves Way for Malpractice Class Action
MINDFINDERS INC: Sued Over Violation of D.C. Sick Leave Laws
MITEL NETWORKS: Entered Into Non-Binding MOU to Settle Action
MONSTER INC: Falsely Marketed HDMI Cables, "Joseph" Suit Claims

NASDAQ OMX: To Seek Dismissal of "Rabin" Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Defends Sunday Ticket Antitrust Class Actions
NBTY ACQUISITION: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NELNET INC: Court of Appeals Affirmed Case Dismissal
NEW YORK, NY: Asks High Court to Review $18MM Rape Kit Verdict

OC JEWELRY: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Two Shareholder Class Actions
OKARCHE BAKERY: Recalls Frozen Cookie Dough Due to Allergens
ONE MINUTE: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Undeclared Drugs
ORGANICGIRL PRODUCE: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Cadmium

PEANUT CORPORATION: Former Executive Gets 28 Years in Prison
PICNIC GOURMET: Recalls Yogurt Cheese Spreads Due to Listeria
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Judge Certifies Class in Securities Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During Q2
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 442 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Fed. Court

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion for Rehearing Pending in "Graham"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Engle Progeny Cases Have Become Final
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $363MM Judgments in Engle Progeny Outstanding
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 33 Cases Scheduled for Trial Through June 2016
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "Ryan" Plaintiff

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "Russo" Defendants
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Declared Mistrial in "Dupre" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for RJR in "Gray" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Punitive Damages Not Awarded in "Hardin" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "McCoy" Plaintiff

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "Larkin" Plaintiff
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 112 Individual Smoking & Health Cases Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Conn. Court Decision in "Izzarelli" Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: New Trial Set for Feb. 2016 in "Whitney" Case
SCR MEDICAL: Illegally Procures Background Check, Suit Claims

SECURIGUARD INC: 5th Circuit Reverses Ruling in Lunch Break Suit
ST JUDE: Faces "Dougherty" Over Unlawful Termination Policies
STERLING JEWELERS: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Gender Bias Case
STEVENS TRANSPORT: Engages in Spoliation Battle with FedEx Unit
TAKATA CORP: Automakers Ask Judge to Stay Airbag Litigation

TEXAS: Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs File Attorney Fee Request
THOMSON SA: October 23 Motion for Attorney's Fee Hearing Set
TILLY'S INC: Faces "Ward" Suit Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time
TOYOBO CO: Bulletproof Vest Case Moves Closer to Trial
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Joint Underwriting Assoc Cases Still Pending

TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Litigation
TWITTER INC: Faces Class Action Over Direct Messages
TYSON FOODS: Obtains Favorable Rulings in Class Action Appeals
UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit Over Pre-Employment Background Checks
UBER TECH: Dolan Firm Withdraws Case Over App

UBER TECH: Appeals Class Certification in Drivers' Case
UBER TECH: French Court Upholds Ban on Ride-Hailing Service
UNITED STATES: DOJ Wants OPM Data Breach Suits Consolidated
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Loses Bid for Class Action Defense Coverage
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bonda" Suit in Mass. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Catlett" Suit in UT Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bonda" Suit in Mass. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Catlett" Suit in UT Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clinton" Suit in NY Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Criston" Suit in NY Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Defiesta" Suit in NJ Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Harris" Suit in Tex. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hendricks" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kindsvatter" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Macauley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Minkina" Suit in NJ Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Naparstek" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Silverman" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stricklin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Temkin" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Wagner" Suit in Ky. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weiland" Suit in Fla Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Yell" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Legal Woes Over Emissions Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Earmarks EUR6.5BB for Emissions Scandal Fallout
WALT DISNEY: Taps Two Veteran Lawyers to Defend No-Poach Case
WALGREEN CO: Accused by Missouri AG of Deceiving Consumers
WHISPERTEXT LLC: Judge Tosses Text Message App Class Action

WILLIS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Scheduled to be Fully Briefed
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Not Yet Responded to "Rupert" Suit
WILLIS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Casanova" Case Set for Briefing
WILLIS GROUP: Oral Argument Scheduled in "Rishmague" Case Appeal
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Not Yet Responded to MacArthur Suit

WILLIS GROUP: Have Not Yet Replied to "Ranni", "Barbar" Suits
WILLIS GROUP: Scheduling Order in "Troice", "Janvey" Consolidated
WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Not Yet Responded to NJ Complaints
ZULILY INC: Faces "Mada" Suit Over Proposed Liberty Merger

* Companies May Use Insurance for Call Recording Class Actions
* Supreme Court Set to Hear Four Class Actions This Upcoming Term
* Surge in Lawsuits Seen Over Inadequate Cybersecurity
* Tech Companies May Face Suits Over Subscription Auto-Renewal


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: "Tenzyk" Suit Alleges Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judith D. Tenzyk, and all others similarly-situated v. AAC
Holdings, Inc., Jerrod N. Menz, Michael T. Cartwright and Kathryn
Sevier-Phillips, Case No. 3:15-cv-00986 (M.D. Tenn., September 14,
2015), seeks compensatory and punitive damages against the
Defendants for alleged material misrepresentations and material
omissions in violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC common stock
between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive.

AAC provides substance abuse treatment services for individuals
with drug and alcohol addiction. It also provides treatment
services for individuals struggling with behavioral health
disorders. AAC's principal executive office is located in
Brentwood, Tennessee. The company's common shares trade on the
NYSE under the trading symbol of AAC.

Michael T. Cartwright is AAC's chairman and chief executive
officer. Mr. Cartwright has served as Board Chair since 2011 and
CEO since June 2013.

Jerrod N. Menz was the president and member of the Board of
Directors of AAC until his indictment for murder.  Mr. Menz
remains an employee of AAC.

Kathryn Sevier Phillips is the secretary/general counsel of AAC.
Ms. Phillips joined AAC as general counsel and secretary in 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
      P. O. Box 150734
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Tel: (615) 248-2828
      Fax: (866) 816-4116
      E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com


AIR METHODS: Faces "Griffith" Suit Over Excessive Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Joel Griffith, and all others similarly situated v. Air Methods
Corporation and Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-
03668 (D.S.C., September 14, 2015), seeks damages against the
Defendants alleged violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act, S.C. Code section 39-5-10, et seq.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from charging above the
reasonable rate for services entered.

The Defendants provide emergency medical air evacuation services
in the U.S. It offers community-based and hospital-based service
delivery models utilizing helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Preston "Pete" Strom, Jr., Esq.
      STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
      2110 N. Beltline Boulevard
      Columbia, SC 29204
      Tel: (803) 252-4800
      Fax: (803) 252-4801
      E-mail: petestrom@stromlaw.com

          - and -

      Patrick Richardson, Esq.
      WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, L.L.C.
      P.O. Box 1368
      1730 Jackson Street
      Barnwell, SC 29812
      Tel: (803) 541-7850
      Fax: (803) 541-9625


ALERE INC: Class Action Parties Reached Settlement in Principle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties to the litigation
have reached a settlement in principle.

In September 2012, a password-protected laptop containing
personally identifiable information of approximately 116,000
patients was stolen from an employee of Alere Home Monitoring, or
AHM.  On January 24, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AHM, asserting claims for damages and other relief under
California state law, including under California's Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act, or CMIA, arising out of this theft.

On October 7, 2014, the class action was dismissed with leave to
amend the complaint. On October 28, 2014, an amended complaint was
filed, and on November 17, 2014 AHM responded by filing another
motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2015, AHM's motion to dismiss
was granted in part, but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA
claims.

The parties to the litigation have reached a settlement in
principle that, if approved, will result in a nominal payment by
Alere.


ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the Andrew and Williamson Fresh Produce recall
of cucumbers that may be contaminated with Salmonella Poona,
Safeway is voluntarily recalling made-to-order deli sandwiches
with cucumbers produced by Andrew and Williamson and sold in nine
Safeway and Carrs stores in Alaska.

Sandwiches were sold from August 1 through September 4 from the
full-service sandwich counter. The stores include:

  --- Carrs at 1725 Abbott Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507
  --- Carrs at 1650 W Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99517
  --- Carrs at 5600 Debarr Rd., Anchorage, AK 99504
  --- Carrs at 1340 Gambell St., Anchorage, AK 99501
  --- Carrs at 1501 Huffman Rd., Anchorage, AK 99515
  --- Safeway at 1907 Seward Hwy., Seward, AK 99664
  --- Safeway at 1313 Meals St., Valdez, AK 99686
  --- Safeway at 90 Sterling Hwy., Homer, AK 99603
  --- Safeway at 301 N Santa Claus Ln., North Pole, AK 99705

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

No illnesses have been associated with Safeway or Carrs
sandwiches. We are recalling the sandwiches out of an abundance of
caution.

Customers who purchased the recalled sandwiches from the above-
listed stores should discard or return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Customers who have questions about the recall can contact Safeway
at 1-877-SAFEWAY or Andrew and Williamson at 1-844-483-3864.


ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Sued Over Contaminated Cucumbers
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Minnesota woman who became
sick after eating cucumbers that may have contained salmonella is
suing a California company.

The lawsuit filed on Sept. 7 says Kathleen Dvergsten got sick
after eating a salad at a Red Lobster in Farmington.  She became
severely ill on Aug. 14 and was hospitalized for nearly a week.

Ms. Dvergsten is suing Andrew and Williamson Fresh Produce, Inc.
The San Diego company voluntarily recalled "Limited Edition" brand
cucumbers on Sept. 4 and has said it's working to determine if the
cucumbers are involved in the outbreak that's sickened nearly 300
people in 27 states.

The lawsuit says Andrew and Williamson had a duty to sell safe
foods.  It says Ms. Dvergsten seeks unspecified compensation for
medical expenses and suffering.

Company official Dave Murray declined to comment because of
pending litigation.


ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Lead
-------------------------------------------------------
Anhing Corporation of Los Angeles, CA is recalling ABC Cookies
Banh Chu it imported due to an elevated level of lead. ABC Cookies
Banh Chu is made in Vietnam.

Anhing Corporation learned on August 12, 2015, from the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH), that the ABC Cookies contained
lead in excess of the California State requirements and as such
could cause health problems to consumers, particularly infants,
small children, and pregnant women. Anhing Corporation immediately
quarantined the remaining inventory of the ABC Cookies and is
notifying 4 retailers in California who received 4 cartons (total
96 jars) to stop selling and for consumers not to eat these
cookies.

The ABC Cookies Banh Chu is contained in a plastic jar shaped and
painted as a cat's face. The bottle has a red lid that contains a
paper label with a picture of the cookies the name "ABC Cookies
Banh Chu" the Caravelle brand logo, the ingredient declaration,
the net weight, and the name and address of Anhing Corporation.
Each jar contains 7 ounces of cookies.

Recent analysis of the ABC Cookies by CDPH revealed that each
cookie contained a lead level of 0.13 ppm and 13 ppm per labeled
serving size. California considers products to be consumed by
children with a lead level in excess of FDA's provisional total
tolerable intake level (PTTIL) for lead by small children of 6
micrograms to be adulterated. Therefore, sale of these cookies are
prohibited in the State of California.

Anhing Corporation was unaware of the problem when it imported the
product and wants to ensure its products are safe. Therefore, in
in an abundance of caution in addition to its ongoing cooperation
with the CDPH, Anhing Corporation is voluntarily recalling all ABC
Cookies from the marketplace. Consumers in possession of packages
of ABC Cookies should not eat them and should return the cookies
to the place of purchase.

Although the level encountered by CDPH is slightly higher than the
legal level of acceptance pregnant women and parents of children
who may have consumed this cookies should consider consulting
their physician or health care provider to determine whether
further medical testing is necessary. For more information about
lead poisoning, parents and caretakers should contact their local
childhood lead poisoning prevention program or local public health
department.


ANTHEM INC: Judge Appoints Lead Counsel in Data Breach Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge has appointed Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon and Andrew
Friedman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll as co-lead plaintiffs
counsel for the massive data-breach litigation against health
insurer Anthem Inc.

In an order on Sept. 11, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the
Northern District of California said Cervantez and Friedman each
had performed considerable work on the case, had demonstrated
experience in handling complex class actions and had worked well
together as interim lead counsel.

Judge Koh also appointed attorneys Eric Gibbs of Girard Gibbs and
Michael Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein to serve on
plaintiffs steering committee.

The litigation stems from Anthem's announcement earlier this year
that hackers had accessed a database containing as many as 80
million customer records, including names, birthdays and Social
Security numbers.  In June, more than 100 breach-related suits
were transferred to Judge Koh by the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  Judge Koh appointed Ms. Cervantez and
Mr. Friedman to temporarily coordinate efforts for the plaintiffs
and negotiate scheduling issues with Anthem's counsel at Hogan
Lovells.

Seventeen separate plaintiffs groups had petitioned for the lead
counsel role, including Hausfeld; Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy;
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; and Milberg.

"The court encourages Ms. Cervantez and Mr. Friedman, as needed,
to consult with the other applicants regarding devising damages
theories, retaining data security experts, litigating against the
defendants in this case, and identifying and communicating with
potential plaintiffs," Judge Koh wrote.

                           *     *     *

Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that competition for
the lead counsel role in data-breach litigation targeting Anthem
Inc. spawned a feeding frenzy in the plaintiffs bar -- albeit a
well-behaved one.  Seventeen separate plaintiffs groups were set
for a hearing on Sept. 10 before Judge Koh over who will lead the
case against Anthem.  Among the firms that jockeyed for top
billing are Hausfeld; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy; Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Milberg; and
Berger & Montague, each touting their own records in complex class
actions and privacy litigation.

But, following Judge Koh's direction, the vast majority of firms
have steered clear of criticizing other bids.

In her preliminary schedule for the case, Judge Koh set a date for
oppositions to motions for the lead counsel slot -- the usual
place where gripes between plaintiffs groups get aired.  In a
follow-up order, Judge Koh wrote that she "hope[d] not to receive
any such oppositions."

Anthem announced in February that hackers had accessed a database
containing as many as 80 million customer records, including
names, birthdays and Social Security numbers.  In June, the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation routed more than 100
breach-related class actions filed against the company to Judge
Koh.

Judge Koh appointed Eve Cervantez --
ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler Berzon and
Andrew Friedman -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen
Milstein to temporarily take the lead for plaintiffs to negotiate
scheduling issues with Anthem's counsel at Hogan Lovells.
Although the preliminary appointment seemingly gives them a leg
up, Judge Koh wrote that the "designations are not a precursor of
future appointments, but simply a means to initiate the process"
of moving the case forward.

Still, Altshuler Berzon and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll have
jointly petitioned for the top spot and propose a six-firm
steering committee including Eric Gibbs of Girard Gibbs and
Michael Sobol of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  "Whether
overtly acknowledged or not, the scope of this case will (or
should) require anyone selected as lead or co-lead counsel to draw
on the ample pool of competent counsel who have filed Anthem
actions," they wrote.

That proposal elicited the only opposition filed in the lead
counsel briefing.  Shawn Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller wrote that having eight firms take the lead was
"not small, not efficient, and not necessary."  But Mr. Williams
wrote that if Judge Koh found a three-firm leadership structure
preferable, partner Paul Geller -- PGeller@rgrdlaw.com -- "would
be honored to serve the class" alongside Ms. Cervantez and
Mr. Friedman.

Robbins Geller's opposition motion also makes a nod to the
difficult legal landscape facing the Anthem plaintiffs.  Several
other firms, Mr. Williams wrote, cited their work on privacy cases
that resulted in negligible financial recoveries for plaintiffs in
their bids for the lead counsel spot.

                           *     *     *

Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that with 17
competing groups vying to be appointed lead counsel in data-breach
litigation against Anthem Inc., Judge Koh said on Sept. 10 that
she was "disappointed" with the application from the two lawyers
she temporarily appointed to lead the case.

Although Judge Koh expressed a desire to keep the plaintiffs team
lean, the temporary co-leads, Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon
and Andrew Friedman of Cohen Milstein, proposed to run the case
using a six-firm steering committee.

"I'm very disappointed that you need eight firms," Judge Koh said.
"It makes me wonder whether your two firms don't have the
resources or the expertise" to litigate the case.

Anthem announced earlier this year that hackers had accessed a
database containing as many as 80 million customer records,
including names, birthdays and Social Security numbers.  In June,
more than 100 breach-related suits against Anthem were transferred
to Judge Koh by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.   Judge Koh appointed Ms. Cervantez and Mr. Friedman
to temporarily coordinate efforts for the plaintiffs and negotiate
scheduling issues with Anthem's counsel at Hogan Lovells.

When Judge Koh asked about the firms' ability to handle the case,
Ms. Cervantez replied that both have the necessary resources, but
that they wanted to be transparent about the need to reach out to
other firms to manage specific tasks such as identifying name
plaintiffs and finding expert witnesses.

Even with a six-firm steering committee, Mr. Cohen said he and Ms.
Cervantez would be doing most of the work.

"This is not a free-for-all. This is not eight firms working
together.  This is two firms, two people -- Ms. Cervantez and
myself -- leading the charge," Mr. Cohen said.

The back-and-forth between Judge Koh and the two temporary co-
leads was one of the few contentious moments in the discussion.
Judge Koh said the collection of talent gathered was "incredible"
and that she would have a difficult time picking lead counsel.
She gave each group vying for the top spot an opportunity to
speak, asking most how many lawyers would be working on the case.
While judges generally express a preference for a streamlined
team, plaintiffs firms often favor larger slates to build support
for their bid, position themselves to get future work and to
spread both the workload and financial costs on large cases.  The
steering committee proposed by Cervantez and Friedman would
include Eric Gibbs of Girard Gibbs and Michael Sobol of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, both heavy hitters in the plaintiffs
bar.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd's Paul Geller, whose firm also is
pursuing lead counsel status, suggested that Judge Koh limit the
leadership structure to "three or four tops."  Mr. Geller noted
that Judge Koh had expressed the importance of billing and record-
keeping early in the case.

"I'm sure every lawyer here has read your recent opinion in the
high-tech poaching case," said Mr. Geller, referencing Judge Koh's
recent decision trimming the attorney fees in that case by $40
million.

Quipped Judge Koh, "I'm surprised" more firms didn't drop out of
the running after reading that.


APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeeling Fruit Inc. in Dauberville, Penn. is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of consumer packages of fresh sliced
apples with Best-if-Used-by dates of 09/14/15 and 09/21/15, due to
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

To date, health authorities have not linked any illnesses to this
recall. No other products are affected by this recall.

The recalled product was shipped to retail distribution centers;
wholesalers; and foodservice customers in the states of Florida,
Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania between August 31 and
September 2.

Consumers can identify the recalled consumer products by the
brand, UPC codes and Best-if-Used-by dates provided in the table
at the end of this release.

Anyone who has recalled product in their possession should not
consume it, and should either dispose of it properly or return the
recalled product to the place of purchase for a refund. Please
keep proof of product purchase, if available. Consumers with
questions may contact the company's consumer information desk at
1-866-873-0468, or visit its website at
http://www.appeelingfruit.com/

Appeeling Fruit Inc. has already notified customers who received
the recalled product directly from the company and requested that
they remove it from commerce. The company has also asked its
direct customers to notify their customers of this recall.
Appeeling Fruit is issuing this press release and keeping the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration in formed of its recall process to
assure that consumers are properly alerted.

The recall is being initiated after the company was informed that
an environmental sample taken in the production facility as part
of a routine sampling program tested positive for the bacteria.
None of the final product tested positive, and subsequent test
results from the facility have been negative.

"Many of our customers informed us that the recalled product was
still in refrigerated warehouses and never reached consumers.
Nevertheless, we are issuing this recall to reduce even the
slightest risk to public health." said Steve Cygan, president of
Appeeling Fruit. "We care deeply about the health and safety of
those who enjoy our products."

September 9, 2015 Voluntary Recall

  Product Description     Brand/Label   UPC on bag     Best If
  and Consumer Packaging   on bag       if applicable  Used By
  ----------------------   -----------  -------------  date on
                                                       bag
                                                       -------
  12oz package with        Appeeling    58324 00950    09/21/2015
  fresh, green apple       Fruit
  slices
  12oz. package with       Appeeling    58324 00900    09/21/2015
  fresh, red apple         Fruit
  slices
  Convenience pack of      Appeeling    Bag of 8,      09/21/2015
  8, 2oz. sized bags                    2 oz. Fruit
  of fresh, red apple                   slices
  bags                                  58324 08400
                                        Individual 2 oz.
                                        bags 58324 00400
  2oz. sized bags of       Burger King  n/a&           09/14/2015
  fresh, red apple         (BK) Crown
  slices
  2oz. sized bags of       Snack Fresh  74641 00982    09/21/2015
  fresh, red apple
  slices


APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Red Apple Slices Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeeling Fruit Inc. in Dauberville, Penn. has been informed by
one of its customers that some of the Snack Fresh brand, 2 oz.
bagged red apple slices with Best-if-Used-by date 09/21/15 and
production date 310815 that was voluntarily recalled on Wednesday,
September 9 due to the potential of being contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes may have been distributed to schools in
Florida's Palm Beach County School District (product photo is
available at www.appeelingfruit.com).

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

According to our customer, Florida's Palm Beach County School
District was notified on September 9th of the recall and
individual schools were notified that morning. Also according to
our customer, 360 cases of the 400 cases that it picked up at our
facility on September 2nd have been retrieved and destroyed, and
more cases are in the process of being returned. For this reason,
it is unclear exactly how much of the remaining 40 cases may have
been distributed in the Florida Palm Beach County School District.
We are issuing this release in an abundance of caution and to
ensure that parents are aware of the recall.

Parents of children in Florida's Palm Beach County School
District: Snack Fresh brand is common in Florida schools; the
recalled 2 oz. bagged Snack Fresh product can be identified by
three sets of numbers on the back of the Snack Fresh bag: 1) the
Best-if-Used-by date is 09/21/15; 2) the UPC code under the black
bars is 74641 00982; and 3) the production date, or first six
numbers under the "Product of USA" stamp is 310815. All three sets
of numbers on the 2 oz. Snack Fresh bag must match these in order
to identify the recalled product.

Anyone who has recalled product in their possession should not
consume it, and should dispose of it properly. Consumers with
questions may contact the company's consumer information desk at
1-866-873-0468, or visit its website at
http://www.appeelingfruit.com/

To date, health authorities have not informed us of any illnesses
linked to this recall. To our knowledge, no other recalled
products were distributed to schools. A complete list of September
9th recalled products can be found on our website at
www.appeelingfruit.com

The recall was being initiated after the company was informed that
an environmental sample taken in the production facility, as part
of an internal routine sampling program, tested positive for the
bacteria. Subsequent test results from the facility have been
negative.

"Even though the recalled Snack Fresh sliced red apples that went
to Florida Palm Beach County schools was included in our original
September 9 recall announcement, and we know that the school
district promptly notified individual schools that may have
received product, we are issuing this additional notification to
ensure that parents and students know about that recall," said
Steve Cygan, president of Appeeling Fruit. "We are also working
closely with health officials to ensure that the recall is carried
in the most effective and efficient manner possible."


APPLIED MACHINERY: Faces "Ortega" Suit Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abel Ortega, Abraham Francisco Puga-Reyna, Abraham Jahis Puga-
Morales, Alberto Zavala Aviles, Alejandro Rodriguez, Celso Elias
Ochoa, Christopher Acevedo, Conrado Saucedo Valdez, David Celvas
Garcia, Estegan Fuentex Duran, Felipe Cosme Ocanas-Villagrana,
Francisco Gerardo Cedillo, Hector Cortina, Ignacio Cazares, Jesus
Cruz Ramirez, Jorge Luis Vazquez, Jorge Uriel Arreaga Monterroso,
Jorge Vazquez Pecina, Jose Ramon Calderon, Luis Enrique Serrano
Gonzales, Luis Mario Montalvo-Rodriguez, Luis Roberto Mora Corpus,
Marco Antonio Arizpe-Sanchez, Mario Herrera, Jr., Mario Mata
Moralez, Matais Reyes-Arellano, Oziel Morales-Mata, Ramiro Amilcar
Galan, Reynaldo Gutierrez, Ricardo Villanueva Esquivel, Rodolfo
Grijalva Talamentes, Rodrigo Campos, Sergio Raymundo Guzman-
Rodriguez, Ulises Filomeno Avila, and all others similarly-
situated v. Applied Machinery Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-02674
(S.D. Tex., September 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs owed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Applied Machinery Corporation engages in the design and
manufacture of drilling rigs. The company offers land drilling
rigs, drilling equipment and accessories, rig hydraulics, and
rebuilt and re-manufactured equipment; and drilling equipment
repair, fabrication, machining, and rig up services. It also sells
masts and substructures, mud tanks, pipe racks, pipe bins, fuel
tanks, water tanks, drawworks, drill line spoolers, and power
engine/SCR packages. The company was founded in 1994 and is based
in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ross A. Sears, II, Esq.
      WILLIAMSON, SEARS & RUSNAK, LLP
      4310 Yoakum Blvd.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 223-3330
      Fax: 713) 223-0001
      E-mail: ross@wsrlawfirm.com


ARGENTINA: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Bond Dispute Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal appeals court handed Argentina a victory on Sept. 16 in
its quest to relieve itself of the pressures of debt owed to
American hedge funds and others, saying a judge went too far by
letting some bondholders demand payment without proving how much
they are entitled to be paid.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said a lower-
court judge was oversimplifying the definition of the class of
bond holders affected by his orders.

Judge Richard Wesley noted that defining a precise class to which
Argentina owes damages for refusing to pay bondholders and
calculating those damages have been "exasperating tasks."  But the
decision issued by a three-judge panel said Southern District
Judge Thomas Griesa was making it too easy for some plaintiffs by
creating a class including bondholders who were not the original
purchasers of the bonds.

Judges Guido Calabresi and Reena Raggi joined in the decision.
"While objective criteria may be necessary to define an
ascertainable class, it cannot be the case that any objective
criterion will do," Judge Wesley wrote in Brecher v. Republic of
Argentina, 14-4385.  "A class defined as 'those wearing blue
shirts,' while objective, could hardly be called sufficiently
definite and readily identifiable; it has no limitation on time or
context, and the ever-changing composition of the membership would
make determining the identity of those wearing blue shirts
impossible."

The dispute over Argentina's debt emerged after the South American
nation defaulted on $100 billion in debt in 2001.

Most creditors accepted lower-valued bond swaps in 2005 and 2010.
But U.S. hedge funds led by billionaire hedge fund investor Paul
Singer's NML Capital Ltd. refused and took Argentina to court in
Manhattan and won.  Judge Griesa has repeatedly ruled that
Argentina can't pay other creditors until it pays the holdouts.
Argentina has not complied with Judge Griesa's orders, and the
funds have tried to seize Argentine assets around the world.  In
August, Judge Griesa ruled the plaintiffs can pursue Argentine
assets in the U.S., except for military and diplomatic property.

The plaintiff in the July 16 decision held a relatively small
number of bonds. The appeals court ordered an evidentiary hearing
to decide damages.

Attorney Carmine Boccuzzi -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- a partner at
Cleary Gottlieb Stein & Hamilton who represents Argentina, said he
was pleased with the ruling.

"The ruling makes clear that plaintiffs may not use the class
mechanism to avoid having to prove the actual damages of purported
class members," he said.

Jason Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- a partner at Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, the bondholder's attorney, did not immediately
return a message seeking comment.

In court papers, Mr. Zweig wrote dismissively of Argentina's
arguments, saying the appeal was designed "simply to further delay
this already 9-year-old case, in order to prolong the day it must
pay its outstanding debts."

In court papers, Ms. Boccuzzi wrote that judgments in favor of
members of the class were "inflated and inaccurate" because the
bonds at stake are regularly traded in the secondary market.


BIG GREEK'S: "Sandercock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Sandercock, and all others similarly-situated v. Big
Greek's Gyro, LLC, Big Greek Franchising Company LLC, Michael J.
Sarris, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-01870 (N.D. Ohio, September
14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and the
Ohio overtime compensation statutes.

The Defendants operate a chain of fast casual restaurants in
Cleveland Ohio area specializing in gyros and fries, under the
trade name of "Best Gyros".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Perlmuter, Esq.
      TITTLE LAW, LLC
      2012 West 25th Street, Ste. 515
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 308-1522
      E-mail: scott@tittlelawfirm.com

          - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      THOMAS A. DOWNIE ATTORNEY AT LAW
      46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Tel: (440) 973-9000
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


BILL COSBY: Judge Denies Motions in Sexual-Assault Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has denied motions from both plaintiff and
defendant over the release of the transcript from a 2005
deposition of Bill Cosby in a sexual-assault lawsuit against him.

U.S. District Judge John R. Padova of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued two decisions on Sept. 4 -- one denying
Cosby's motion for leave to take discovery on how the transcript
was released, and another denying a motion for sanctions against
Cosby's attorney for trying to take discovery.

The New York Times published an article in July in which it
referred to the full transcript of Cosby's 2005 deposition in
Constand v. Cosby.  Andrea Constand had sued Cosby for sexual
assault, and agreed to a confidential settlement in 2006.
Portions of that transcript were previously released by U.S.
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, as they were referenced in a court document he
unsealed.

After the release of the full transcript, it became clear in court
documents that a court reporting service provided the document to
the Times, under the impression that it was a publicly available
document.  Mr. Cosby's attorneys then filed a motion to take
discovery to determine whether Ms. Constand's attorney, Dolores M.
Troiani, played a role in the release.

Mr. Cosby is currently facing a lawsuit in Massachusetts, brought
by three women who allege he sexually assaulted them, then defamed
them.

The case entered the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in June,
when Cosby filed a motion to quash a subpoena the Massachusetts
plaintiffs served on Ms. Constand's lawyer that sought information
about the 2006 settlement.

Mr. Cosby's attorneys argued that a June 11 order by Judge Padova,
who was overseeing the motion to quash, regulates Ms. Troiani's
conduct with the Constand documents.  Mr. Cosby also filed a
motion on the Constand docket, Judge Padova said, alleging that
Ms. Troiani and Ms. Constand breached the confidentiality
conditions of the settlement agreement.

Judge Padova said the limitations on Ms. Troiani are set forth in
the settlement agreement, not in Judge Padova's June 11 order.

"We therefore cannot conclude that Ms. Troiani's involvement, if
any, in the recent release of defendant's Constand deposition
transcript to The New York Times would constitute a violation of
our June 11, 2015, order, whether or not it violated the parties'
confidentiality agreement," Judge Padova wrote.  "Accordingly,
defendant may not probe the circumstances of that release through
discovery in this miscellaneous proceeding, and we deny
defendant's motion for leave to take discovery."

Judge Padova also dismissed as moot Ms. Constand's motion to
intervene, in which she asked to oppose the motion for leave to
take discovery, and to conduct her own discovery if Mr. Cosby's
motion was granted. He also denied her request for attorney fees
and costs that resulted from filing the motion to intervene.

Ms. Constand had also filed a motion to sanction defense counsel,
which argued that the motion for discovery was frivolous and filed
in bad faith.  She asked for a sanction requiring defense counsel
to pay her attorney fees.  Judge Padova denied that motion as
well.

"While we do not question our authority to impose sanctions under
certain limited circumstances, we decline to sanction defense
counsel here for filing the motion for discovery, as we do not
view that motion as frivolous or believe that it was filed in bad
faith or vexatiously," he wrote.

Patrick J. O'Connor of Cozen O'Connor, an attorney for Cosby,
could not immediately be reached for comment.  Ms. Troiani also
did not immediately respond to a call seeking comment.


BITCOIN SAVINGS: Founder Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
man involved in what federal authorities have described as the
first bitcoin securities fraud case pleaded guilty on Sept. 21.

Trendon Shavers, of McKinney, Texas, pleaded guilty in New York to
a count of securities fraud on his 33rd birthday.  He told U.S.
Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn that he made false statements to
investors.

"I know what I did was wrong, and I'm very sorry," he said.

The government said the false statements he told included
promising investors as much as a 1 percent daily gain if they
entrusted him with their bitcoins, digital currency created and
exchanged independent of banks or governments.

Prosecutors said Mr. Shavers, who founded and operated Bitcoin
Savings and Trust, once possessed 7 percent of all bitcoins in
public circulation as he carried out the ruse in 2011 and 2012.
The bitcoins amounted to $807,380 based on the average price of
bitcoins during the scheme.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ferrara said Mr. Shavers invested
only some of the bitcoins he obtained.  Instead, Mr. Ferrara told
the judge, Mr. Shavers was "receiving money from investor B to pay
investor A.  In other words, he had the telltale signs of a Ponzi
scheme."

In a release, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Mr. Shavers' scheme
"yielded high returns for himself rather than his investors."

"Instead of reaping gains, his investors were largely swindled out
of their money in a cyber-age Ponzi scheme," Mr. Bharara said.

By the time the yearlong scheme was shut down in September 2012,
Mr. Shavers had cheated about half of 100 investors out of all or
part of their investments, prosecutors said.

Mr. Shavers was arrested in November and released on bail.  A plea
agreement recommends he spend roughly three years in prison.
Sentencing is set for Feb. 3.

In a separate civil action in U.S. District Court in the Eastern
District of Texas, Mr. Shavers has been ordered to pay more than
$40 million in disgorgement and interest and a civil penalty of
$150,000.


BORGATA HOTEL: Court Tosses "Borgata Babes" Discrimination Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
The Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa in Atlantic City did not
discriminate against its scantily clad "Borgata Babes" when it
adopted a policy mandating they stay within a certain weight, but
it could be held liable for damages if claims that some of the
women who became ill or pregnant were sexually harassed prove to
be true, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Sept. 17.

The three-judge Appellate Division panel, in a published decision,
affirmed a trial judge's decision to dismiss the allegations of
discrimination based on the weight requirements, but said claims
filed by 11 of the 21 plaintiffs who alleged that they were
sexually harassed after gaining weight due to illness or pregnancy
should not have been dismissed.

Appellate Division Judge Marie Lihotz said the plaintiffs signed
an agreement called a "personal appearance standard" as a
condition of employment and that male "Borgata Babes" also were
required to sign the agreement before they were hired.

"Moreover, there is no protected class based solely on one's
weight," said Judge Lihotz, who was joined by Judges Marianne
Espinosa and Jerome St. John.

However, she said, there is a genuine dispute of fact over whether
the 11 plaintiffs who gained weight because of illness or
pregnancy were sexually harassed.

"Some plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to demonstrate that
the PAS weight standards were enforced in a harassing manner
against women because of their gender, creating a hostile work
environment," Judge Lihotz said.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Deborah Mains of Costello & Mains in
Mount Laurel, said she was disappointed with the ruling, although
she acknowledged that 11 of the plaintiffs still have potentially
viable claims.

"We were hoping that the court would find, obviously, that there
was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the PAS
resulted in gender stereotype discrimination," Ms. Mains said.

The New Jersey Association for Justice participated as amicus.
Its attorney, Nancy Smith, said the ruling was mixed.

Ms. Smith was gratified that 11 of the plaintiffs "will have their
day in court for the outrageous sexual harassment."

"I'm disappointed in the finding that a policy that even the court
found to be based on an archaic stereotype did not violate the Law
Against Discrimination," said Ms. Smith, of Smith Mullin in
Montclair.  "There is no business justification for turning women
into sex objects."

The casino's lawyers, Rene Johnson of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius and
Russell Lichtenstein of Cooper Levenson, did not return telephone
calls.

Joseph Corbo, Borgata's vice president and legal counsel, released
a statement.

"This is a significant victory for Borgata.  We have long held
that Borgata's personal appearance policy is fair and reasonable,"
Mr. Corbo said.  "We are pleased that the three appellate court
judges agreed with prior rulings that our policy is lawful and
non-discriminatory to women.

"As the court noted in its ruling, Borgata's policy was fully and
openly disclosed to all costumed beverage servers, male and
female, and all of the litigants voluntarily accepted this policy
before they began working for us," he said.

Mr. Corbo was referring to a portion of the appeals court's ruling
regarding the PAS guidelines.

"We do not deny the PAS costume and physical fitness standards
imposed what many would label an 'archaic stereotype' of male and
female employees," Judge Lihotz said.  "However . . . actionable
conduct results when the stereotypes are shown to be accompanied
by a burden on one sex and not the other or are otherwise used to
interfere with employment opportunities of the discriminated
group.

"We cannot find support for the latter essential elements among
the facts in this record," she said.

The plaintiffs worked as "costumed beverage servers" at the casino
and sued under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging they
were humiliated by being treated as sex objects and treated
differently from male "Babes."

They had signed the PAS, which stated they had to appear
physically fit with a "clean healthy smile," pay "attention to
personal grooming," maintain the same basic physical appearance
and appear comfortable in their uniforms -- miniskirts, bustiers,
bolero jackets and high heels.

Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Nelson Johnson, who dismissed
the claims on summary judgment, pointed out that the costumes were
designed by Zac Posen, a judge on Bravo's "Project Runway" reality
TV show who is known for "streamlined and very tailored" couture.

When the Borgata opened in 2003, it required weight "proportional
to height," but in 2005 changed the policy to allow no more than a
7 percent gain above current weight, or for newer employees, their
weight when hired, according to court documents.

The 7 percent purportedly represented the gain that would require
a person to go up a clothing size.

Babes were subject to weigh-ins, and if they gained too many
pounds, other than as the result of a "bona fide medical
condition," could be immediately suspended without pay for 90
days, during which they were to lose weight through a program that
included gym membership, Weight Watchers and nutritional
counseling paid for by Borgata, court documents said.

Borgata revised the policy again, in 2009, allowing Babes to keep
working while they shed excess pounds.  Those returning to work
after maternity leave or other medical leave got 90 days to meet
the weight standard, according to court documents.

Judge Lihotz said there was ample case law that permits businesses
to regulate their employees' appearance.

"A general principle gleaned from the cited authorities is: When
an employer's 'reasonable workplace appearance, grooming and dress
standards' comply with state and federal law prohibiting
discrimination, even if they contain sex-specific language, the
policies do not violate Title VII, and by extension, the LAD," she
said.

But 11 of the plaintiffs presented evidence that they were
subjected to harassment based on weight gain caused by illness or
pregnancy.

One plaintiff claims she was weighed eight to 10 times despite
presenting documentation of a medical condition explaining the
weight gain, according to court documents.  Another said a
supervisor suggested she was claiming to be pregnant in order to
justify a gain in weight and another said she was suspended
because her asthma medicine caused her to gain weight.

"Despite defendant's 'accommodations' of these documented
conditions, allegations have been presented showing the policy was
used to harass these women," Judge Lihotz said.


BP PLC: 5th Circuit Certifies "Postpill" Class of Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has certified a "postspill"
class of investors who sued BP PLC for alleged misrepresentations
about the scale of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that dumped
5 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

But the appellate court rejected certification for a "prespill"
class of investors who sued the BP for its alleged
misrepresentations about the safety issues on the drilling
platform before it exploded, killing 11 workers.

The Sept. 8 decision in Ludlow v. BP affirms a decision in the
U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas certifying the
postspill class of investors who allege BP made statements
immediately after the explosion that "perpetuated the fiction"
that the spill was only leaking 5,000 barrels of oil a day when
internal BP estimates were much higher.

Ludlow also blesses the district court's ruling rejecting class
certification for a "prespill" class of investors who sued BP,
alleging the company stated it had made improvements in safety
practices before the explosion, when in reality nothing had
changed.  To arrive at that conclusion, the district court cited
Comcast v. Behrend, a 2013 U.S. Supreme Court decision that
tightened up damage-model requirements in class-certification
cases and also mandates them to be applied classwide.

Fifth Circuit Senior Judge Patrick Higginbotham began his decision
in Ludlow by noting his court hasn't heard the last of the
litigation surrounding one the nation's worst oil spills.

"In this case, our court returns -- not for the first time, and
likely not for the last -- to the events related to the 2010
Deepwater Horizon oil spill," he wrote.

Judge Higginbotham concluded that the trial court got it right by
certifying the postspill class of investors.

"As a conceptual matter, the theory of liability is consistent
with the theory of damages: the liability stems from BP's flow-
rate misstatements, and the loss forming the basis for plaintiffs'
damages model comes from the inflated stock price caused by those
misstatements," Judge Higginbotham wrote.

"Here, the question of whether certain corrective disclosures are
linked to the alleged misrepresentations in question is undeniably
common to the class, and is 'susceptible of a classwide answer,' "
Judge Higginbotham wrote.

While the postspill class damage model was based on a "stock price
inflation" theory -- that the stock price was higher than it would
have been and the damage is the difference between the true price
and the paid price -- the prespill class damage model was
different, Judge Higginbotham wrote.

The prespill damage model is based on the "materialization-of-the-
risk theory" in which investors are harmed by corrective events
that represent materializations of the risk that was improperly
disclosed.  "The plaintiffs claim that when that risk materialized
in the form of the spill and BP's stock price fell as a result,
the investor who was defrauded into taking on that heightened risk
can recover the bulk of that fall as her damages," Judge
Higginbotham wrote.

"To summarize, plaintiffs' materialization-of-the-risk theory
cannot support class certification for two reasons.  Unlike the
stock inflation model, the materialization-of-the-risk model
cannot be applied uniformly across the class, as Comcastrequires,
because it lumps together those who would have bought the stock at
the heightened risk with those who would not have," Judge
Higginbotham wrote.  "It also presumes substantial reliance on
factors other than price."


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Truyen Ton-Vuong aka David Ton, 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-02044 (S.D. Calif.,
September 14, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable
relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for
violation of Section 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust,
consumer protection and unfair competition statutes.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants conspired, beginning at
least as early as January 1, 2005, and continuing to the present,
to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for packaged
seafood products within the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia.

The Defendants are the three largest domestic manufacturers of
packaged seafood products.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CARPENTER CO: December 15 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased a Product That Contains Flexible Polyurethane
Foam, Such as a Mattress, a Couch, or Carpet Underlay,
You Could Be Eligible to Receive Money by Participating in Nine
Proposed Class Action Settlements Valued at $151,250,000.

TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MONEY, READ BELOW.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.

To File a Claim, Visit www.PolyFoamClassAction.com

Para una notificacion en espanol, llamar o visitar nuestro
website.

Who is paying the settlement money?

A lawsuit known as In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 10-MD-2196, is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Toledo.  The Court
previously approved Settlements with two Defendants in the
lawsuit: Valle Foam Industries, Inc. and Domfoam International,
Inc.

Additional Settlements have now been reached with the following
Defendants: (1) Carpenter Co., (2) FFP Holdings LLC, (3) Future
Foam, Inc., (4) FXI Holdings, Inc., (5) Hickory Springs
Manufacturing Company, (6) Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, (7)
Mohawk Industries, Inc., (8) Vitafoam (Vitafoam Products Canada
Limited, and Vitafoam, Inc.), and (9) Woodbridge (Woodbridge Foam
Corporation, Woodbridge Sales & Engineering, Inc., and Woodbridge
Foam Fabricating, Inc.).  Together, these "Additional Settling
Defendants" will be paying a total of $151,250,000 into the
Settlement Fund.  There are no other Defendants that have not
settled.

What is the lawsuit about?

Several individuals and businesses ("Plaintiffs") brought claims
on behalf of a Class of end-user "indirect" purchasers of products
that contain flexible polyurethane foam manufactured or supplied
by the Defendants.  These products include bedding (for example,
mattresses, mattress toppers, or pillows), carpet underlay (also
called carpet padding or carpet cushion), and upholstered
furniture (for example, a sofa with foam cushions).

Plaintiffs claim Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to: (i)
increase prices of flexible polyurethane foam and (ii) not compete
for, or "allocate," customers.  Plaintiffs contend Defendants
violated numerous States' antitrust and consumer protection laws.
Defendants deny these claims and deny they are liable to
Plaintiffs in any way.  The Court has not decided who is right.

Who is included in the lawsuit?

YOU are included in the lawsuit and may be entitled to money IF:

You purchased one or more of the following products containing
flexible polyurethane foam that was manufactured in the United
States: upholstered furniture (such as a couch with foam
cushions), carpet underlay (foam padding), or bedding products
(such as a foam mattress or pillow), and

You are the end-user of the product that you purchased, meaning
you did not buy it for resale to someone else, and

You made your purchase in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS,
ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, RI, SD,
TN, VT, WV, or WI, and

You made your purchase during the time period January 1, 1999 to
August 1, 2015.

What do the Settlements provide?

Defendants in the nine Settlements will pay a total of
$151,250,000.  If the Plan of Allocation is approved by the Court,
payments will be made to each Claimant from each Settlement pro
rata based on the number of valid claims filed and the amounts
paid for qualifying products.  You can obtain more details about
the Plan of Allocation at www.PolyFoamClassAction.com, or by
calling 1-866-302-7323.

The Settlement Fund may also be used to pay for: (1) the cost to
administer the Settlements, (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses, and (3) awards to Class Representative Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' counsel will request attorneys' fees not to exceed
thirty percent (30%) of $151,250,000, plus reimbursement of costs
and expenses.  The Court will then decide a reasonable fee and
expense award.

How can I get a payment?

You must submit a Claim Form to get a payment.  You can submit a
claim online or by mail.  The deadline to submit a claim is
FEBRUARY 29, 2016.  Claim Forms are available at
www.PolyFoamClassAction.com, or by calling 1-866-302-7323.

Who represents you?

The Court has appointed Marvin A. Miller of Miller Law LLC to
represent the Plaintiff Class.

What are your options?

1.  Participate. If you made purchases that include you in this
lawsuit and you do not timely request to be excluded from the
Settlements, then you will automatically be bound by the terms of
the Settlements.  You will also be legally bound by all orders and
judgments of the Court.  You will not be able to sue the
Additional Settling Defendants in any other lawsuit for conspiring
to fix prices or allocate customers of flexible polyurethane foam.
In order to get a payment from the Settlement Fund, you must
submit a Claim Form.

2.  Don't Participate. If you do not want to be a part of one or
more of the nine Settlements, you may request to be excluded.  If
you are excluded from a Settlement, you will not be bound by or
benefit from that Settlement, or any other Court orders relating
to that Settlement, but you will keep your right to sue or resolve
your claims on your own against that Additional Settling
Defendant.  To see the requirements for submitting a valid request
to exclude, visit www.PolyFoamClassAction.com, or call
1-866-302-7323.  Requests to exclude must be in writing and
received by NOVEMBER 25, 2015.

Court Hearing

The Court will hold a hearing to decide whether to approve the
nine proposed Settlements.  The hearing will be on DECEMBER 15,
2015, at 10:00 a.m. at the Ashley U.S. Courthouse, 1716 Spielbusch
Avenue, Toledo, Ohio 43604.  The Court may change the date, time,
or location of the hearing.  To obtain the most up-to-date
information regarding the hearing date and location, please visit
www.PolyFoamClassAction.com, or call 1-866-302-7323.

If you choose to participate in one or more of the Settlements,
you may object to or comment on those Settlements in writing by
NOVEMBER 13, 2015.  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at
the hearing at your own expense.  To see the requirements for
filing an Objection, visit www.PolyFoamClassAction.com, or call
1-866-302-7323

Do you have questions?

If you have questions, want more details, or want to see other
documents describing this lawsuit and your rights, visit
www.PolyFoamClassAction.com, or call 1-866-302-7323.

Para una notificacion en espanol, llamar o visitar nuestro
website.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT DEFENDANTS OR THE COURT FOR INFORMATION
REGARDING THIS LAWSUIT OR THE SETTLEMENTS.


CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Wage Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
Manhattan state court judge refused to dismiss a wages-and-hours
class action on behalf of home healthcare workers who provide 24-
hour service to the elderly and disabled.

Justice Carol Edmead said the claims, brought under New York state
and New York City laws, were not pre-empted by federal statutes,
nor were the workers required to submit the dispute to arbitration
under their union contract.

Ruling in Chan v Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant
Program, 50737/2015, Justice Edmead said the state's Wage Parity
Act, which took effect in March 2014, requires home healthcare
aides who do not live in the home of the patient to be paid at
least $10 per hour for each hour of a 24-hour shift, plus
overtime.

The case, brought on behalf of a class of several thousand workers
employed by the Chinese-American Planning Council since 2009,
alleges that the temporary home care aides were paid $137 per 24-
hour shift.

The lead plaintiff, Lai Chan, said she worked between three and
five consecutive 24-hour shifts each week for a total of 72 to 120
hours of work per week.

Ms. Chan said she received no hourly compensation for hours worked
over 12 during a 24-hour shift and was not paid time and a half
for hours she worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Planning Council, a 50-year-old Chinatown-based non-profit,
argued that the Labor Management Relations Act required the case
to be litigated in federal court because it concerned the terms of
a collective bargaining agreement.

Although the pay rate was "set, in part" by the contract
negotiated by Local 1199 of the Service Employees International
Union, Justice Edmead said, "no substantial analysis of the
[contract] is required to determine whether defendant's payments
complied" with state and local law.  She also rejected the
defendant's argument that the union contract's arbitration clause
required the issue be submitted to arbitration.

For an arbitration clause precluding state law claims to be
effective, Justice Edmead said, the language had to be "clear and
unmistakable."  Instead, the contract "only obligates parties to
meet in good faith to negotiate an alternative dispute resolution
procedure, and merely permits defendant to submit a claim to
arbitration."

Justice Edmead adopted a holding by the U.S Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit in Concerned Home Care Providers v Cuomo, 783
F3d 77 (2015) in denying that the Wage Parity Act was preempted by
National Labor Relations Act.

"This is another decision that underscores the law that home
health aides who work for agencies and reside in their own homes
have to be paid for all 24 hours of their shifts," said
Michael Taubenfeld, an associate at Serrins Fisher, which
represented the plaintiffs.

Several other trial court rulings have reached the same
conclusions as Justice Edmead, according to Mr. Taubenfeld, but
had not ruled on the preemption or arbitration issues.

Two of the cases are before the Appellate Division, he said.
The cases will determine pay rates for "many tens of thousands" of
home health aides in the New York City area, Mr. Taubenfeld said.

Serrins Fisher partner Liane Fisher is the lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.

Kenneth Kirschner, a partner at Hogan Lovells, argued the motion
for the defendant.  He declined to comment.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Settles Female Workers' Civil Rights Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Consolidated Edison, the New York State Attorney General's Office
and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have
settled complaints from hundreds of female workers who accused the
utility of unfair treatment.

The settlement will distribute $3.8 million among about 300 female
Con Ed workers who the two government agencies said received
substandard training, poorer work assignments, limited promotional
opportunities and inadequate safety equipment compared with their
male counterparts.

The female employees, all assigned to "field" positions in power
stations and transmission facilities, were also denied
opportunities to work overtime guaranteed to utility employees in
Con Ed's collective bargaining agreements, Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman's office said Sept. 9.

In addition, the female workers also complained of being subject
to sexual harassment.

The settlement concerned allegations of violations of the federal
Civil Rights Act and of the state Human Rights Law for between
2006 and 2014.

Con Ed admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, which was signed
by the utility's associate general counsel, Steven Scotti.

Mr. Schneiderman's office said it and the EEOC would supervise
distribution of the settlement money. The utility agreed to
monitor the settlement and to train Con Ed employees who supervise
field workers.

Assistant Attorneys General Anjana Samant and Dariely Rodriguez
represented Mr. Schneiderman's office.  Kevin Berry, director of
the EEOC's New York regional office, signed on behalf of the
federal agency.


CUSTOM PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------
Custom Produce Sales ("Custom Produce") of  Parlier, California is
voluntarily recalling all cucumbers sold under the Fat Boy(R)
label starting August 1, 2015 because they may be contaminated
with Salmonella and are covered by an ongoing recall.  No other
Fat Boy(R) products are covered by this recall.  Unlabeled
cucumbers packed into a black reusable plastic container (RPC) and
were sold in Nevada, as of August 1, 2015 are also covered by this
recall.

Custom Produce is currently working with health authorities on
this recall, which is associated with an outbreak of Salmonella
Poona, with 341 illnesses, including 2 deaths, being reporting in
as many as 30 states. Custom Produce has contacted all customers
who may have received this product.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis, and arthritis.

Fat Boy(R) cucumbers were produced in Baja California and
distributed in the states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas.

These cucumbers are shipped in a black, green, red and craft
colored carton which reads "Fat Boy Fresh Produce.".  This variety
is often referred to as a "Slicer" or "American" cucumber.  It has
a dark green color.  It typically has a length of 7 to 10 inches
and a diameter of 1.75 to 2.5 inches.

Consumers who have purchased Fat Boy(R) brand cucumbers are urged
not to consume them and to return them to the place of purchase or
to dispose of them.  Consumers with questions may contact Custom
Produce by visiting the company website at
www.customproducesales.com  or by calling the company at 559-254-
5860.

Fat Boy cucumbers were packed into the following:

Cucumber Carton 24's Fat Boy Label
Cucumber Carton Super Select Fat Boy Label
Cucumber Carton 6 count Fat Boy Label
Cucumber Carton 5 # Fat Boy Label
Possible Fat Boy Lot Codes: 93968, 94506, 94550, 94522, 94513,
93991

Reusable Plastic Containers (RPC):
Lot Code:  (01) 1 0851821 22000 2 (10) 99
Item #  552678329


DOLE FOOD: 3rd Cir. Rejects Farmworkers' Appeal in Pesticide Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that in testing federal courts' discretion under the
"first-filed" rule, the Third Circuit rejected an appeal by a
group of farmworkers who claimed in both Louisiana and Delaware
district courts that a pesticide used by Dole and others on
bananas in Central America caused them health issues.

In Chavez v. Dole Food, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit looked at the narrow question of whether concurrent
jurisdiction existed between the first-filed Louisiana cases and
the nearly identical Delaware lawsuits, filed a year later, such
that the first-filed rule would even apply.

The farmworkers argued concurrent jurisdiction did not exist
because the Louisiana actions were on appeal to the Fifth Circuit
when the last of the defendants in the Delaware actions
successfully had the cases against them dismissed.

"But as we see it, the procedural posture of the first-filed case
on the date the second-filed actions were dismissed is irrelevant
to the analysis," Senior Judge Richard Nygaard said for the court.
"The relevant point in time is the filing date of the duplicative
action.  If concurrent jurisdiction exists at the time and the
actions are truly duplicative, the first-filed rule can be
invoked."

If concurrent jurisdiction exists, the second jurisdiction to have
the case before it has the discretion to stay, transfer or dismiss
the action.  In Chavez, the Third Circuit looked at whether the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware abused its
discretion in dismissing the Delaware actions.  That is where the
three-judge panel of the court split, with dissenting Judge Julio
M. Fuentes arguing the dismissal was an abuse of discretion.

"I do not agree that the first-filed rule is a basis to terminate
a claim that otherwise may be prosecuted," Judge Fuentes said in
his dissent.  "That is not something we have ever held before; it
is contrary to our positions on successive litigation and
concurrent litigation in other contexts; and it is inappropriate
in light of the Supreme Court's command that we must adjudicate
properly presented cases not heard elsewhere on the merits.  As
our sister circuits have done in like cases, I would vacate and
remand for further proceedings."

But Judge Nygaard responded in the majority opinion that such an
argument is in tension with the purposes of the rule and would
wrongfully limit the district court's discretion in handling
second-filed actions.  Judge Nygaard said the dismissal of the
Delaware actions was an appropriate response to the farmworkers'
litigation strategy. He said the workers told the Louisiana court
days after filing the Delaware actions that it was a strategic
move.

"By their own acknowledgement then, appellants were forum-
shopping," Judge Nygaard said, adding they were hoping to keep
simultaneous cases going to see where they fared better.

Judge Nygaard said the majority was also concerned that finding in
favor of the workers would create a "no-dismissal" rule.

"Therefore, because the first-filed rule is flexible in nature, it
does not proscribe the remedy of dismissal, nor does it mandate
the remedy of a stay or transfer," Judge Nygaard said.  "In fact,
our jurisprudence far from imposes such bright-line rules."

The court further upheld the district court's finding that it did
not have personal jurisdiction over defendant Chiquita Brands
International.

The negligence and strict liability lawsuits underlying these
appeals were filed by more than 200 farmworkers who alleged the
defendants' misuse of pesticide dibromochloropropane on banana
farms in Central America between the 1960s and 1980s caused them
various health problems.  The first suits were filed as a putative
class in Texas state court in 1993.  According to Judge Nygaard,
there have been various actions filed since, but no court has ever
addressed the merits of the workers' claims.

Jonathan S. Massey -- Jmassey@masseygail.com -- of Massey & Gail
in Washington, D.C., argued the appeal on behalf of the
farmworkers.  Caitlin J. Halligan -- challigan@gibsondunn.com --
of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in New York argued the case on behalf
of Dole and other defendants.  Steven L. Caponi --
Caponi@BlankRome.com -- of Blank Rome in Wilmington argued on
behalf of Chiquita.

Mr. Caponi said he thought the court issued a well-reasoned
decision.  Mr. Massey and Mr. Halligan did not respond to requests
for comment.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces "Greer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Greer, Steven Rydberg, Delroy Thompson, Madeline Miralles,
Randy McLoud, Nurcan Pak Archer and other similarly situated
individuals v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., Case No. 32368915 (Fla.
11th Cir., September 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Dollar Tree Stores Inc. resides in Miami Dade County, Florida and
operates a chain of discount variety stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUKE ENERGY: Delaware Court Stays Coal Ash Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Law.com, reports that the Delaware
Court of Chancery has granted a stay to current and former
directors of Duke Energy who argued a derivative action against
them over the handling of coal ash releases in North Carolina has
to wait until other civil suits are resolved.

In his decision late in August in In re Duke Energy Coal Ash
Derivative Litigation, Vice Chancellor John W. Noble agreed to
stay the derivative suit until Nov. 15 to give the remaining civil
and regulatory matters against Duke a chance to resolve.

The plaintiffs sued the directors for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties the plaintiffs said caused the improper coal ash
releases in North Carolina.  Those releases exposed Duke to
criminal, civil and regulatory liabilities.

Although Duke's criminal liability has been resolved, several
regulatory enforcement actions and Clean Water Act lawsuits filed
by environmental groups are still pending, Vice Chancellor Noble
said.  And a declaratory judgment action has been brought to
clarify how North Carolina groundwater protection rules apply to
coal ash basins.  All of those cases involve Duke's maintenance
and oversight, through its subsidiaries, of coal ash ponds in
North Carolina, according to the opinion.

Vice Chancellor Noble said the shareholders, who are plaintiffs
here, could be harmed if the related litigation doesn't proceed
first.

"Dealing with substantive lawsuits that expose the company to
significant potential liability at the same time as a derivative
action challenging the directors' conduct will prejudice the
company, and thus its shareholders, in its defense of the related
litigation," Vice Chancellor Noble said.  "Although the need for a
stay is reduced by resolution of the criminal charges, the
remaining actions involve a substantial factual overlap with the
claims presented in this derivative action."

Vice Chancellor Noble further ruled that determining Duke's
liability in the related litigation will facilitate the handling
of the derivative action. Noble said the plaintiffs have not shown
how they would be prejudiced by a stay.

"Although a stay of this action pending resolution of the related
litigation makes practical sense, a lengthy stay may not be
warranted," Vice Chancellor Noble said.

He said it would be unfair to the plaintiffs if the related
litigation becomes "bogged down."  And, "at some point," an
extended delay could generate some prejudice because of the
"inevitable slippage of recollection and challenges in maintaining
the useful records and documents," Vice Chancellor Noble said.

The vice chancellor rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the
director defendants were too interested in the suit to seek a
stay.  Vice Chancellor Noble said the stay benefits the company.
He also noted that no determination has been made regarding
whether the directors lost the presumption of the business
judgment rule.

"Until that occurs, at least as a general matter, the current
directors remain responsible for managing the business and affairs
of the company," Vice Chancellor Noble said.

The vice chancellor said he would revisit the status of the
related litigation shortly before the Nov. 15 stay expiration.  He
said he would look at how likely the cases are to resolve and
whether the progress they made to that point would impact the
derivative suit.

"As time goes by, some of those factors supporting a stay likely
will become less persuasive," Vice Chancellor Noble said.

Kathaleen S. McCormick -- kmccormick@ycst.com -- of Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor represented the plaintiffs.  Kenneth J. Nachbar
-- knachbar@mnat.com -- and Susan W. Waesco --
swaesco@mnat.com -- of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
represented Duke.  Ms. McCormick declined to comment and Nachbar
did not return a call seeking comment.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Oppositions to Class Cert. Motion Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Defendants filed oppositions to the motions for class
certification in the case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.).

In May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC
pursuant to a merger transaction and, as a result, assumed all of
DBCC's obligations in the class action litigation matters. A part
of the merger consideration was placed in escrow to indemnify the
Company against a portion of the losses, if any, arising out of
such class action litigation matters, subject to a cap and other
conditions.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On
February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.

On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of
responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the
antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices allegations.
The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions
and denied DBCC's motion but granted the Company's motion.
Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract claim against the
Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims
against the Company without prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.

The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder.
As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive
acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC filed a
motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint venture or
agency liability theory. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants'
motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the
defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory.
The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the
negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23,
2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court conference on
December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not
be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the
class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification
against D&B and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions for class certification.

"In accordance with ASC 450, we do not have sufficient information
upon which to determine that a loss in connection with this matter
is probable, reasonably possible or estimable, and thus no reserve
has been established nor has a range of loss been disclosed," the
Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery
in the case is ongoing in the case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun
& Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)).

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against
DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product.

On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended
complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive
service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015.

On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC.

Discovery in the case is ongoing and the Company is continuing to
investigate the allegations. In accordance with ASC 450, we
therefore do not have sufficient information upon which to
determine that a loss in connection with this matter is probable,
reasonably possible or estimable, and thus no reserve has been
established nor has a range of loss been disclosed.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case
----------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery
is ongoing in the case, Vinotemp International Corporation and
CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et
al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-
00451 (C.D. Cal.))

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April
3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC.

Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to
investigate the allegations. In accordance with ASC 450, the
Company therefore does not have sufficient information upon which
to determine that a loss in connection with this matter is
probable, reasonably possible or estimable, and thus no reserve
has been established nor has a range of loss been disclosed.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery
is ongoing in the case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.))

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint
on March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed
motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC.

Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to
investigate the allegations. In accordance with ASC 450
Contingencies, we therefore do not have sufficient information
upon which to determine that a loss in connection with this matter
is probable, reasonably possible or estimable, and thus no reserve
has been established nor has a range of loss been disclosed.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Altaflo Case
---------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D.
Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)), The Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014.

Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed
its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on
June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC.

Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to
investigate the allegations. In accordance with ASC 450
Contingencies, we therefore do not have sufficient information
upon which to determine that a loss in connection with this matter
is probable, reasonably possible or estimable, and thus no reserve
has been established nor has a range of loss been disclosed.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Sentry Case Held Informal Talks
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
case, Sentry Insurance, a Mutual Company v. The Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation and Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01952 (SRC)
(D.N.J.), the parties have held informal discussions regarding a
possible resolution to the dispute.

On March 17, 2015, Sentry Insurance filed a Declaratory Judgment
Action in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation and Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. (collectively, the "Company"). The Complaint
seeks a judicial declaration that Sentry, which issued a General
Commercial Liability insurance policy (the "CGL Policy"), to the
Company, does not have a duty under the CGL Policy to provide the
Company with a defense or indemnification in connection with five
putative class action complaints (the "Class Actions") filed
against the Company and DBCC. Against the Company, the Class
Actions complaints allege negligence, defamation and violations of
state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices in
connection with DBCC's marketing and sale of credit monitoring
products. Sentry's Complaint alleges that the Company is not
entitled to a defense or indemnification for any losses it
sustains in the Class Actions because the underlying claims in the
Class Actions fall within various exceptions in the CGL policy,
including exclusions for claims: (i) that arise from D&B's
provision of "professional services"; (ii) that are based on
intentional or fraudulent acts; and (iii) that are based on
conduct that took place prior to the beginning of the CGL Policy
periods.

On March 26, 2015, Sentry filed and served an Amended Complaint
which added several exhibits but did not otherwise materially
differ from the original Complaint. The Company filed an Answer to
the Amended Complaint on April 16, 2015 and also asserted
counterclaims. In addition, the parties have held informal
discussions regarding a possible resolution to the dispute. The
Company is in the initial stages of investigating the allegations.
In accordance with ASC 450 Contingencies, we therefore do not have
sufficient information upon which to determine that a loss in
connection with this matter is probable, reasonably possible or
estimable, and thus no reserve has been established nor has a
range of loss been disclosed.


ENVIVIO INC: Sued in Delaware Over Proposed Ericsson Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chad Hollenkamp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Envivio, Inc., et al., Case No. 11528 (Del. Ch.,
September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Envivio Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
Envivio by Ericsson Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Cindy
Acquisition Corp., through a flawed process and deprives Envivio's
public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's
long-term prospects.

Envivio, Inc. is a leading provider of software-based IP video
processing and distribution solutions that enable the delivery of
high-quality video to consumers.

Ericsson Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
headquarters located at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
Ericsson's common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select
Exchange under the ticker symbol "ERIC."

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 -

      Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516
      E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
              rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


ESG SECURITY: Dropped From State Fair Stage Collapse Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a security company named in a
class-action lawsuit filed by victims of the deadly 2011 Indiana
State Fair stage collapse has become the final defendant dismissed
from that case.

A Marion County judge granted ESG Security's motion for summary
judgment on Sept. 14, effectively dropping it from the case.  His
order says only that he found "no genuine issue of material fact."

Stage collapse victims had sued 19 other companies, but they
reached a nearly $50 million settlement in December.

The Indianapolis Star reports ESG Security did not take part in
that settlement.  The company contended it wasn't involved in
crucial events leading up to the August 2011 collapse.

Seven people were killed when high winds toppled stage rigging
onto fans awaiting the start of a concert by country duo
Sugarland.


EXXON MOBIL: Environmental Groups Revive Settlement Challenge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
coalition of environmental groups has revived its attempt to
intervene in and object to New Jersey's controversial $225 million
settlement with Exxon Mobil Corp. over contamination claims.

Retired Superior Court Judge Michael Hogan, who has been handling
the case while acting on recall and who denied the groups'
original motion to intervene, is set to hold a hearing on the
groups' latest request Sept. 22 in Mount Holly.

The groups are asking for permission to intervene so they can
appeal the settlement, which Judge Hogan approved Aug. 25, to the
Appellate Division.  In a brief, the groups' lawyers said the
groups "vehemently oppose" the settlement and believe they should
be allowed to challenge it.

Opponents to the settlement have argued that the administration of
previous Gov. Jon Corzine estimated that damages could have
reached as high as $8.9 billion.  The state's outside counsel and
lawyers for Exxon Mobil, however, have said that figure was
unrealistic and that $225 million, which includes about $44.4
million in attorney fees, was more appropriate.

"The [Department of Environmental Protection] has abandoned its
duty as trustee of the state's natural and financial resources,"
the groups' lawyers, Susan Kraham and Edward Lloyd of the
Environmental Law Clinic at Columbia University, said in the
brief.

The groups challenging the settlement are the New Jersey chapter
of the Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, the Delaware Riverkeeper
Network and Environment New Jersey.

"The settlement amount is strikingly and suspiciously low in light
of the resource devastation Exxon has wrought on the refinery
sites," the brief said.

Calls to Gov. Chris Christie's office were referred to the
Attorney General's Office, which declined to comment.

The $225 million figure represents the damages caused at the
company's refinery facility in Bayonne and at the Bayway Refinery
in Linden, as well as at all of its service stations and several
other facilities in the state.

Although the deal has been harshly criticized by Democrats and
environmental activists as being too low, lawyers for the
administration have noted that the settlement agreement does not
include claims against Exxon for natural resource damages to the
Arthur Kill, Newark Bay and other waterways.

The settlement agreement, first announced by Acting Attorney
General John Hoffman in March after 11 years of litigation, was
delayed pending a public comment period and subject to a review by
Hogan.  Earlier this year, Democrats in the Senate passed a
resolution in a 24-0 vote, in which Republicans did not
participate, urging Hogan to reject the settlement.

"After giving considerable time and thought to its task . . . the
court finds that the proposed consent judgment is fair,
reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with the goals
of the Spill Compensation and Control Act," Hogan said in his
opinion approving the settlement.

"Nearly every consent decree can be viewed simultaneously as 'a
crackdown or a sellout,'" Judge Hogan said, citing a 1994 ruling
by a U.S. district judge in Colorado in United States v.
Telluride.  "This quote rings especially true for the settlement
that this court has been tasked with reviewing."

In their brief, the environmental groups said the rule regarding
intervention, Rule 4:33-1, should be read liberally.

The application to intervene is timely, the groups have a profound
interest in the litigation and, they said, the DEP has not
adequately represented the interests of the environmental groups
and their members.

"Environmental intervenors will present a legally driven
perspective to the Appellate Division that neither primary party
is willing to offer," the groups said in their brief.  "That
perspective is straightforward: Based on undisputed facts and
prevailing law, the settlement is unfair, unreasonable, and
inconsistent with the Spill Act and public trust doctrine, which
obligates the department to manage its natural and fiscal
resources for the public's benefit."

Judge Hogan's decision had been eagerly awaited by the Christie
administration, Democrats in the Legislature who appear intent on
derailing the governor's presidential ambitions and
environmentalists who have accused the governor of agreeing to a
sweetheart deal to appease a corporate ally.

The state's lead attorney, Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley in
New Orleans, said during hearings before Hogan that any settlement
offer significantly above $225 million would be unreasonable in
trying to reach a compromise.  The Philadelphia Inquirer quoted
Hoffman as telling Hogan that Exxon rejected a $325 million
settlement offer in 2012.

One of Exxon's lawyers, Theodore Wells Jr., told Judge Hogan the
Corzine administration had made settlement offers of $350 million
to $400 million, the Inquirer reported.  Mr. Wells, of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York, said Exxon
rejected those offers and did not make counteroffers.

One of the key objections raised by the opponents to the
settlement was that Exxon would gain financially by being able to
deduct the $225 million from its taxes. Hogan said the deductions
were allowable.

"The fact that Exxon may be able to deduct their settlement
payment on their state and federal tax returns is also not a
reason to deny approval," he said.  "As with contribution
protection, the Legislature and Congress allow settling defendants
to deduct settlement payments."

Ultimately, Judge Hogan said, there was no reason to reject the
settlement.

"Although far smaller than the estimated $8.9 billion in damages,
Exxon's payment represents a reasonable compromise given the
substantial litigation risk the DEP faced at trial and would face
on appeal," he said.

"When an agency charged with acting in the public interest, such
as the DEP, finds that the public interest is best served through
settlement, that decision is entitled to deference," Judge Hogan
said.

In a statement released by the state Attorney General's Office and
the DEP shortly after the ruling was released, officials said the
agreement represented the largest settlement in an environmental
case with a corporate defendant in New Jersey's history.


FACEBOOK INC: Defends $20MM Sponsored Stories Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook Inc.
has already faced a lot of flack over the settlement it reached in
the privacy class action over a short-lived advertising feature
that promoted brands with user photos.

It took two attempts -- and an extra $10 million -- to get signoff
from U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, who once mused the case
might be "too big to settle."

On Sept. 10, lawyers for Facebook will defend the $20 million
"Sponsored Stories" settlement yet again, this time before a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

Taking up a hot issue in the class-action and public-interest
bars, some objectors complain the settlement inadequately
compensates class members while steering millions in cy pres
donations to nonprofit organizations.  Others claim the deal
improperly lumps in teenage Facebook users, who are due more
protections under certain state privacy laws than provided for
under the settlement.

Both the Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General
Kamala Harris have weighed in to argue that the federal Children's
Online Privacy Protection Act does not preempt more stringent
state laws.  Scott Michelman of the Public Citizen Litigation
Group in Washington, D.C., who represents parents of teenage class
members, said that his clients are concerned that the deal will
continue to allow Facebook to publicize when their children "like"
something posted by an advertiser on the social networking site.

"Kids can click 'like' on something that they may later regret --
something that may later show up in front of a college admission
board, in front of an employer, or a love interest," said
Mr. Michelman, who maintains the settlement authorizes Facebook to
violate seven states' parental consent laws.

Mr. Michelman is set to handle oral arguments for objectors
alongside Robert Fellmeth of the Children's Advocacy Institute at
the University of San Diego School of Law, and Aaron Zigler of
Korein Tillery in St. Louis.

Robert Arns of the Arns Law Firm is handling the case on behalf of
settling plaintiffs.  He didn't respond to a phone message left at
his office on Sept. 11.  Kristin Myles of Munger, Tolles & Olson,
who is set to argue on behalf of Facebook, referred messages to a
company spokesperson who didn't immediately respond.

This won't be the first time that a privacy settlement over a
Facebook advertising program has come before the Ninth Circuit.
The court previously upheld a $9.5 million settlement agreement,
which distributed millions to privacy groups but no money to class
members.

When the U.S. Supreme Court declined take up the case, Chief
Justice John Roberts issued a statement noting the high court had
not weighed in on cy pres settlements, but that "in a suitable
case, the court may need to clarify the limits on the use of such
remedies."

In the "Sponsored Stories" case, Massachusetts lawyer John Pentz
represents class members who object to settlement largely on the
grounds that a portion of the settlement funds -- about $2 million
-- are set to be paid out as cy pres, a phrase adopted from a
French expression meaning "as near as possible."   Mr. Pentz said
that, if the Ninth Circuit were to approve the settlement, it
could set up a circuit split since the Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth
Circuits have all held that class members must be made whole
before funds can be diverted to charity.

While Judge Seeborg approved the "Sponsored Stories" deal in 2013,
the judge didn't ignore ongoing debate about the value of cy pres
settlements.  In August 2012, he rejected an initial settlement
proposal which provided for $10 million in charitable donations
and up to $10 million in attorney fees, but no cash for class
members.
The following year, Judge Seeborg approved the parties' revised
settlement which, after all the claims were tallied, distributed
$15 to individual claimants, leaving about $2 million in funds to
be split among about a dozen nonprofit groups and academic
institutions.

Mr. Pentz maintains that nothing is preventing the settling
parties from raising the payout to $19 per class member and
"exhausting the entire fund."


FISKER AUTOMOTIVE: Judge Allows Shareholders' Suit to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Riccardi, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that shareholders were not time-barred from bringing
lawsuits more than a year after the financial struggles of a
hybrid automaker were widely reported in the media, a federal
judge for the District of Delaware has ordered.

U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson's decisions came in an opinion
captioned In re Fisker Automotive Holdings Shareholder Litigation,
in which she dismissed several claims leveled against corporate
directors and others connected with Fisker Automotive, a failed
manufacturer of environmentally friendly vehicles, but gave a
green light for further litigation in the case.

Judge Robinson, considering defense motions to dismiss a
consolidated complaint alleging violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, said defense
arguments that the plaintiffs should have raised their complaint
earlier was not fatal to the case.  That was because confidential
information that could shed light on whether there were material
omissions and misstatements of fact came out long after the
initial appearance of media reports.

While news reports surfaced in 2011 and 2012, Judge Robinson said,
there was key information that was unavailable until a private
research firm, PrivCo, made an analysis of Fisker's decline in
spring 2013, and a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives
subsequently conducted an investigation into Fisker.

"While defendants argue that each of these issues was discoverable
through news articles and the private offering documents, the
PrivCo report and hearing testimony contained unpublished
documents and brought to light nonpublic information regarding the
[Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing] loan," she said.

In the consolidated complaint, plaintiff shareholders alleged
defendants failed to disclose that Fisker would not meet a key
production benchmark for its signature (and only) product, the
Fisker Karma, and also failed to disclose a recall notice one
month before a capital call, Robinson wrote.  Plaintiffs also
alleged, Robinson said, that defendants, during that December 2011
capital call, failed to disclose "Fisker Automotive's precarious
cash position."  They also alleged defendants failed to disclose
in 2012 the fact that the departure of Henrik Fisker, the
company's founder, as CEO triggered the default of a "key
personnel" covenant with a lender.

Judge Robinson ruled the plaintiffs' complaint is not time-barred,
but weeded out claims against six of the defendants, and granted
one defendant's -- Peter McDonnell's -- motion to dismiss.
Mr. McDonnell had been a Fisker Automotive director for a
relatively brief period of time.  A motion to dismiss brought by
Ace Strength Ltd. and Richard Li Tzar Kai was stayed pending
further discovery on the issue of the court's personal
jurisdiction.

Plaintiff shareholders named as defendants the following:

  -- Fisker, the founder of Fisker Automotive and its CEO until
February 2012.

  -- Bernhard Koehler, a co-founder of Fisker Automotive's
predecessor, Fisker Coachbuild, and chief operating officer of the
company during the lawsuit period.

  -- Joe DaMour, Fisker's chief financial officer through July
2012 and an adviser afterward.

  -- Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the venture capital firm,
which was a controlling shareholder of Fisker Automotive.

  -- Ray Lane, who was a managing partner of Kleiner Perkins and
Fisker Automotive's chairman of the board.

  -- Keith Daubenspeck and McDonnell, directors of Fisker
Automotive.

Judge Robinson granted a motion to dismiss claims under Section
12(b)(2) of the Securities Act against all defendants save Li and
Ace Strength.

Section 12(b)(2) makes it a violation of law to induce the
purchase of securities through false or misleading communication.
The offerings made by Fisker Automotive were not to the general
public, however.

She wrote, "The court concludes that the offerings were made via
private placement memoranda to sophisticated investors and were
not public offerings," therefore defeating the Section 12(b)(2)
claims.  In a footnote, Judge Robinson added that the failure of
the 12(b)(2) cause of action also required the court to dismiss
controlling-person liability claims under Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

But the court rejected efforts to set aside allegations of
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.  That act
provides it is a violation to make a material misrepresentation or
omission that a buyer of securities relies upon and results in
material loss.

"Considering all of plaintiffs' allegations, the court concludes
that plaintiffs are principally complaining of the
misrepresentations, i.e., presenting Fisker Automotive's status as
stable and funded, when it was failing," Judge Robinson said.  She
said the plaintiffs adequately pleaded their reliance on the
alleged misrepresentations, and said "plaintiffs have adequately
alleged a primary violation of Section 10(b) by the various
defendants."

Fisker Automotive, the maker of the plug-in hybrid electric cars,
was headquartered in Anaheim, California, and had its
manufacturing plant at a refurbished General Motors site in
Wilmington, where it made the Fisker Karma.  The company declared
bankruptcy in November 2013 and was sold at auction in February
2014 for nearly $150 million to Wanxiang Group, a China-based
auto-parts manufacturer.  Wanxiang is planning to relaunch the
company's signature product, the Fisker Karma, as the Elux Karma,
in 2016, according to media reports.

Norman M. Monhait and P. Bradford deLeeuw of Rosenthal, Monhait &
Goddess in Wilmington were listed as counsel for the plaintiffs.
William B. Chandler III -- wchandler@wsgr.com -- and Ian R. Liston
-- iliston@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati in
Wilmington were listed as counsel for defendants Henrik Fisker and
Koehler.  M. Duncan Grant -- grantm@pepperlaw.com -- and
Christopher B. Chuff -- chuffc@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton
in Wilmington were listed as counsel for defendant Daubenspeck.
Vernon R. Proctor -- vproctor@proctorheyman.com -- of Proctor
Heyman Enerio in Wilmington was listed as defense counsel for
McDonnell.  J. Clayton Athey of Prickett -- jcathey@prickett.com -
- Jones & Elliott in Wilmington was listed as defense counsel for
DaMour.  Kenneth J. Nachbar -- knachbar@mnat.com -- and Lindsay M.
Kwoka --
lkwoka@mnat.com -- of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in
Wilmington were listed as counsel for defendants Kleiner Perkins
and Lane.  Samuel A. Nolen -- nolen@rlf.com -- and Katharine C.
Lester -- lester@rlf.com -- of Richards, Layton & Finger in
Wilmington were listed as counsel for defendants Li and Ace
Strength.

Mr. Monhait -- nmonhait@rmgglaw.com -- was not immediately
available for comment at press time.


FREEMAN CO: Akin Gump Gets $1MM in Fees in Background Check Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that
cementing a high-profile loss for the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, a Maryland federal judge has awarded close
to $1 million in fees to the agency's adversaries, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld and client Freeman Co.

After chiding the agency for bungling its case, U.S. District
Judge Roger Titus in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Sept. 4 ordered the
EEOC to cover nearly $939,000 in Akin Gump's fees.  The EEOC had
sued Freeman in 2009 as part of a broader push to scrutinize
hiring policies that rely on criminal record checks.  The lawsuit
accused the Dallas-based event-planning company of using
background checks in a way that disproportionately screened out
black job applicants, thus violating Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.

Akin Gump's Donald Livingston, who led Freeman's defense, said on
Sept. 8 that it remains rare for an attorney fees award to be
entered against the EEOC in Title VII litigation.  The Sept. 4
ruling shows just how far the agency overreached, he said.

"What the judge has said is that when you, as a plaintiff, know
that you have lost . . . that you have an obligation to stop
litigating," said Mr. Livingston, who formerly served as the
EEOC's general counsel.

The litigation, like some of the agency's other recent efforts in
court, has long been a losing struggle for the EEOC.  In 2013,
Judge Titus dismissed the EEOC's claims against Freeman after
ruling that the agency's expert witness had made a "mind-boggling"
amount of mistakes in his analysis of whether Freeman's background
checks had a disparate impact on minority job applicants.  The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in February affirmed
Titus and similarly blasted the expert's work, ruling that the
witness' errors made it "impossible to rely on any of his
conclusions."

On Sept. 4, Judge Titus piled on attorney fees, issuing a 33-page
ruling that quoted the Kenny Rogers country song "The Gambler --
"You've got to know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em" --
and again criticized the EEOC's approach to the litigation.

"In the Title VII context, the plaintiff who wishes to avoid
paying a defendant's attorneys' fees must fold 'em once its case
becomes so groundless that continuing to litigate is
unreasonable," Judge Titus wrote.  "Yet, instead of folding, the
EEOC went all in and defended its expert through extensive
briefing in this court and on appeal."

The judge largely approved an array of fees Akin Gump had
requested -- including for its efforts coordinating with amicus
filers during the Fourth Circuit appeal and for the time the firm
spent preparing its fee petition.

But Judge Titus did reject a few of the firm's requests, such as
an attempt to have Akin Gump counsel Hyland Hunt compensated at a
rate of $480 per hour.  The judge noted that Mr. Hunt's hourly
rate was the same as the rate suggested for senior counsel
Randolph Teslik, who also worked on the case but has been
practicing law for at least three decades longer than Mr. Hunt.

Judge Titus knocked Mr. Hunt's hourly rate down to $380, and
separately refused to award fees that Akin Gump racked up prior to
Dec. 18, 2012, the date when it first moved to exclude the EEOC's
expert report from the case.  Ultimately, Titus' award is about
$645,000 less than the $1.58 million the firm asked for.

The ruling follows a string of recent cases in which the EEOC has
been ordered to cover a defendant's costs.  In 2013, an Iowa
federal judge ordered the agency to pay more than $4.5 million to
Jenner & Block, which defended trucking giant CRST Van Expedited
Inc. against sexual harassment claims.  The CRST award was later
overturned on appeal, although smaller fee amounts awarded to
other EEOC defendants, Peoplemark Inc. and Propak Logistics Inc.,
were both upheld by appeals courts in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

The EEOC said in a statement on Sept. 8 that it was disappointed
with Titus' decision and reviewing its options.  The agency also
noted that the ruling stems from an earlier decision on the
"technical admissibility of the commission's expert report,"
rather than the merits of the discrimination claims.

Separately, the agency on Sept. 8 submitted a consent decree in
another background-check case against BMW Manufacturing Co. LLC in
South Carolina federal court.  Under that settlement, BMW would
pay $1.6 million to 56 employees who had filed claims with the
agency.


FUEL SYSTEMS: Faces "Barrie" Suit Over Proposed Westport Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Barrie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 11530
(Del. Ch., September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
stockholders of Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. to enjoin the sale of
the Company to Westport Innovations Inc., for unfair consideration
and through an unfair process.

Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. 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. is a British Columbia corporation that
develops alternative fuel, low-emissions technologies to allow
engines to operate on clean-burning fuels such as compressed
natural gas, liquefied natural gas, hydrogen and biofuels such as
landfill gas.

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 -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


GEB MEDICAL: Jury Awards $4.5MM in Pregnancy Discrimination Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, reports that a pregnancy
discrimination case initially referred to plaintiffs attorneys
through the New York City Bar's legal referral service has
resulted in a $6.2 million verdict.

Unable to find attorneys willing to take their case, three women
who said they were the victims of pregnancy discrimination
contacted the referral service in 2007.  They were referred to
attorneys Scott Lucas and Steven Sack, both based in Manhattan.

Eight years later, after a month-long trial in Santana v. G.E.B.
Medical Management, 305261-08, a Bronx jury on Sept. 15 awarded
$4.5 million in compensatory damages to the trio, $1.5 million in
punitive damages and $181,000 in lost wages.

G.E.B. Medical Management, a company offering office space and
administrative support to physicians, plans to appeal the verdict.

Bronx Supreme Court Justice Alison Tuitt presided over the trial.

In a statement, Lucas, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs, said
the verdict "sends a message to all employers that they can't
harass and fire women for being pregnant."

Lucas and Sack have taken other cases from the New York City Bar's
legal referral service.  They teamed up on Samiento v. World
Yacht, 10 NY3d 70, which resulted in a 2008 ruling from the state
Court of Appeals.

That case was brought by restaurant servers over entitlement to
"service charges" put on bills for banquets aboard the luxury
craft.  The court ruled that "reasonable patrons" would believe
the money was intended for the wait staff.

Last year, the city bar service referred more than 18,000
potential clients to attorneys within its panels.

Laurie Morrison of Manhattan and John Luke, Jr., of counsel at
Derek T. Smith Law Group, represented the defendants in the
Santana case.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Penalties Not Enough, Critics Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
General Motors Co. unloaded a truckload of legal problems on
Sept. 17 by agreeing to pay $900 million in criminal penalties and
$575 million in civil settlements related to an ignition switch
defect that led to more than 100 deaths.

But critics were quick to say the penalties are not enough.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in Manhattan outlined the details of
the deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which included two
felony charges of scheming to conceal a deadly safety defect from
U.S. regulators and of committing wire fraud.  "GM admits and
stipulates that the facts . . . are true and accurate," the
documents state.

"The mistakes that led to the ignition switch recall should never
have happened.  We have apologized and we do so again," said a
statement from GM CEO Mary Barra.  "We have faced our issues with
a clear determination to do the right thing both for the short
term and the long term."

Under the deal, GM accepted a corporate monitor to be selected by
the U.S. attorney's office and approved by the U.S. deputy
attorney general.  It is a three-year DPA, with prosecutors having
the right to extend it a fourth year under certain conditions.

The lengthy statement of facts carried the footprints of unnamed
GM lawyers throughout them -- from taking part in various meetings
about the defect to secretly settling cases involving it.  Their
actions helped delay a recall of defective vehicles for nine
years.

The agreement was signed by GM general counsel Craig Glidden, an
outsider brought in March 1 to rebuild the legal department after
former GC Michael Millikin resigned under fire and at least four
lawyers were dismissed for their roles in the scandal.

The deal was also signed by Anton Valukas, a former U.S. attorney
who is chairman of Jenner & Block.  It was Mr. Valukas who
conducted the controversial "independent" internal investigation
for GM on how it handled the defect, and then helped represent the
company in negotiations with the U.S. attorney.

The agreement states, "GM admits that it failed to disclose to its
U.S. regulator and the public a potentially lethal safety defect
that caused airbag nondeployment in certain GM model cars, and
that GM further affirmatively misled consumers about the safety of
GM cars afflicted by the defect."

While prosecutors did not charge any individuals, GM has agreed to
continue its cooperation if the investigation continues.

The $900 million criminal penalty could have been much more.  It
was based on GM's profit from selling defective cars from the
spring of 2012 -- when it definitively knew about the problem --
until the recall in February of 2014. Conceivably it could have
gone back several years earlier, when a number of GM engineers and
lawyers realized they had a problem and began a drawn-out
investigation of it.

But prosecutors indicated that they took into account GM's
cooperation and acceptance of responsibility.  They specifically
cited the company's conducting a "swift and robust internal
investigation," providing a continuous flow of information and
unvarnished facts, terminating wrongdoers, and establishing an
independent victim compensation fund that is expected to pay out
over $600 million.

Still, the criminal penalty was less than the $1.2 billion that
Toyota Motor Corp. paid last year in settling criminal charges
over its unexpected acceleration problems.  Toyota also paid $1
billion in civil damages.

Also on Sept. 17, GM announced it was taking a $575 million charge
as a result of settling civil suits and a shareholder class action
connected to the switch scandal.  The company said it reached a
memorandum of understanding potentially covering 1,380 individual
death and personal injury claimants -- more than half of the
personal injury plaintiffs in multidistrict litigation in New
York.

"The parties to these agreements have resolved difficult claims
without the burden, expense and uncertainty of litigation," said
Mr. Glidden, the GC, in the statement.

At least one critic believes paying a settlement is not enough.
Clarence Ditlow, head of the Center for Auto Safety, told the
Detroit News, ""GM killed over a 100 people by knowingly putting a
defective ignition switch into over 1 million vehicles.  Yet no
one from GM went to jail or was even charged with criminal
homicide.  This shows a weakness in the law not a weakness in the
facts.  GM killed innocent consumers."

Mr. Ditlow continued, "GM has paid millions of dollars to its
lobbyists to keep criminal penalties out of the Vehicle Safety Act
since 1966.  Thanks to its lobbyists, GM officials walk off
scot-free while its customers are six feet under."

Another critic saying the law should be changed was plaintiffs
attorney Bob Hilliard, of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, one of the co-
lead counsels in the multi-district litigation.

"To have the single most egregious and successful cover up in the
history of this country result in such a gentle slap on the wrist
through the payment of these pennies in a fountain, does not bode
well for tomorrow's victim of the next auto defect," Mr. Hilliard
said in a statement.  "Without a change in the law, there simply
will be no deterrent for car companies that decide to cut corners
and kill customers."

Mr. Hilliard then compared the financial penalty to what Toyota
paid.  "Toyota paid more but was guilty of less," he said.
"Hundreds of deaths resulted from GM's conduct and yet they simply
write a check and go home.  This is a remarkably jaw-dropping and
incredibly sad result."

GM's future is not all rosy yet.  Despite major legal burdens
being taken off their shoulders on Sept. 18, Mr. Glidden and GM
still must tackle more legal issues ahead.  They have more civil
litigation, including 84 death cases and 380 injury cases not yet
settled in the multidistrict suit.  The trial is scheduled to
start in January.

The company also faces ongoing investigations by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Transport Canada and all 50 state
attorneys general.

And it could face some tax consequences.  The U.S. attorney's
office "does not agree not to prosecute GM for criminal tax
violations," according to wording in the DPA.


GENERAL MOTORS: Employees May Still Face Charges Despite Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hays and Tom Krisher, Larry Neumeister, Eric Tucker and
Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The Associated Press, report that
General Motors has agreed to pay $900 million to resolve criminal
charges for concealing a defective ignition switch linked to at
least 169 deaths, federal prosecutors said on Sept. 17.

The agreement calls for two charges -- wire fraud and scheming to
conceal information from government regulators -- to be dropped
after three years if the automaker cooperates fully.

However, Southern District U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara did not
rule out the possibility that employees could still face charges.
"They let the public down.  It's as simple as that," Mr. Bharara
said.  "To sum it up, they didn't tell the truth in the best way
that they should have -- to the regulators, to the public -- about
this serious safety issue that risked life and limb."

Also on Sept. 17, GM announced it that it will spend $575 million
to settle the bulk of the civil lawsuits filed over the scandal.
The settlement in United States v. $900,000,000 in United States
Currency, 15-cv-07342, was filed in the Southern District of New
York by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jason Cowley and Alexander
Wilson.

GM is represented by Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas and
firm partners Reid Schar and Anthony Barkow.

The twin agreements bring to more than $5.3 billion the amount GM
has spent on a problem prosecutors say could have been dealt with
at a cost of less than a dollar per car.  Those expenses include
government fines, compensation for victims and the recall and
repair of the millions of affected vehicles.

With the settlements, GM is taking a big step toward moving past
the scandal, which badly damaged its reputation but led to
company-wide safety reforms.

Later in the day on Sept. 17, GM chief executive Mary Barra
appeared before employees in suburban Detroit and again apologized
to the victims of crashes caused by the bad switch.

"We didn't do our job," she said.  "We accept the penalties handed
down, because that's what it means to be held accountable."
As part of GM's deal with prosecutors, an independent monitor will
be appointed to review the automaker's procedures for handling
safety defects.

The statement of facts to which the company agreed describes in
scathing terms GM's deceitful and dismissive approach to handling
a problem that was evident even before the defective switch went
into production in 2002.

Consumer advocate Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the
nonprofit Center for Automotive Safety, bitterly criticized the
settlement.

"GM killed over 100 people by knowingly putting a defective
ignition switch into over 1 million vehicles," Mr. Ditlow said.
"Thanks to its lobbyists, GM officials walk off scot-free while
its customers are six feet under."

Mr. Bharara said he understands some victims' families might be
disappointed no individuals were arrested, but he added: "We apply
the laws as we find them, not the way we wish they might be."  He
also said GM was given credit for cooperating with the
investigation, including sharing the results of its in-house
probe.

When GM employees, the media and some customers complained about
the switch in 2004 and 2005, the company's engineers left the
switch alone, rejecting a cheap and simple improvement that would
have significantly reduced the problem, court papers said.

Court papers said even though the dangers became plain in the
spring of 2012, the company did not correct its earlier assurance
that the switch posed no safety concern.  Instead, Mr. Bharara
wrote, it concealed the defect from regulators and the public "so
that the company could buy time to package, present, explain and
manage the issue."

The wire fraud count pertained to the company's assurances to
customers over the Internet in 2012-13 that its used cars were
safe.

Last year, GM recalled 2.6 million older small cars worldwide to
replace the faulty switches. Those included the Chevrolet Cobalt
and Saturn Ion.

The faulty switches can unexpectedly slip out of the "run"
position to "off" or accessory.  That shuts off the engine and
disables power-assisted steering, power brakes and the air bags.
Some cars ran off the road or collided with other vehicles.

Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
slapped GM with a civil fine of $35 million for failing to notify
the government of a safety-related defect within five days of
learning about it.

                          Civil Lawsuits

Also last year, GM established a fund to compensate victims.
Lawyers administering the fund accepted 124 death claims and 275
injury claims.  Families of those who died will get at least $1
million. GM has set aside $625 million to compensate people who
accept a settlement with the fund.

Texas attorney Bob Hilliard represented 1,385 plaintiffs with
death or injury claims who decided not to seek compensation from
the fund.  On Sept. 17, GM said it has agreed to spend part of
$575 million to settle those lawsuits, which include 45 deaths.

The money also will be used to settle a shareholder lawsuit that
said GM's actions reduced the value of its stock.

Even with the settlements, GM cannot close the books on the
scandal.  It faces 454 death and injury cases that have yet to be
settled.  Six cases have been scheduled for trial, including one
set to start in January.

Amid the scandal more than a year ago, GM fired 15 employees,
including engineers and lawyers, for failing to act to resolve the
switch problem.

The recalls led to other changes at GM.  Ms. Barra appointed a new
safety chief who reports directly to her and added 35 product
safety investigators.  The company changed its product development
process to focus more on safety.  And it started a program that
encourages employees to speak up if they uncover a safety concern.
GM also reviewed a backlog of safety issues in 2014 and ordered a
record 84 recalls covering more than 30 million vehicles,
including 27 million in the U.S. So far this year, it has issued
33 recalls covering 2.6 million cars and trucks.

Numerous critics complained that no individuals faced charges,
including Laura Christian, the mother of a woman who died in her
2005 Cobalt. She said she felt as if she was in mourning again and
called the financial penalty a "slap on the wrist."

Lance Cooper, an attorney who helped uncover the scandal, said the
settlement is no consolation to the victims' loved ones.

"When individuals, through their reckless conduct, cause someone
to die, they go to jail," Mr. Cooper said.  "When large
corporations such as GM, through their reckless conduct, cause
hundreds of people to die, they simply pay a fine, write it off as
a tax loss and move on."

He added: "Unfortunately, it's the same old story -- if you have
enough power and money, you can always buy your way out of truly
being held accountable for your misdeeds."

The deal with GM comes a year and a half after Toyota agreed to a
$1.2 billion penalty from the Justice Department for withholding
information about deadly unintended acceleration in its vehicles.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: New Zofran Birth-Defect MDL Heads to Pa. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a new multidistrict litigation over the anti-nausea drug Zofran
could be coming to Pennsylvania pending the outcome of a hearing
before a federal judicial panel.

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is
set to consider whether the 12 Zofran cases filed this year from
across the country should be consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The motion to consolidate the cases was filed by defendant
GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Zofran.  The plaintiffs in the cases
allege taking Zofran during pregnancy caused their children to be
born with birth defects.

The plaintiffs claim Zofran was defectively designed and
improperly marketed off-label to doctors for morning sickness
during pregnancy without U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approval, according to GSK's court papers.

The drugmaker's attorney, Sean P. Wajert -- swajert@shb.com -- of
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, forwarded a request for comment to a GSK
spokesperson, who did not respond by press time.

The cases originated from 10 districts spread across multiple
states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts,
Montana, New Jersey, Ohio and Texas.

GSK reasoned that since the plaintiffs' claims are all similar, an
MDL was warranted for greater efficiency.

According to court papers, "Each of these pending federal cases
presents a common core of facts, in that each (i) alleges exposure
to mother and fetus; (ii) asserts injury and damages arising from
alleged birth defects of the minor plaintiff; and (iii) alleges
the same or similar conduct by defendant.  Indeed, the factual
allegations in plaintiffs' complaints are nearly identical in
numerous critical respects, including in several instances sharing
the same typographical errors."

In one of the complaints, from the case Mandoyan v.
GlaxoSmithKline out of the District of New Jersey, the plaintiffs
claimed their 3-year-old son, referred to as B.M. in court papers,
suffers from a clubfoot as a result of his mother's ingestion of
Zofran during pregnancy.

In another case, Ragland v. GlaxoSmithKline out of the Northern
District of Alabama, the plaintiff alleged taking Zofran caused
her child, referred to as T.R., to be born with congenital heart
defects.

The respective attorneys for those plaintiffs did not return calls
seeking comment.

Despite the differing types of injuries alleged in some of the
cases, GSK said in its papers that the common thread of the
allegations is that the company failed to warn doctors about the
dangers of Zofran, in addition to the off-label marketing and
design defect claims.

The Philadelphia-based Eastern District of Pennsylvania court is
the appropriate venue, GSK said, because the drugmaker maintains
offices in the city, more than 1,000 of its employees work within
the Philadelphia metropolitan area, and the company keeps a
200,000-square-foot corporate office located at the Philadelphia
Navy Yard.

"A significant portion of the witnesses and documents relating to
the clinical development, regulatory history, and sales and
marketing of Zofran are likely located in the district," court
papers said.

Additionally, GSK said the Eastern District was desirable due to
its history of hosting pharmaceutical MDLs -- pointing
specifically to U.S. District Judges Cynthia Rufe and Paul
Diamond's experience in similar matters -- as well as its
interface with state courts in complex litigation matters.

"The Eastern District of Pennsylvania is particularly well-suited
to manage the Zofran litigation given its history of working with
the Complex Litigation Center established by the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas and its experience handling federal-state
coordination of mass tort actions," court papers said.

The Eastern District is also home to another birth defect-oriented
pharmaceutical MDL for the drug Zoloft.

Rufe is the presiding judge in that MDL.  Plaintiffs allege that
use of Zoloft, which is manufactured by Pfizer, during pregnancy
caused birth defects in their children.

The Zoloft MDL, which at its peak was made up of roughly 600
cases, now has 280 active cases remaining, according to
Judge Rufe's chambers.


GLOBAL CONTACT: Faces "Motta" Suit Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Motta, Sandra Lennon, Leslie Foster, Merline Radway, Tanya
James, Leida Rodriquez, Mercida Romero, Kecia Mcfadden, Natalie
Lord, Brittany Del Vatch, Tamma Fraser, Joy Joseph, Brittany
Bowden, Joy Williams, Santina Lozana, and Denise Barclift, on
their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Global Contact Services, Inc. and Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, Case No. 159749 (N.Y. Super., September 22, 2015), is
brought to remedy discrimination in employment and pay rates on
the basis of sex, race, and national origin, of past and present
Access-A-Ride Call Center employees of GCS, in violation of the
Administrative Code of the City of New York, and the New York
State Human Rights Law, and to remedy a breach of the contract
between GCS and the MTA concerning rates of pay.

Global Contact Services, Inc. maintains an Access-A-Ride Call
Center in at 33-00 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, Queens
County, which takes inbound calls from Access-A-Ride clients in
accordance with a contract entered into with the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.

Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public authority
created under New York Law to run much of New York State's public
transportation system, and has its headquarters at 2 Broadway, New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arthur Schwartz, Esq.
      Tracey L. Kiernan, Esq.
      ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE, CHARTERED ATTORNEYS
      225 Broadway, Suite 1902
      New York, NY, I 0007
      Telephone: (212) 285-1400
      E-mail: aschwartz@afjlaw.com
              tkiernan@advocatesny.com


GODADDY: Faces Suit Related to Ashley Madison Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for Legaltech News, reports that following
a flurry of litigation against Ashley Madison's parent company
Avid Life Media, a new lawsuit is pending against GoDaddy, Amazon
Web Services and other data hosting providers. Seeking at least $3
million in damages, the lawsuit was brought in Arizona federal
court for three unnamed plaintiffs who say the web services
inflicted "emotional distress upon Ashley Madison users," with
lackadaisical security that has left them vulnerable to extortion.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order requiring the removal of
the websites, in addition to monetary damages to compensate them
for their losses.

An earlier Canadian lawsuit focused on allegations related to
Ashley Madison's failure to properly secure hacked information
from the adultery website, but the new suit relates to the theft
of private consumer data from the site.

"The purpose of the lawsuit is to stop the ongoing harm resulting
from the operation of these illegal, for-profit websites and to
seek redress for the harm these websites have already caused,"
Ginny Sanderson, an attorney at Kronenberger Rosenfeld, which is
representing the unnamed plaintiffs, told Legaltech News.  "The
Plaintiffs are victims of theft. Sensitive personal information,
like tangible property, enjoys the same protections (if not more,
in some instances) under state and federal law.  The Impact Team
hackers stole Plaintiffs' sensitive personal information, but the
Defendants in our case are a few of the bad actors who took that
stolen property and made it readily available online -- for a fee,
of course."

The lawsuit further notes that the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice has "issued a restraining order requiring several websites
and Internet service providers to immediately disable the Ashley
Madison data."

Also, by "continuing to host and publish the stolen data despite
their knowledge of the pain and damage it is causing to those
involved, these bad actors are intentionally inflicting emotional
distress upon Ashley Madison users," the new lawsuit said.  Two
suicides were possibly connected to the release of the Ashley
Madison data.

Even though they are not named, the plaintiffs are former users of
the Ashley Madison website, who were "gravely affected by the
stolen data and are now subject to threats and extortion," the
lawsuit said.

On the other hand, the defendants are the website operators and
Internet Service Providers who "are hosting the stolen data to
facilitate public searches, often for a fee," the suit adds.

In response to the suit, one of the named defendants, GoDaddy,
said in a statement to Legaltech News, "We haven't been served,
and we don't comment on pending litigation."  Amazon Web Services
did not respond to a request for an immediate comment.

In August, a lawsuit was filed against Ashley Madison's parent
company for failing to protect the sensitive data of clients and
for falsely advertising services it claimed would remove all
record of use from company databases.  That lawsuit seeks $578
million in damages.  Canadian authorities continue to investigate
the publication of leaked personal data from as many as 40 million
users that were taken from the Ashley Madison site.


GOOGLE INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged Email Scanning
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, report that Google Inc. has
fought off a string of privacy class actions over its scanning of
Gmail messages to help sell targeted advertising.  But that isn't
stopping a trio of plaintiffs firms led by Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein from taking another crack at the search giant's
policy.

A suit filed on Sept. 4 on behalf of non-Gmail users in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California accuses
Google of "secretly and systematically" diverting email messages
to extract their content and predict user behavior.

Lawyers with Lieff Cabraser, Little Rock, Ark.-based Carney Bates
& Pulliam and San Jose's Gallo LLP, maintain that Google didn't
obtain consent from non-Gmail users or put them on notice that
their emails might be scanned or catalogued to help the company
sell targeted ads.

"These acts are the 21st century equivalent of AT&T eavesdropping
on each of its customers' phone conversations, or of the postal
service taking information from private correspondence -- acts
that uniformly would be condemned as egregious and illegal
invasions of privacy under any circumstance," wrote Lieff
Cabraser's Michael Sobol in Matera v. Google, 15-4062.

A Google spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
The suit alleges that Google has developed sophisticated data-
mining procedures to access and capitalize on the content of Gmail
communications.  The suit includes claims under the California
Invasion of Privacy Act, which carries statutory damages of
$5,000, and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
where statutory damages are the greater of $10,000 or $100 for
each day of violation.  The suit also seeks actual damages under
both laws based on claims that Google used the information to
generate significant advertising profit.

While Google has had success fending off similar privacy class
actions, the suit seems to be addressing some of the issues that
hurt plaintiffs in prior cases.

For instance, the complaint goes further in alleging physical
interception of data, an issue that has resonated for some federal
judges, and alleges a damages theory based on Google's
advertising-based revenue model.  Plaintiffs lawyers also may be
seeking to get around class-certification problems by bringing
suit on behalf of non-Gmail users rather than subscribers.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh denied class certification last year
in a similar suit brought on behalf of Gmail users, finding that
individual questions of whether class members consented to the
company's conduct overshadowed common issues.

Lieff Cabraser's Sobol didn't respond to messages on Sept. 8.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Slashes "No-Poach" Lawyers' Fees in Half
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a group of
prominent plaintiffs lawyers saw their requested fees slashed in
half on Sept. 2 in the Silicon Valley "no poach" case that
recovered more than $400 million for engineers who once worked for
Apple, Google and other major technology companies.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh signed off on the $415 million
settlement with the largest defendants, and in a separate order
awarded $40,043,932.50 in fees to the team led by Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm.  The award is
less than half the $81 million in attorney fees they were seeking.

Also on Sept. 2, Judge Koh awarded objector counsel Daniel Girard
of Girard Gibbs about $778,000, knocking more than 80 percent off
the $4.5 million he had requested.

Judge Koh wrote that she saw "nothing inherently reasonable" in
the request from lead plaintiffs firms for 19.5 percent of the
total settlement amount, even though it fell below the 25 percent
benchmark for contingency fee awards in the Ninth Circuit.  She
noted that reducing the lawyers' fees would boost the average
recovery for 64,410 class members by $700 to about $5,770.

"In a case with such a large settlement fund and such a great
disparity between the fees requested and the average recovery of
individual class members, the court finds the lodestar method
preferable to blind acceptance of percentages that seem largely
untethered to the results achieved in this litigation," Judge Koh
wrote.

Judge Koh awarded a little more than $40 million after multiplying
each firm's reported billings in the case by 2.2.  She also
approved $1.2 million in costs.

Reached by phone on Sept. 3, Joseph Saveri said "the most
important thing that happened is that the court approved the
settlement."

Still, he said he was "disappointed" that the full fee request
wasn't granted "given the kind of record settlement we were able
to achieve in this case.

"I think private enforcement of the antitrust laws is very
important and I think that this kind of order will be viewed by
others as discouraging that," Mr. Saveri said.

Judge Koh's order resolves claims originally filed in 2011 against
four major Silicon Valley tech companies -- Google Inc., Apple
Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp.  In 2013, Pixar Animation
Studios Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc. settled with plaintiffs
for $20 million.

The suit accused the companies of suppressing wages for technology
workers by agreeing not to recruit each other's employees.

The parties first submitted a $324.5 million deal to Judge  Koh
last year.  The judge, however, rejected it in August 2014 finding
that it fell out of line with the prior settlement with smaller
defendants.  In January, the parties submitted a revised $415
million deal which Judge Koh preliminarily approved in March.

When plaintiffs counsel submitted their request for fees in May,
they cited the "landmark" result of getting "one of the largest
monopsony wage settlements ever approved."  Although the second
deal increased the settlement fund by $90.5 million, the request
for fees remained at $81.1 million, the same level as proposed in
the prior rejected deal.

Mr. Girard, who represented named plaintiff Michael Devine when he
objected to the first settlement, sought $4.5 million for the
firm's work boosting the ultimate payout.  Judge Koh granted a
$120,000 service award for Devine and allocated $80,000 apiece for
the other lead plaintiffs.

In an emailed statement, Mr. Girard said that he was pleased that
the court recognized the firm's contributions and that his client
"deserved special recognition."

On Sept. 2, Judge Koh wrote that applying the percentage-of-
recovery method to such a "megafund" case could result in an
inappropriate windfall to class counsel.

"Having overseen this case for four years, the court finds that
justice would be best served by applying the lodestar method --
i.e., tying the fee awards for class counsel and Devine counsel to
the actual hours they reasonably expended on this litigation and
then selecting a multiplier," Judge Koh wrote.

Her effort was confounded by a wide disparity in the value co-lead
counsel at Lieff Cabraser and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm initially
attached to their combined work on the case.  In separate filings,
Lieff submitted a joint lodestar amount of $14 million while
Mr. Saveri submitted more than $20 million.  When she probed at a
fairness hearing in July, Judge Koh learned that the disagreement
was rooted in concern other firms had with the Saveri firm's
billing practices and ordered the plaintiffs to go through
Mr. Saveri's billing records entry-by-entry.  Plaintiffs
ultimately settled on a total revised sum of roughly $18 million,
cutting $2 million billed by Saveri.

Lieff Cabraser's Kelly Dermody was out of the office on Sept. 3
and unavailable for comment.

Mr. Saveri declined to speak about the time-keeping issues other
than to say, "I don't think that helped."


GRUENENTHAL: Spain's Supreme Court Upholds Thalidomie Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Spain's Supreme Court has upheld
a lower court ruling that a German pharmaceutical company does not
have to pay compensation to 22 Spaniards who blame their
disabilities on the drug thalidomide.

The court said on Sept. 23 that it upheld a Madrid provincial
tribunal's acceptance last year of an appeal by the company
Gruenenthal that the statute of limitations for the plaintiffs'
case had expired.

The Madrid court initially ruled in favor of The Spanish
Association of Thalidomide Victims and had ordered Gruenenthal to
pay some 35 million euros ($39 million) in compensation.

Thalidomide was a sedative that some doctors prescribed between
1950 and 1960 for morning sickness.  Thousands of babies whose
mothers used it were born worldwide with abnormally short limbs
and in some cases without arms, legs or hips.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Settles Shareholder Action for $2.75MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has
approved a settlement between a Philadelphia biotechnology company
and a class of shareholders.

Hemispherx Biopharma agreed to pay $2.75 million to a class of
shareholders who purchased shares between March 14 and Dec. 20,
2012.

Lead plaintiffs Ronald Van Och, Marc Verheyen and Shradanand
Lalbihari brought the action, according to an amended complaint
filed in May 2013, to recover damages and pursue remedies under
the Securities and Exchange Commission Act of 1934.  The
shareholders also named president and chairman William A. Carter,
medical director and chief medical officer David Strayer and
Carter's senior adviser, Wayne Pambianchi, as defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged that Hemispherx made fraudulent
misrepresentations between March 2012 and December 2012 regarding
the company's flagship drug candidate, Ampligen, after the
"anticipated development path for Ampligen had hit a dead end."

According to the amended complaint, the company attempted to
develop the drug for decades as a treatment for a variety of
diseases, including HIV and cancer.

The amended complaint listed a series of negative events in the
effort to get Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug,
and alleged a number of ways in which the company misrepresented
those events.  But in 2012, the plaintiffs said, the company's
misrepresentations "became more egregious."

"To give the false impression that the FDA had preliminarily
approved their approach, defendants said that the FDA had agreed
to accept for review the new analysis of AMP 516 data without
disclosing that the FDA had warned defendants that it considered
the subgroup analysis to be a post hoc examination appropriate for
generating hypotheses for further testing, not for approval, and
that approval would be 'unusual' on the basis of the data that
Hemispherx planned to submit," the amended complaint said.  The
plaintiffs also alleged that Mr. Pambianchi told shareholders at
an investor conference that the FDA had agreed to withdraw its
request for an additional trial, when that was untrue.

The plaintiffs said these misrepresentations and an inflated stock
price allowed the company to raise over $23 million during the
period in question, and about 10 percent of that was diverted as a
bonus to the personal accounts of Carter and general counsel
Thomas K. Equels.

In an answer to the amended complaint, Hemispherex largely denied
the plaintiffs' allegations.  With regard to the investor
conference, it quoted Mr. Pambianchi as saying, "In lieu of
another study, now the FDA is examining data in a new way and
newly submitted data, some of which is in publications that have
been offered by Hemispherx in the last year or so.'"

The lead plaintiff's expert estimated maximum recoverable damages
of $20.3 million, according to a settlement memo filed by the
plaintiffs' counsel.

In a final settlement hearing July 22, Judge William H. Yohn Jr.
approved the agreement.

In a July 23 statement, Mr. Equels said, "Our team will be glad to
have this class action behind us so that we can focus our time and
resources on the important work of new drug development related to
Ampligen and the manufacturing and marketing of our FDA-approved
anti-viral Alferon."

The statement said the company's insurance paid for the
settlement, and that the settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing by the defendants.


HP ENTERPRISE: Families of Navy Yard Shooting Victims File Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Essica Gresko, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
years after the shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, families
whose loved ones died are filing multimillion dollar lawsuits
against companies they say could have prevented it from happening.

Sept. 16 marks the second anniversary of the shooting in which
military contractor Aaron Alexis killed 12 people at the Navy
Yard's Building 197 before being fatally shot by law enforcement.
The day also is a legal deadline for filing wrongful death claims
under DC law, and several families have filed lawsuits in the days
ahead of the deadline.

The lawsuits allege that companies that oversaw Alexis' work knew
or should have known about violent outbursts in his past.  The
lawsuits also say that the companies were aware of more recent
troubling behavior, including that he heard voices, believed he
had a chip implanted in his head, and thought people were
following him and trying to keep him awake by using a machine to
send vibrations into his body.

The lawsuits say the companies failed to warn the Navy that Alexis
was a security risk and allowed him to retain clearance to access
to the Navy Yard.

Online court records show three lawsuits were filed in federal
court in Washington by the families of Sylvia Frasier, Kenneth
Proctor and Arthur Lee Daniels Sr., all of whom died in the
shooting.  The Frasier family's lawsuit asks for at least $25
million.  The Proctor family's lawsuit asks for at least $20
million.  And the Daniels family's lawsuit seeks $10 million.

"Tragically, Alexis's shooting rampage was entirely preventable,"
wrote lawyers for the Daniels family.

Another three lawsuits, each for $10 million, were filed in D.C.
Superior Court by Washington-based attorney David Schloss, who
represents the families of John Roger Johnson, Frank Kohler and
Richard Ridgell.

Peter Grenier, a Washington-based attorney for the Proctor family,
said the cases will likely be consolidated for discovery and
possibly for trial.  He said that if the cases don't settle, he
expects a trial would be a year and a half to two years away.

The lawsuits name as defendants Texas-based HP Enterprise Services
LLC, a Department of Defense contractor, as well as its Florida-
based subcontractor, The Experts Inc., the IT consulting firm for
which Alexis worked.  Two of the lawsuits also name the company
that provided security at the Navy Yard building.

The lawsuits join one case filed previously by the family of 51-
year-old Mary Frances Delorenzo Knight, a Virginia resident and
mother of two who also died in the shooting.  Knight's family sued
both The Experts and HP Enterprise Services.  Both companies have
asked a judge to dismiss Knight's lawsuit, but the judge has not
yet ruled. Sidney Matthew, a Florida-based attorney who represents
the Knight family, said they are alleging that if The Experts and
HP Enterprise Services "had done their job, this would not have
happened."

A lawyer for The Experts, Mark Chopko, said in an e-mailed
statement that he was aware of the lawsuits but would not have any
comment before having the chance to review them.  He called the
shooting "a tragedy for all concerned."  An HP spokeswoman said it
is company policy not to comment on pending litigation.  HP ended
its contract with The Experts after the shooting.


IOWA SELECT: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Select Herbs, LLC (the "Company") is conducting a consumer
recall for inventory sold between January 1, 2015 and August 17,
2015 pursuant to a Consent Decree issued by the federal court for
the Northern District of Iowa. The Consent Decree was issued
because the Company manufactured and distributed unapproved new
drugs, misbranded drugs, misbranded dietary supplements, and
dietary supplements not manufactured in compliance with the
current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations for Dietary
Supplements, and therefore adulterated. There are no reports to
date of side effects or adverse events.

The recalled products are herbal extracts marketed under the Iowa
Select Herbs brand in either an alcohol or alcohol free (A/F)
solution packaged in various sizes from 1oz to 1 gallon. The
following lots are being recalled:

  PRODUCT       QUANTITY**     LOT          EXP. DATE
  -------       ----------     ---          ---------
  CHAPARRAL     2              31467        5/19
  CILANTRO      2              32446        4/20
  CYPRESS       1              06305L12     4/20 and 9/19
                               and
                               6030542
  RASBEERRY     1              19183 and    4/20 and 12/19
                               30614
  SAGE          1              32880 and    4/20 and 12/19
                               32282
  WHITE WILLOW  2              32973        4/20
  ALISMA        1              130601H040   2/19
  ELDERBERRIES  3              33223 and    5/19 and 6/19
                               19847
  FENUGREEK     39             32684        11/19
  GOLDENSEAL    3              32996        9/19
  RHODIOLA      1              131101H504   12/19
  WHITE PEONY   80             111001H209   2/20
  EXTRACT
  YOHIMBE       4              20508 and    4/18
                               32533
  ST JOHNS      1              19892        2/19
  WORT
  PANAX GINSENG 1              8958         12/19
  PAPAYA LEAF   36             unknown      unknown
  CAPSULES
  ZIZIPHUS      2              0515GF       8/19
  ACIA BERRY    10             22345        5/17
  ALFALFA       1              30464        2/19
  ALOE VERA     10             m10752       11/16
  ARNICA        10             30599        2/19
  FLOWERS
  ARTICHOKE     10             45894        5/17
  LEAF
  ASHWAGANDA    12             22349        5/19
  ASTRAGULUS    1              30900        5/19
  ATRACTYLODES  10             45811        5/17
  BEET ROOT     10             22351        8/19
  BLACK COHOSH  2              19972        8/19
  ROOT
  BOSWELLIA     2              209tc13      7/17
  SERRATA
  BROAD BEANS   1              15882         11/18
  BUCHU LEAF    1              30338         7/17
  CASCARA ROOT  1              17233         3/17
  CATS CLAW     1              31487         4/19
  CINNAMON      3              29792         5/19
  BARK
  CITRUS PEEL   1              55756         4/19
  CRANBERRY     1              76542         3/17
  CUDWEED       1              31796         3/17
  DAMIANA LEAF  2              31265         4/17
  FENNEL SEED   1              31001         4/20
  EXTRACT
  GINGER        1              33500         5/19
  GINGKO        1              30520         8/18
  GRAPESEED     3              32574         2/19
  GREEN TEA     1              32513         2/19
  HAWTHORNE     1              96483         2/20
  BERRY
  LOBELIA LEAF  1              31266         6/19
  MOMORDICA     1              58545F        6/19
  GALLON
  Nettle Leaf   4              56598         5/19
  (4oz)
  OREGANO       2              19976         5/18
  Organic       1              unknown       unknown
  Papaya Leaf
  POMEGRANATE   1              15114217282   unknown
  PROPOLIS      1              22386         8/18
  EXTRACT
  PSOREALEA     1              49697         2/19
  SEED
  REISHI        1              8427          2/20
  RHUBARB ROOT  1              30176         2/18
  SANGRE DE     1              32900         2/18
  GRADO
  SARSPARILLA   1              30709         7/19
  SCHIZNDRA     1              22389         7/18
  TUMERIC       1              37441         7/20
  VALERIAN      24             31-Mar        4/20
  ROOT EXTRACT
  YARROW        24              22396        7/18
  FLOWERS
  PAPAYA LEAF   999             33161;       4/20
  EXTRACT                       R1380ST;
  (Various sizes)               52972
  A BILBERRY    1               19889        5/19
  ACEROLA       10              32795        4/19
  BERRY
  ASTAGULUS     13              31685        5/19
  ROOT
  BAYBERRY      1               31186        4/20
  BILBERRY      10              19889        5/19
  LEAF
  BITTER MELON  1               58545F       5/19
  BLACK         1               64832        5/17
  CURRANT
  BLOOD ROOT    1               30746        5/19
  Burdock Root  24              20771        4/20
  Chamomile     10              31778        3/19
  Flowers
  CHICORY Root  2               55426 and    4/20
                                55910
  COLD BE GONE  300             87366        1/20
  (Various Sizes)
  Dandelion     26              324966       9/20
  Leaf
  DANDELION     21              30902;       4/20 and 9/19
  ROOT                          32945;
                                20792;
                                33154;
                                33583
  DULSE LEAF    2               22356        4/20
  ECHINACEA     6               32263        4/20
  PURP.
  (various sizes)
  ELEUTHERO     1               30469        12/19
  ROOT
  GARCINIA      4               21484        6/19
  FRUIT
  GINGER ROOT   22              31123 and    5/19
                                33500
  Graviola Leaf 17              22363        9/20
  GYMNEMA       28              m10866       2/19
  SYLVESTRE
  HIBISCUS      2               30763        3/19
  JERUSALEM     24              5514         5/19
  ARTICHOKE
  JEWEL WEED    4               17544800916  5/19
  JUNIPER       2               19836        5/19
  BERRY
  KAVA KAVA     29              30540 and    2/20
                                33660
  Lemon Balm    12              32700        2/20
  Leaf
  LICORICE ROOT 130             32698 and    2/20
                                33380
  MAGNOLIA BARK 2               PAS130828    4/20 and 5/19
  Marshmallow   3               30933        4/19
  Root
  MILK THISTLE  113             32358;       4/20 and 10/19;
  EXTRACT                       32964;       10/19;1019
  (various sizes)               631H42200122
  MUIRA PUAMA   22              R11165       1/20
  NETTLE LEAF   1               20769        5/19
  OATSTRAW      49              31953 and    9/19
                                33183
  OATSTRAW      60              31953 and    9/19
  EXTRACT                       33183
  OLIVE LEAF    42              32772        5/19
  EXTRACT
  Osha Root     35              32303        3/20
  Propolis      1               22386        8/18
  Resin
  Pygeum Bark   39              32407        12/19
  QUACK GRASS   2               20668        12/19
  Saw Palmetto  20              32654        9/19
  Berry
  Scullcap      3               32863        4/19
  SOLOMON SEAL  3               350150980313 2/19
                                and 32862
  SUMA ROOT     3               210535       2/19
  WORMSEED      25              0415AN01     7/20
  YUCCA ROOT    2              31990         2/19

**Quantity refers to the number of units distributed and not the
size of the unit (e.g. ounces or gallons).

The recalled products were sold nationwide between January 1, 2015
to August 17, 2015 to wholesalers and consumers using the
Company's website and through online marketplace websites, such as
Amazon and Ebay.

Iowa Select Herbs is notifying its wholesale and retail customers
through written correspondence. We urge consumers who have
purchased these products to immediately discontinue their use and
contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking these products. The Company is advising
consumers to return the products to their place of purchase.
Consumers may also return products directly to Iowa Select Herbs.
Customers can call the Company at 319-826-1000 Monday through
Friday from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm CST for instructions on the return
and refund process.

Any adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by fax:

Online:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/index.cfm?action=r
eporting.home

Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UC
M163919.pdf

Mail to address on the preaddressed form.

Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


JACOBY & MEYERS: Faces Second Billing-Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
six months after Jacoby & Meyers was dismissed from a putative
class action claiming it overcharges clients on litigation costs,
the firm has been hit with a second suit raising similar
allegations.

The latest suit was filed in federal court in Newark on Sept. 2 by
Barbara Smalls, a New York resident who retained Jacoby & Meyers
to handle a personal injury suit.  She claims the firm took more
than its fair share of her $100,000 settlement by billing $2,526
in costs to Total Trial Solutions, a company owned in part by
Jacoby & Meyers managing partner Andrew Finkelstein.

According to the complaint, the retainer Ms. Smalls signed called
for a 33.3 percent contingency arrangement, and the contingent fee
came to $29,179.  But Ms. Smalls was billed separately by Total
Trial Solutions for "the type of services which are reasonably
expected to be performed by law firms as part of the services to
be provided under a contingent retainer agreement."

The Total Trial Solutions bill gave no indication of the company's
billable rates for those services, making it impossible to
evaluate the charges, according to the suit.

The bill allegedly included entries listed as
"Scan/Upload/Enhance, $18.75," and "CIB Search/MSF Consul,
$25.00." Also included were entries for "Google Map Searches,
$300" as well as "Juror Payment/Food/H, $1,075" even though there
was no jury trial in the case, the complaint states.

The suit, Smalls v. Jacoby & Meyers, names Finkelstein and Total
Trial Solutions as defendants in addition to Jacoby & Meyers.  It
brings claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
The suit was filed by Lee Squitieri -- lee@sfclasslaw.com -- of
Squitieri & Fearon in New York and Joseph Santoli, a solo in
Ridgewood.

Messrs. Squitieri and Santoli also filed a similar suit in
August 2014, Harding v. Jacoby & Meyers, naming Jacoby & Meyers;
another firm, Finkelstein & Partners; and Total Trial Solutions.
Jacoby & Meyers and Finkelstein & Partners share many of the same
office locations and have substantially overlapping partnerships,
according to court documents.

The 2014 suit was brought by two personal injury clients of the
Finkelstein firm who made similar claims about being billed for
litigation costs by Total Trial Solutions.  That suit claimed
Jacoby & Meyers was liable on a veil-piercing or alter-ego theory,
but the firm was dismissed from the case in March 2015.  The case
is proceeding against Finkelstein & Partners and Total Trial
Solutions.

Mr. Santoli said Jacoby & Meyers won't be able to obtain dismissal
from the newly filed suit because that firm's name was on the
plaintiff's retainer agreement.  He said Total Trial Solutions is
"kind of a paper company that's used to shift expenses to the
bottom line that really should come out of the one-third" of
recovery provided for in the retainer agreement.

Lindsey Taylor of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello
in Roseland, who represents the defendants in the Harding case,
declined to comment on the new suit.

Mr. Finkelstein could not be reached by phone.

Jacoby & Meyers has offices in Newark and Edison, along with 10
locations in New York and one in Connecticut.  In 2011, it filed a
federal suit seeking to overturn New Jersey's Rule of Professional
Conduct 5.4, which forbids lawyers from practicing in the form of
a nonprofit corporation if a nonlawyer owns part of the entity.
In its suit, Jacoby & Meyers said it wanted to expand, hiring
additional attorneys and staff and improving technology, in order
to better reach working class, blue-collar and immigrant
communities.  The firm said it needed an infusion of capital to
carry out its expansion, but Rule 5.4 limits firm income to
contributions from partners, retained earnings from fees and bank
loans.  Those alternatives were either unavailable or too costly,
the suit claimed.

The firm withdrew that suit in 2014 after a federal judge
instructed it to seek direction on the issue from a committee of
the New Jersey Supreme Court.


JAMES PEISTER: Gets 6-Year Prison Sentence Over Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Smith, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
suburban New York investment fund manager has been sentenced to
six years in prison for running a nearly $18 million Ponzi scheme.

James Peister, of St. James, on Long Island, pleaded guilty in
November to committing securities fraud, bilking 74 investors of
$17.9 million.

The scheme went on for nearly a decade. Prosecutors say he
promised money would be invested safely in a variety of securities
but instead spent it on personal luxuries.  They say he sent phony
account statements to investors and submitted bogus financial
statements to an independent auditor.  The scheme collapsed in the
wake of the financial crisis in 2008, when he could no longer keep
up with redemption demands.

His sentence includes paying restitution to his victims.


JESS RG: "Pena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Pena, and other similarly situated drivers v. Jess RG
Trucking, Inc., and Roberto S. Espinosa, Case No. 32355356 (Fla.
11th Cir., September 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company having its main
place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bms@rgpattorneys.com
              jsr@rgpattorneys.com


KAROUN DAIRIES: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------
Karoun Dairies, Inc. announced that it is voluntarily recalling a
variety of cheeses it distributes due to possible contamination
with Listeria monocytogenes. To date, no product has tested
positive for Listeria but in view of the association with
listeriosis cases Karoun Dairies Inc. is initiating a voluntary
recall in the interest of protecting public health.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The products are vacuum packed, in jars or in pails under the
following brands; Karoun, Arz, Gopi, Queso Del Valle, Central
Valley Creamery, Gopi, and Yanni. Weights vary from 5 ounces to 30
pounds.

This recall is limited to cheese with the UPC codes in the table
below sold nationwide. No other Karoun Dairies product is affected
by this recall. The products being recalled are listed below and
were distributed to retail outlets, including food service
accounts and supermarkets in the U.S. Consumers can find UPC code
and use by dates on each package.

  Item Name      UPC Codes          Affected     Use by Dates
  ---------      ---------          Areas        up to
                                    --------     ------------
  Ackawi         7 96252 00123 9,   US           1/6/2016
                 7 96252 01123 8,
                 7 96252 00325 7,
                 7 96252 02223 4,
                 7 96252 03223 3
  California     7 96252 90030 3    US           1/5/2016
  Cotija         7 96252 80037 5,   US           2/29/2016
                 7 96252 80036 8,
                 7 96252 80032 0
  Farmers Goat   7 96252 50016 9    US           11/26/2015
  Fresh
  Fresco         7 96252 80083 2,   US           11/8/2015
                 7 96252 80081 8
  Fresh Cheese/  7 96252 03226 4,   US           12/31/2015
  Panela         7 96252 03227 1,
                 7 96252 00227 4,
                 7 96252 00226 7,
                 7 96252 00228 1,
                 7 96252 00122 2,
                 7 96252 00126 0,
                 7 96252 60001 2,
                 7 96252 80074 0,
                 7 96252 22003 6,
                 7 96252 80070 2,
                 7 96252 00127 7
  Feta           7 96252 22004 3,   US           3/7/2016
                 7 96252 22006 7,
                 7 96252 22007 4,
                 7 96252 22005 0,
                 7 96252 22022 7,
                 7 96252 22002 9,
                 7 96252 11003 0,
                 7 96252 40003 2,
                 7 96252 11024 5,
                 7 96252 11025 2,
                 7 96252 22012 8,
                 7 96252 40025 4,
                 7 96252 12034 2
  Goat Milk Feta 7 96252 50001 5    US           3/2/2016
  Mozzarella     7 96252 70012 5,   US           1/2/2016
                 7 96252 70013 2,
                 7 96252 12014 5,
                 7 96252 12015 2
  Paneer         7 96252 70008 8,   US           1/7/2016
                 7 96252 70014 9,
                 7 96252 70019 4,
                 7 96252 70018 7
  Queso Blanco   7 96252 80004 7,   US
                 7 96252 80005 4,
                 7 96252 80043 6
  String Cheese  7 96252 00019 5,   US           3/16/2016
                 7 96252 00020 1,
                 7 96252 00035 5,
                 7 96252 00015 7,
                 7 96252 00025 6,
                 7 96252 00041 6,
                 7 96252 00042 3,
                 7 96252 00040 9,
                 7 96252 00005 8,
                 7 96252 00008 9,
                 7 96252 00038 6,
                 7 96252 00028 7,
                 7 96252 00018 8,
                 7 96252 00013 3,
                 7 96252 00017 1,
                 7 96252 00016 4,
                 7 96252 00039 3,
                 7 96252 00022 5
  Ani            7 96252 01125 2,    US          1/5/2016
                 7 96252 00323 3
  Nabulsi        7 96252 03225 7,    US          12/29/2016
                 7 96252 00225 0,
                 7 96252 00223 6,
                 7 96252 00125 3
  Yanni Grilling 7 96252 90024 2,    US          12/23/2015
                 7 96252 90029 7

Karoun Dairies was made aware of a possible association of their
cheese products with several recent cases of listeriosis by FDA
and CDC. The company has ceased distribution of above cheeses and
is working closely with FDA to continue to investigate the problem
further.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
dispose of or return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with any questions may call toll free 1-866-272-
9393 toll free, Monday - Friday 8:00AM to 6:00PM PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462984.htm


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Oct. 8 Hearing on Case Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on that
motion to dismiss the Federal Securities Class Action is scheduled
to be heard by the court on October 8, 2015.

A consolidated securities class action captioned In re LeapFrog
Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-
EMC, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against LeapFrog and two of its
officers, John Barbour and Raymond L. Arthur (the "Class Action").
The consolidated complaint, filed on June 24, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial projections, financial results, and
development of new products between May 5, 2014 and June 11, 2015.
The complaint also alleges that defendants are liable as control-
person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint
seeks class certification, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and other further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper. The foregoing is a summary of the allegations in
the complaint and is subject to the text of the complaint, which
is on file with the Court. Based on a review of the allegations,
the Company and the individual defendants believe that the
plaintiffs' allegations are without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against the claims. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss on July 24, 2015. A hearing on that motion is scheduled
to be heard by the court on October 8, 2015.


LOTERIA GRILL: "Cano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Cano, individually and on behalf of himself and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Loteria Grill Restaurant Group,
LLC, et al., Case No. BC595611 (Cal. Super., September 22, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Loteria Grill Restaurant Group, LLC owns and operates a restaurant
in the County of Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hector A. Man-ache, Esq.
      ABASSIAN MARRACHE LLP
      16255 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1205
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 926-4445
      Facsimile: (800) 926-4411

         - and -

      Jennifer Ryu, Esq.
      SHIN RYU BAZERKANIAN LLP
      714 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 714
      Los Angeles, CA 90015
      Telephone: (213) 986-3430
      Facsimile: (213) 986-9860
      E-mail: lawyers@srb-law.com


MAXIM INTEGRATED: Judge OK's Damages Expert Testimony in App MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ruled that testimony from a damages expert for
a technology company can be admitted in the company's patent
infringement case over a mobile banking app, the last one pending
in a Pittsburgh-based multidistrict litigation.

U.S. District Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the Western
District of Pennsylvania said in her memorandum that Maxim
Integrated Products' expert witness, Stephen Dell, could offer his
opinion that Maxim is entitled to millions of dollars in damages,
as opposed to defendant Branch Banking and Trust Co.'s (BB&T)
estimate that damages would "barely exceed six figures."

Dell reasoned Maxim should be paid running royalties for every
active user of a BB&T app that infringed on Maxim's patents.
Judge Conti said Dell alternatively opined BB&T could pay Maxim a
lump sum, although it would exceed the total amount calculated in
the royalty plan.

BB&T argued Dell's royalty rate calculation takes into account the
value of not just the infringing app, but the parts of the mobile
device it is installed on.

However, Judge Conti said BB&T's analysis mischaracterized Dell's
opinion.  His opinion was based on established standards, Judge
Conti explained, specifically the standards set forth in the 1970
case of Georgia-Pacific v. U.S. Plywood, from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  Those standards call
for, among other things, a comparison of licenses entered into
with other entities for use of patented technology.

Pointing to other licenses Maxim established with other companies,
Conti said Dell's opinion "assigns a fixed monetary value to a
customer's regular, yearly use of the BB&T app, which, when loaded
onto a mobile device, allegedly practices Maxim's patented
technology.  Those licenses apportion value to the technology that
Maxim owns because those licensees were paying Maxim to use the
same technology that BB&T is accused of using without
authorization in this patent infringement case."

She added, "The fact that the app will be loaded onto a
multi-component mobile device and that it is the combination of
the device and the app that infringes Maxim's patents does not
mean that Dell applied the entire market value rule in determining
the amount of damages."

BB&T also objected to Dell's reliance on allegedly comparable
licenses in generating its royalty figure.  BB&T argued Dell's
analysis is "fundamentally flawed" because there are differences
between the licenses and any hypothetical negotiation for use that
BB&T and Maxim would conduct, according to Judge Conti.

Specifically, BB&T argued the licenses include additional patents
and that Dell treats all patents the same, suggesting the same
royalty should be paid regardless of which or how many patents are
being licensed, Judge Conti said.

While the licenses with other entities arose out of settlement
agreements from the litigation, Judge Conti said, "Settlement
agreements that are proven to reflect the economic demand for the
patented technology can be relied upon."

She continued, "Maxim executed those agreements with parties that
it previously accused, along with BB&T, of infringing the same
patents in this coordinated MDL case.  BB&T, and the signatories
to those licenses, jointly litigated this patent infringement case
before the settlement agreements were signed. The fact that the
[opposing parties'] licenses are settlement agreements is not
determinative in this case."

And, according to Conti, Dell explained in his testimony why the
licenses contained additional patents: With those entities, the
licenses were based on different technologies.

"BB&T's disagreement with Dell's conclusions is a basis for cross-
examination and contrary testimony, not exclusion.  Dell likewise
provides a basis for converting the lump sum payments reflected in
the comparable licenses, which themselves account for multiyear
infringements, into a running royalty damages opinion," Judge
Conti said.  "BB&T will be able to present its contrary opinion to
the jury, but disagreement between experts is not a basis for
exclusion."

William P. Nelson of Tensegrity Law Group in Redwood Shores,
California, who represented Maxim, did not return a call seeking
comment.  Robert Van Arnam of Williams Mullen in Raleigh, North
Carolina, represented BB&T and did not return a call seeking
comment.


MAZDA MOTOR: Faces "Morishige" Suit Over Defective Windshields
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Morishige, Lawrence Kornit, and Lauren Kornit, individually,
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
Mazda Motor of America, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
BC595280 (Cal. Super., September 22, 2015), on behalf of all
persons in California who purchased or leased any Mazda Motor of
America, Inc. vehicles equipped with KJ04-63-900, KJ04-63-900A,
KJ04-63-900B, KJ03-63-900A, KD35-63-900A, KD35-63-900B, KD35-63-
900C, KD35-63-900D, KD33-63-900A, KD33-63-900B, KD33-63-900C,
KD33-63-900D windshields, which exhibit an inordinate and
dangerous propensity to crack, chip, and fracture under
circumstances.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing,
distributing, and selling automobiles, other motor vehicles, and
motor vehicle components in Los Angeles County and throughout the
United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Robert 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@capstoneIawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com


MEDISTAT RX: Recalls Sterile Drug Products Due to Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care
professionals and patients of a voluntary recall of all non-
expired drug products produced for sterile use and distributed
nationwide by Medistat RX, LLC, in Foley, Alabama, due to possible
contamination. The recalled products were distributed between
November 1, 2014, and September 3, 2015.

Contaminated drugs put patients at risk of serious infection.
Health care professionals should immediately check their medical
supplies, quarantine any drug products marketed as sterile from
Medistat, and not administer them to patients. Administration of a
non-sterile drug product intended to be sterile may result in
serious and potentially life-threatening infections or death.

During an ongoing inspection, FDA investigators and Alabama state
inspectors observed significant deficiencies that raise concerns
about Medistat's ability to assure the sterility of drug products
that it produced. Medistat voluntarily ceased sterile compounding
operations on September 1, 2015.

FDA has received reports of several adverse events that are
potentially associated with drug products made by Medistat.
Patients who have received any drug products produced by Medistat
and have concerns should contact their health care professional.
FDA encourages health care professionals and patients to report
adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program:

Complete and submit the report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm; or
Download and complete the form, then submit it via fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178.

The FDA will continue to work closely with the Alabama Board of
Pharmacy to protect the public health.

FDA previously inspected Medistat in September 2014 and issued a
Form FDA 483. Medistat is registered under section 503B of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as an outsourcing
facility. The Drug Quality and Security Act, signed into law on
November 27, 2013, added a new section 503B to the FDCA. Under
section 503B, a compounder can elect to become an outsourcing
facility. Outsourcing facilities:

Must comply with current good manufacturing practice requirements;
Will be subject to inspection by FDA according to a risk-based
schedule;
and Must meet certain other requirements, such as reporting
adverse events and providing FDA with certain information about
the products they compound.


MICROSOFT CORP: Female Employees File Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers with
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein on Sept. 16 filed a putative
class action against Microsoft Corp., accusing the Redmond, Wash.-
based company of discriminating against female employees in
technical and engineering positions.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, specifically targets Microsoft's "stack
ranking" system, which rates each employee's job performance on a
scale of one to five, with one being the best.  The company,
according to the complaint, caps how many workers can be given a
certain rating; only 20 percent of workers, for example, can be
classified as "ones." Employees' twice-a-year ratings are used in
determining pay and promotions.

"From 2014 to the present, Microsoft has used a similarly
unvalidated, and unreliable discriminatory performance evaluation
procedure that systematically undervalues female technical
employees relative to their male peers, and results in lower
scores than men in similar positions with no better or worse
objective performance," the suit alleges.

Named plaintiff Katherine Moussouris, a security program manager,
said she regularly exceeded her performance goals. But on two
occasions, she said, she received high ratings from her supervisor
-- a "one" in 2013 -- only to have the numbers lowered to comply
with Microsoft's ranking caps.  Ms. Moussouris also alleged that
she was passed over for promotions that eventually went to less-
qualified and less-experienced men.

"Microsoft's policies had an adverse impact on women, and
Microsoft did not correct known issues," said Lieff Cabraser
partner Kelly Dermody.

Additionally, Ms. Moussouris said she was retaliated against for
complaining about a group director sexually harassing other women.

Ms. Moussouris said the director gave her a "low bonus" before he
was reassigned and that subsequently she had the scope of her job
reduced and was assigned low-level tasks that men were not asked
to do.  She resigned in May 2014 after seven years with the
company.

"We've previously reviewed the plaintiff's allegations about her
specific experience and did not find anything to substantiate
those claims, and we will carefully review this new complaint,"
Microsoft spokesman Mike Houlihan said in an email.

The complaint seeks changes to Microsoft's employee evaluation
system, back pay and reinstatement for class members, damages and
costs. Microsoft has more than 117,000 employees.  Ms. Dermody
said she could not estimate how many women would be part of the
class.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs are Ms. Dermody, Anne
Shaver, and Sharon Lee of Lieff Cabraser and Adam Klein, Cara
Greene and Ossai Miazad of Outten & Golden in New York.


MID-AMERICA SOUND: Court to Decide on State Fair Stage Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Callahan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
state of Indiana is responsible by contract for the legal defense
and any judgments against a company which provided the rigging
that collapsed and killed seven people during the 2011 state fair,
a company attorney told the state's highest court.

Mid-America Sound Corp. attorney Robert MacGill told the justices
of the Indiana Supreme Court on Sept. 23 that Indiana's State Fair
Commission signed lease forms with the company for nine years that
included an "indemnification" provision releasing Mid-America from
any claims arising from the use of its equipment.

Mid-America inserted that provision in its invoice claim form
after the company tried to halt a 2002 state fair concert as
severe weather threatened but was rebuffed by state fair
officials, who said only they had such authority, he said.

"The 2002 event changed the contract and the contract was
negotiated, agreed to and executed year after year," Mr. MacGill
said.

Fair officials signed the revised forms starting in 2003 and for
eight subsequent years, including in 2011 after high winds in
August of that year toppled stage rigging Mid-America had provided
onto fans awaiting the start of a concert by country duo
Sugarland.  Seven people were killed and more than 100 were
injured.

Indiana has paid out $11 million to victims of the collapse,
including $5 million under the state's liability cap and $6
million in public funds freed up by the General Assembly.

The state contends that the State Fair Commission is a state
entity that cannot be required to pay the liability faced by a
private company such as Mid-America, and that doing so would
violate state law.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher told the court the
indemnification provision in the invoice claim forms Mid-America
submitted are "a gotcha claim" that could potentially transfer
"limitless liability" to the state.

Mr. Fisher said the voucher form provision was never part of the
state's contracting and negotiation processes.

"The only reason we're here is because this was on the back of an
invoice," he said.

The amount of damages Mid-America faces in lawsuits filed
following the 2011 stage collapse remains under court seal.

The Sept. 23 hearing came after Indiana appealed a March ruling by
the state Court of Appeals that overturned a Marion County judge's
2014 finding that Mid-America Sound could not shift its
liabilities to the state.

The appellate ruling found that Mid-America could use its
indemnification arguments in trial court.  If that ruling is
upheld by the high court, a jury could find the state responsible
for legal damages the company faces.

Chief Justice Loretta Rush said following the Sept. 23 hearing
that the court would consider the case and decide whether to
accept it on appeal.  If it does, the court will issue an opinion
in the matter.


MIDAMAR CORP: Pleads Guilty of Exporting Misbranded Beef Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two related companies that
distribute and certify halal food products pleaded guilty on
Sept. 9 to conspiring to export misbranded beef products for sale
in Malaysia, Indonesia and elsewhere.

Midamar Corp. and Islamic Services of America each entered guilty
pleas in federal court in Cedar Rapids to one count of conspiracy
to make false statements on export certificates, sell misbranded
meat and commit wire fraud, among other offenses.

Under the plea agreement, each company must forfeit $600,000 in
proceeds derived from the scheme.  They could also face a term of
probation and an additional fine at sentencing.

U.S. District Judge Linda Reade has rejected the companies' claims
that the charges were regulatory violations that should have been
handled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ruling that federal
prosecutors didn't overstep their jurisdiction in bringing the
case.  However, despite the guilty pleas, the companies can appeal
Judge Reade's decision.

Midamar is a food distributor, while ISA certifies Midamar and
other companies' food products as halal and is one of the few
organizations approved to certify beef for import into Malaysia,
Indonesia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.  Both
were founded and operated by the Aossey family in Cedar Rapids.

Midamar, a 40-year-old company that's considered a pioneer in
halal foods, issued a statement saying that the plea agreements
resolve all charges against the companies and executives.  Midamar
said it has now "taken full responsibility for wrongful conduct"
that occurred from 2007 through 2012 and apologized for errors in
judgment.

Midamar's founder, Bill Aossey Jr., was convicted in July of
falsifying documents as part of a scheme to export beef to
Malaysia and Indonesia that didn't meet those countries' strict
standards of religious-based slaughter.  He's in federal custody
awaiting sentencing and could face several years in prison; he has
asked for a new trial.

Mr. Aossey's sons, Midamar directors Jalel and Yahya "Bill"
Aossey, are expected to plead guilty on Sept. 4 under their own
deals, court records show.  Yahya Aossey entered the guilty plea
on Sept. 9 on behalf of Midamar, while Jalel Aossey pleaded guilty
on behalf of Islamic Services of America.

According to the conspiracy count, Midamar made "fraudulent,
deceptive, and misleading claims" about the source and nature of
beef products, the way the cattle were slaughtered and the level
of adherence to halal practices that were advertised.

Some Midamar products came from a Minnesota slaughterhouse that
wasn't approved by Malaysia or Indonesia.  Mr. Aossey directed
employees to remove its establishment number from the packaging
and replace it with labels that falsely showed the meat came from
a certified Nebraska slaughterhouse, according to testimony.

Prosecutors allege Midamar told customers that its cattle were
hand-slaughtered by specially trained Muslim slaughtermen who
always recited prayer and advertised that it did not use
penetrative captive bolt stunning, a process commonly used in
meatpacking in which an animal is killed when a steel rod is shot
into its brain.

But Midamar's primary supplier used bolt stunning and often didn't
have Muslim slaughtermen present, the indictment alleges.


MILBERG LLP: Appeals Court Paves Way for Malpractice Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court has paved the way for a malpractice
class action against Milberg LLP brought by clients who sued the
law firm over a botched securities fraud case.

Reversing a district court ruling that denied class certification
to the plaintiffs, the Sept. 10 decision from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stems from a case filed by Columbia
Law School professor Philip Bobbitt.  He alleged that New York-
based Milberg, former founding partner Melvyn Weiss and three
other law firms bungled his securities fraud case against Variable
Annuity Life Insurance Company Inc.

In the malpractice case, U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata in
Arizona refused in 2012 to certify a class of more than one
million VALIC investors claiming that they lost their securities
fraud case because Milberg and the other firms missed deadlines.
After Bobbitt and a second named plaintiff dismissed their case,
another investor intervened to appeal that decision.

Both cases involved basically the same class of more than one
million VALIC investors.  The underlying securities case asserted
fraud against VALIC, while the malpractice lawsuit brought
negligence claims against the lawyers who handled the shareholder
litigation.

The Ninth Circuit found that Judge Zapata had erred in concluding
that the malpractice case could potentially involve the laws of
all 50 states since each class member's claim was based on the
laws of their home states, not the law of Arizona.

"Our inquiry focuses not on the place where the victim feels the
consequences of the injury, but on the location of injury itself,"
wrote Judge John Owens.  "Although the district court correctly
concluded that the various defendant law firms and attorneys
performed legal services across several states, the critical
conduct causing the injury was the failure to meet court deadlines
in Arizona."

The Ninth Circuit ruling, if unchallenged, leaves the future of
the malpractice case unclear.  Bobbitt and Sampson voluntarily
dismissed the case in 2013, claiming it was "not economically
feasible" without class certification.  Mr. Bobbitt declined to
comment.

Lawrence Kasten, a partner at Lewis Roca Rothgerber in Phoenix,
who represents Lance Laber, the intervening investor, declined to
comment.  Douglas Pepe, a partner at New York's Joseph Hage
Aaronson, who represents Milberg, Weiss and other lawyers at the
firm, did not respond to a request for comment.

Milberg brought the VALIC case in federal court in Arizona in
2001.

The late U.S. District Judge William Browning certified the class
of investors but later struck the plaintiffs' expert and witness
list after Milberg failed to meet discovery deadlines.  He later
vacated class certification and granted judgment to VALIC.

The malpractice case, filed in 2009, accuses Milberg and three
other firms of negligence given the missed deadlines and their
failure to inform class members about the status of the
litigation.  The lawsuit named Milberg and five of its individual
attorneys, including Mr. Weiss, who spent about 18 months behind
bars after pleading guilty to charges that his firm paid kickbacks
to lead plaintiffs.  Mr. Weiss, who was released from a federal
prison in 2010, did not return a call to his mediation firm, MIW
Consulting LLC, which is based in Boca Raton, Florida.

Also named in the case were Michael Spencer, of counsel at
Milberg, and former Milberg attorneys Janine Pollack, now a
partner at New York's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz;
Brian Kerr, now at New York's Brower Piven; and Lee Weiss, now in
the Garden City, New York, office of Berns Weiss, which is based
in Woodland Hills, Calif.  Mr. Spencer declined to comment, and
none of the others responded to requests for comment.

The suit also named another former New York firm, The Lustigman
Firm, and two of its partners, Sheldon Lustigman and Andrew
Lustigman, who are now at Olshan Frome Wolosky in New York;
Washington-based Uitz & Associates and its principal, Ronald Uitz;
and Tucson, Ariz.-based Gabroy, Rollman & Bosse, now Bosse Rollman
& Funk, and two of its partners, Ronald Lehman and John Gabroy,
who no longer works at the firm.  Lawyers representing those
defendants before the Ninth Circuit did not respond to requests
for comment.


MINDFINDERS INC: Sued Over Violation of D.C. Sick Leave Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrice Johnson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Mindfinders, Inc., Case No. 15-007294 (D.C. Super.,
September 22, 2015), seeks statutory damages under the District of
Columbia Accrued Sick and Safe Leave Act.

Mindfinders, Inc. is a D.C.-based information technology staffing
firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Hass, Esq.
      EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE CENTER
      1413 K St. NW, 5th Floor
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 645-6356
      Facsimile: (202) 828-9190
      E-mail: ahass@dceic.org


MITEL NETWORKS: Entered Into Non-Binding MOU to Settle Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and other
defendants have entered into a non-binding memorandum of
understanding in respect of a settlement with the plaintiffs in
the consolidated class action.

The Company said, "As disclosed in our Form 8-K filed on April 20,
2015, we are a defendant in three purported stockholder class
actions, two of which have been consolidated, that challenge the
acquisition of Mavenir. None of the complaints states any amount
of damages. We and the other defendants entered into a non-binding
memorandum of understanding in respect of a settlement with the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action, but those plaintiffs
recently indicated they are no longer satisfied with the terms and
have sought to renegotiate. We continue to believe that the
allegations in all of the complaints are without merit and, if the
terms of a settlement are not finalized and/or approved, we intend
to vigorously defend against the allegations made by the
plaintiffs. Although we do not believe that such litigations will
have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome of the
litigation."


MONSTER INC: Falsely Marketed HDMI Cables, "Joseph" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Joseph, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monster, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No.
2015CH13991 (Ill. Ch., September 22, 2015), is brought on behalf
of consumers who purchased Monster's brand of High Definition
Multimedia Interface ("HDMI") cables, that were falsely marketed
by the Defendants that can transmit digital signals faster than
other HDMI cables.

Monster, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place
of business at 455 Valley Drive, Brisbane, California 94005.
Monster designs, distributes, and sells HDMI cables in the United
States, including at retail stores in Cook County, Illinois.

Best Buy Co., Inc. is a consumer electronics retailer that
advertises, distributes, and sells Monster's HDMI cables to
thousands of consumers in the United States, including at retail
stores in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Eleonora P. Khazanova, Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nikolas J. Hagman, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, PC
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              ella@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com
              nick@attorneyzim.com


NASDAQ OMX: To Seek Dismissal of "Rabin" Action
-----------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.).

"We intend to file a motion to dismiss the complaint. We believe
the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate them
vigorously," the Company said.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Defends Sunday Ticket Antitrust Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the National Football League is playing defense against
several class actions alleging antitrust violations over its
Sunday Ticket package, which allows fans to watch games broadcast
outside their local television market.

At least eight suits, all filed within the past two months, allege
that individual and commercial subscribers of the package, like
restaurants and sports bars, have overpaid for out-of-market games
in violation of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act.

The suits are the latest to tackle how sports leagues and
satellite and cable providers sell out-of-market games through
bundled packages available on televisions, computers or other
electronic devices.  On Sept. 1, a federal judge approved the
settlement of a similar class action against the National Hockey
League.

But unlike the NHL case, the NFL lawsuits hope to upend an
exclusive arrangement the league has with DirecTV that doesn't
exist in baseball, hockey or basketball.  The arrangement, which
was extended under a $12 billion deal last year, was a lucrative
part of AT&T Inc.'s $48.5 billion merger with DirecTV, which the
Federal Communications Commission approved on July 24.

Plaintiffs lawyers say the exclusive deal leaves no room for
competition and has driven up the price of the Sunday Ticket
package.

"Putting the Sunday Ticket package out on multiple distribution
platforms will have an effect of increasing competition and
restraining price," said Christopher Lebsock --
clebsock@hausfeld.com -- of Hausfeld in San Francisco, who filed a
suit on behalf of The Mucky Duck in San Francisco, a sports bar
Mr. Lebsock moved on Aug. 27 to coordinate his case and seven
other class actions filed over the Sunday Ticket package into a
single federal multidistrict proceeding.

Most of the NFL cases were brought on behalf of bars and
restaurants that pay $2,314 to $120,000 a year for a Sunday Ticket
package, according Mr. Lebsock's suit.

"For a bar, which caters its business on a diverse crowd, they
want to be able to show all out-of-market games so that if
somebody comes in and is interested in seeing a New Orleans Saints
game, they can put it in the corner, and they can watch that game
while they sit there and have a beer," he said.  "But they also
need to cater to the Packers fans as well, and whoever else comes
into the bar."

Derek Ludwin -- dludwin@cov.com -- and Gregg Levy --
glevy@cov.com -- partners at Covington & Burling in Washington who
represent The National Football League Inc., did not respond to a
request for comment.

Robert Mercer, a spokesman for DirecTV Holdings LLC, a unit of
DirecTV Inc., wrote in an email: "These lawsuits are without
merit.  We are fully confident in the legality of our agreement
with the NFL."

The NFL suits were filed days after U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York preliminarily
approved the NHL settlement on June 15.  Under the settlement, the
NHL has agreed to provide out-of-market games of a single team at
a 20 percent discount from the currently bundled price.  The deal
also pays $6.5 million in attorney fees.

Lead class counsel Howard Langer -- hlanger@langergrogan.com --
questioned the timing of when the NFL cases were filed.

"No case against any sports leagues had been filed until after the
settlement with the National Hockey League had been made public,"
said Mr. Langer, of Philadelphia's Langer, Grogan & Diver, who has
a separate class action pending over similar claims against Major
League Baseball.  "And the first of the cases I'm aware of filed
against the National Football League copied substantial sections
of our complaints."

But Mr. Lesbock, who filed his suit on July 13, insisted that the
timing was just a coincidence.

"A number of entities that subscribe to Sunday Ticket came to us
last fall and were very concerned about what was going on with
Sunday Ticket pricing, and concerned that the merger with AT&T was
only going to exacerbate the problem," he said.  "And it appears
that's what's happening."


NBTY ACQUISITION: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Benitez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. NBTY Acquisition, LLC, NBTY Manufacturing, Inc.,
Nature's Bounty, Inc., Nature's Bounty, and Does 1 to 100,
Inclusive, Case No. BC595563 (Cal. Super., September 22, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of vitamins and
food supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


NELNET INC: Court of Appeals Affirmed Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Circuit Court of
Appeals has affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the
Keating Defendants, resulting in the dismissal of the case, Grant
Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC et al.

On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's
Nelnet, LLC, a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), CUnet, LLC,
a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on Nelnet (collectively, the "Keating
Defendants"), in connection with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the
U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the
"District Court"). The lawsuit was originally instituted on August
24, 2011, and alleged that the Keating Defendants sent an
advertising text message to the named plaintiff in June 2011 using
an automatic telephone dialing system, and without the plaintiff's
express consent. The complaint also alleged that this text message
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, purportedly
entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful violation.
The complaint further alleged that the Keating Defendants sent
putative class members similar text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system, without such purported class members'
consent, and sought to establish a class action.

On May 12, 2014, the District Court granted the Keating
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and ordered that the case
be dismissed. On September 8, 2014, the named plaintiff filed an
appeal brief with the Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 21, 2015, the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's judgment in favor of the Keating Defendants,
resulting in the dismissal of the case.


NEW YORK, NY: Asks High Court to Review $18MM Rape Kit Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Storey, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
New York City has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review an $18
million verdict against police for the mishandling of a rape kit
that delayed a man's exoneration for 12 years.

According to the city's writ of certiorari, filed on Sept. 9 in
The City of New York v. Newton, a decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit "improperly constitutionalizes
broad questions about the storage, tracking and retrieval of
evidence from long concluded criminal prosecutions that may now
yield exculpatory information due to advances in DNA testing."

Alan Newton was convicted in 1985, before DNA testing was
available or trustworthy, of rape, robbery and assault.  Following
his first unsuccessful post-conviction motions, the rape kit in
the case was misfiled and could not be found.

The kit was finally located in 2005, and Newton was released in
2006.  A jury found in 2010 that police had denied his right to
due process and access to the courts, awarding him $18 million.

Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin threw out the verdict,
acknowledging deficiencies in the handling of the evidence but
concluding that they did not amount to a due process violation.
The Second Circuit reinstated the jury verdict in February (NYLJ,
Feb. 27).

The circuit, said Judge Raymond Lohier, was reinstating a verdict
that the "then-existing system was inadequate and that the city
. . . intentionally or recklessly administered an evidence
management system that was constitutionally inadequate and that
prevented Newton from vindicating his liberty interest" in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Law Department, in its petition for a writ of certiorari, said
the "court of appeals' dismay about the case is understandable."
But it said that the circuit's creation of a "new" and "sweeping"
due process right of adequate handling of evidence raised concerns
about "judicial policymaking" that previously had led the U.S.
Supreme Court to "sharply limit" the review by judges of DNA
evidence claims under federal civil rights law.

"Whether and how the city's system for managing and retrieving
evidence from concluded prosecutions should now be improved,
reviewed, or updated, in light of our current understanding of the
significance of DNA evidence, are questions for the policy-making
branches of government."

The same goes for the question of whether taxpayers should
compensate an exonerated defendant, the brief noted.  The state
Court of Claims has found that the state was liable for Newton's
wrongful conviction, but the determination of damages has been
delayed by his federal civil rights action.

The city argued that accepting the circuit's ruling would subject
"tens of thousands" of concluded criminal prosecutions and state
criminal proceedings "to post-hac attack and re-evaluation --
based on current knowledge about the relevance and importance of
DNA evidence that was not available at the time when past evidence
was collected and stored."

The city's counsel of record is Richard Dearing, head of the Law
Department's appeals division.  Also on its cert petition are
Cecelia Chang, Celeste Koeleveld, Arthur Larkin and Drake Colley.
John Schutty, a Manhattan solo who represents Mr. Newton, said
that he would oppose the writ.

Mr. Schutty said in an interview that the city knew its system for
handling evidence operated improperly but "did nothing about it."

The attorney said the state had granted defendants the right to
prove their innocence through DNA and, as the circuit ruled, law
enforcement officials could not take away their means to do that.

Mr. Schutty said that the city "has yet to offer any money.  And
the city has yet to even request a settlement conference."
A spokesman for the Law Department said it does not discuss
settlement negotiations.

Mr. Newton works as a part-time research association for the Black
Male Intiative at the City University of New York.


OC JEWELRY: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Dilia Garcia and other similarly situated individuals v. OC
Jewelry USA LLC and Orianne Collins, Case No. 32368062 (Fla. 11th
Cir., September 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

OC Jewelry USA LLC is a Florida Profit Corporation and is engaged
in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: 305-416-5000
      Facsimile: 305-416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Dismisses Two Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Fort Lauderdale federal judge on Sept. 4 dismissed two shareholder
class actions against mortgage servicer Ocwen Financial Corp.

The securities fraud complaints allege Ocwen misled shareholders
about mortgage servicing operations, its conflict of interest
policies and performance from April 2013 to October 2014.  One of
the actions was filed by Ocwen shareholders, and the other was
filed by shareholders of a spinoff company, Altisource Portfolio
Solutions SA.

U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas found the allegedly
false and misleading statements applied to corporate mismanagement
rather than nondisclosures considered actionable under securities
law.  He also ruled some statements amounted to puffery rather
than statements that a reasonable investor would believe.

In the Altisource decision, Judge Dimitrouleas said shareholders
did not have standing to sue Atlanta-based Ocwen, which was
formerly based in West Palm Beach.

"The business relationship between the two companies, though
substantial, is not enough to confer standing," he wrote.

Ocwen was represented by a team led by John P. "Sean" Coffey of
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel in New York.

Joseph E. White III and Lester Rene Hooker of Saxena White in Boca
Raton represented both sets of plaintiffs.  The Altisource
plaintiffs were members of the West Palm Beach Firefighters
Pension Fund, and the Ocwen plaintiffs were members of the United
Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local 8.

Ocwen agreed with federal and state regulators in December 2013 to
pay a $2.1 billion settlement and fines for alleged misconduct on
loan servicing during the robo-signing foreclosure scandal.
Celia Ampel can be reached at 305-347-6672.


OKARCHE BAKERY: Recalls Frozen Cookie Dough Due to Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Okarche Bakery of Okarche, OK is recalling ALL FROZEN COOKIE
DOUGH, because it may contain undeclared Milk, Soy, Wheat and
Yellow #5. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
these allergens run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Product was distributed in Oklahoma City and surrounding areas
through fundraisers.

Product can be identified as Okarche's Old Fashioned Gourmet
Cookie Dough in white 3lb. plastic tubs. The recalled product does
not have a lot number or best buy date.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after the problem was discovered during a
label review.

The product can be returned to Tower Caf‚, 412 S. Main ,Okarche,
OK 73762. Or call if you have any questions 405-263-7911, 8 am to
5 pm CST, ask for Craig Hubbard

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm461612.htm


ONE MINUTE: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Undeclared Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The One Minute Miracle Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots of
Miracle Diet 30, capsules and Miracle Rock 48, capsules to the
consumer level. These products have been recalled due to FDA
analysis revealing that these dietary supplements contain
undeclared drug products making them unapproved drugs.

Miracle Diet 30 has been found to contain undeclared
phenolphthalein, phenolphthalein was an ingredient used in over-
the counter laxatives but was removed from the market because of
concerns of carcinogenicity. There is a reasonable probability
that the health risks of long term phenolphthalein consumption
could include serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular
heartbeat, and cancer with long term use.

Miracle Rock 48 has been found to contain undeclared
thiosildenafil, thiosildenafil is an analogue of sildenafil which
is an approved drug used for the treatment of male sexual
enhancement. Based on the similarity of chemical structures
thiosildenafil, the analogue of sildenafil is likely to have a
similar pharmacological effect as sildenafil and there is a
reasonable probability that concomitant use of this dietary
supplement and nitrates could cause a sudden and significant drop
in blood pressure that may be life threatening.

The company has received no reports of illness associated with
these products to date.

Miracle Diet 30 capsules is marketed as a dietary supplement to
support appetite control and weight loss and is packaged in 30-
count plastic bottles. All lots of Miracle Diet 30 through the
expiration date of 04/15/2018 are affected. Product was
distributed via internet nationwide in the United States.

Miracle Rock 48 capsules is marketed as a dietary supplement for
male sexual enhancement and is packaged in two blister packages of
2- count capsules, 4 capsules per box. All lots of Miracle Rock 48
through the expiration date of 06/01/2018 are affected. Product
was distributed via nationwide in the United States.

In addition to the voluntary recall of the above products, The One
Minute Miracle Inc. has chosen to voluntarily withdraw the
following products from the marketplace to provide its customers
with the certainty of safety. Those products include all sizes and
lots of Miracle Cholesterol, Miracle Night Time, Miracle Joint-
Flex, Miracle Stud 72, Miracle Magic Man, Male Mint Gum, Miracle
48 Hrs, Miracle Magic Woman, Miracle Cougar, Miracle Cougar Gum,
Miracle Cougar G-Spot, Miracle G-Spot, Vagina Rejuvenation,
Miracle Anti-Wrinkle, Miracle Stud Delay, Miracle Male Stud Spray,
Miracle Male Stud Coffee, Miracle Male Coffee, Male 10, Miracle
Male Stud Sublingual, Male 72 Hr, Miracle Tongue Sublingual,
Miracle Tongue and Master Blaster

The One Minute Miracle is notifying its customers via U.S. Postal
Service and is arranging for return of recalled products.
Consumers that have Miracle Diet 30 and/or Miracle Rock 48 which
are being recalled should stop using and return product(s)
immediately to: The One Minute Miracle Inc. 3322 NE 166 Street,
North Miami Beach, FL 33160

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact The One
Minute Miracle Inc. by phone (305)947-6244 or email
theoneminutemiracle@gmail.com Monday through Friday, 9:00am
through 5:00pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462132.htm


ORGANICGIRL PRODUCE: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Cadmium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Organicgirl Produce is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of
5 oz. organicgirl Baby Spinach with a Use-by Date of September 13
and Product Code B030298-001B08S due to test results indicating
the presence of trace levels of the naturally-occurring element
cadmium. The recall includes 1,290 cases distributed primarily to
Western and Midwestern states. No other organicgirl Baby Spinach
products or other organicgirl salads are included in the recall.

No illnesses are reported in association with this recall.

Because it is naturally-occurring in the earth's soil, trace
levels of cadmium are found in many foods as well as in the water
and air. There is no minimum health tolerance for Cadmium in crops
or soil in the U.S. at this time and the probability of acute
health consequences from consumption of Cadmium is remote.
organicgirl Produce is coordinating closely with regulators.

This recall action is being taken out of an abundance of caution
due to an isolated instance in which a single package of 5 oz.
organicgirl Baby Spinach tested randomly by the California
Department of Public Health demonstrated the presence of trace
levels of cadmium. This recall is one in which any health risk is
perceived to be non-life-threatening with any potential health
effects being temporary or reversible.

The precautionary recall is being conducted to reach retailers and
consumers to notify them that according to the California
Department of Public Health, the recalled product should not be
consumed.

Consumers are being asked to check their refrigerators for a 5 oz.
package of organicgirl Baby Spinach with a Use-by Date of
September 13 and Product Code of B030298-001B08S. If found, it
should be discarded. organicgirl will gladly replace it. Consumers
with questions may call the organicgirl consumer hotline at 866-
486-4939, Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time.

Retailers are asked to check their inventories and store shelves
to confirm that none of the recalled product is present or
available for purchase. organicgirl Produce customer service
representatives have already contacted retailers who received
product subject to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed to a total of 13 states
including Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462305.htm


PEANUT CORPORATION: Former Executive Gets 28 Years in Prison
------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Bynum, writing for The Associated Press, reports that A
former peanut company executive was sentenced on Sept. 21 to 28
years in prison for his role in a deadly salmonella outbreak, the
stiffest punishment ever handed out to a producer in a foodborne
illness case.

The outbreak in 2008 and 2009 was blamed for nine deaths and
sickened hundreds more, and triggered one of the largest food
recalls in U.S. history.  Before he was sentenced, former Peanut
Corporation of America owner Stewart Parnell listened as nine
victims testified about the terror and grief caused by tainted
peanut butter traced to the company's plant in southwest Georgia.
Hours later, they left the courthouse applauding the sentence.

"It should be enough to send a message to the other manufacturers
that this is not going to be tolerated anymore and they had better
inspect their food," said Randy Napier, whose 80-year-old mother
died from salmonella poisoning after eating peanut butter from Mr.
Parnell's plant.

Experts say the trial of Parnell and two co-defendants a year ago
marked the first time U.S. food producers stood trial on criminal
charges in a food-poisoning case.  The company went bankrupt
following the salmonella outbreak.

U.S. Attorney Michael Moore of Georgia's Middle District, whose
office prosecuted the case, called it "a landmark with
implications that will resonate not just in the food industry but
in corporate boardrooms across the country."

A federal jury convicted Mr. Parnell, 61, of knowingly shipping
contaminated peanut butter and of faking results of lab tests
intended to screen for salmonella.

Tom Bondurant, one of Mr. Parnell's defense attorneys, said 28
years prison would amount to a life sentence for his client.  He
plans to appeal the conviction and sentence.

"If you compare it with other food-safety criminal cases, it's
tremendously out of line," Mr. Bondurant said.

In April, two former egg executives in Iowa were sentenced to
three months in jail for their role in a 2010 salmonella outbreak
linked to more than 1,900 illnesses.

One of the victims in the Peanut Corporation outbreak was 10-year-
old Jacob Hurley, who was just 3 when he was stricken by
salmonella from peanut butter crackers that left him vomiting and
rushing to the toilet for nearly two weeks.

Judge W. Louis Sands estimated Mr. Parnell faced up to 803 years
in prison for his crimes, but said a punishment that severe would
have been "inappropriate."  He didn't elaborate.

"These acts were driven simply by the desire to profit and to
protect profits notwithstanding the known risks" from salmonella,
the judge said.  "This is commonly and accurately referred to as
greed."

Federal investigators found a leaky roof, roaches and evidence of
rodents at the plant, all ingredients for brewing salmonella.
They also uncovered emails and records showing food confirmed by
lab tests to contain salmonella was shipped to customers anyway.
Other batches were never tested at all, but got shipped with fake
lab records saying salmonella screenings were negative.

Emails prosecutors presented at trial showed that Parnell once
directed employees to "turn them loose" after samples of peanuts
tested positive for salmonella and then were cleared in another
test.  Several months before the outbreak, when a final lab test
found salmonella, Mr. Parnell expressed concern to a Georgia plant
manager, writing in an Oct. 6, 2008, email that the delay "is
costing us huge $$$$$."

Mr. Parnell, who didn't testify during his trial and stayed silent
years ago when called before a congressional hearing, apologized
to the courtroom full of victims and their relatives.

Speaking in a shaky voice and wearing a rumpled white shirt and
khaki pants, Mr. Parnell acknowledged problems at his peanut
plant, but he never addressed the emails and company records.

"I am personally embarrassed, humiliated and morally disgraced by
what happened," he said, acknowledging that some might see his
apology as coming too late.

"It's been a seven-year nightmare for me and my family,"
Mr. Parnell told the judge.  "All I can do is come before you and
ask for forgiveness from you and the people back here.  I'm truly
sorry for what happened."

His brother, Michael Parnell, and the plant's former quality
control manager, Mary Wilkerson, were also convicted.
Michael Parnell was sentenced to 20 years and Ms. Wilkerson five.

Stewart Parnell and his co-defendants were never charged with
killing or sickening anybody.  Instead, federal prosecutors
charged them with defrauding customers who used Peanut
Corporation's peanuts and peanut butter in products from snack
crackers to pet food.  Mr. Parnell was convicted of 67 criminal
counts including conspiracy, wire fraud and obstruction of
justice.

Members of Mr. Parnell's family pleaded for leniency.  His mother,
Zelda Parnell, told the judge both of her sons "have suffered for
years."

"They lost their income, all their material things and worst of
all their pride," she said.

Three deaths linked to the outbreak occurred in Minnesota, two in
Ohio, two in Virginia, one in Idaho and one in North Carolina.


PICNIC GOURMET: Recalls Yogurt Cheese Spreads Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Picnic Gourmet Spreads is issuing a recall on their yogurt cheese
spreads. These spreads could potentially be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria bacteria can cause a serious infection called
listeriosis. Listeriosis is caused by eating food contaminated
with Listeria bacteria and typically occurs within three days to
10 weeks of consumption (usually within three weeks). Symptoms of
listeriosis include fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance, and convulsions, which can be preceded
by nausea or diarrhea. Listeria infection can be treated with
antibiotics.

Persons at higher risk for disease include pregnant women,
newborns, elderly persons, and individuals with a weakened immune
system (for example: persons with AIDS, cancer, diabetes, or
kidney disease). Listeriosis in pregnant women may cause fever and
other flu-like symptoms, which can be mild. However, because
Listeria infection can cause premature labor, premature delivery,
miscarriage, stillbirth or severe infection of newborns, it is
especially important that pregnant women avoid these products.

The recall was a result of routine retail sampling by the DHMH
Office of Food Protection, and subsequent analysis by the DHMH
Laboratories Administration which revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in the product.

The potentially contaminated products include Red Pepper Feta
Cheese Spread, Moroccan Cilantro Cheese Spread, Tandoori Garlic
Cheese spread, Herbed Goat Cheese, Parmesan Cheese Spread, and
Chipotle Sage Cheese Spread.

These products were distributed to retail stores in Maryland,
Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington,
D.C. , Minnesota and Illinois and have a "Best By" date of October
6th.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with any of
these products.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
dispose of the product immediately. Consumers with questions may
contact Picnic Gourmet Spreads at info@picnicspreads.com

Media Contact: Brady Marz, Picnic Gourmet Spreads, 301-983-1241,
brady@picnicspreads.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm463542.htm


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Judge Certifies Class in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Trenton has granted class certification in a
securities suit claiming Prudential Financial Inc. overstated its
income and understated expenses by misusing a nationwide database
of deaths.

The judge also denied a motion by Prudential to exclude the
testimony of the plaintiffs' lead expert.

The suit concerns Prudential's use of the U.S. Social Security
Administration's Death Master File (DMF), a database of deaths in
the United States, to manage its life insurance and annuity
policies.  The plaintiffs claim Prudential used the DMF frequently
to identify deceased annuity policyholders in order to stop
annuity payments.  But, the plaintiffs claim, Prudential used the
DMF far less often to identify life insurance policyholders who
had died and to make payments to beneficiaries or to state
unclaimed property offices.

Prudential entered into a global settlement with multiple state
governments in connection with those claims in 2012.  As a result
of its improper use of the DMF, the suit alleges, Prudential
knowingly retained money that did not belong to it and understated
its liabilities to policyholders.

On Aug. 5, 2011, Prudential disclosed in a Form 10-Q filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it was being
investigated by an auditor on behalf of 33 states over its
compliance with state unclaimed property laws.  In addition, it
disclosed that the New York Attorney General's Office had launched
an investigation into the company's compliance with unclaimed
property laws.  These investigations focused on the company's use
of the DMF, according to the suit.

On the next business day, Aug. 8, 2011, Prudential's stock price
fell from $53.99 to $48.14 per share, the suit says.

U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of
New Jersey granted certification after rejecting Prudential's
claims that the National Shopmen Pension Fund is insufficiently
educated about the case.

Prudential claimed that deposition testimony of the fund's
corporate representative showed he is inadequately informed
because he mischaracterized certain facts regarding the suit.
But, citing his "many accurate statements" about the litigation
during the deposition, Judge Arleo said the fund representative
meets the "minimal knowledge" requirement under Rule 23(a).

Judge Arleo also found the proposed class met the predominance
requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), rejecting Prudential's claim that
common questions of law or of facts common to class members were
outweighed by questions affecting only individual members.

The judge said the plaintiffs are entitled to invoke a charge of
fraud on the market because they proved Prudential stock trades on
an efficient market.  Thus, unless the defendant can prove an
absence of price impact from the alleged misrepresentations,
Judge Arleo said, the investors adequately showed they relied on
them.

Prudential did not dispute the plaintiffs' assertion that the
company's stock price dropped significantly after it was accused
of misusing the DMF, but it argued that other factors might have
been the cause of the falling stock price.  Judge Arleo, however,
said Prudential failed to distinguish between price impact and
loss causation.  Price impact concerns whether the alleged
misrepresentations affected the stock's market price, while loss
causation asks whether the subsequent decline in the stock was
caused by a correction of prior misrepresentations or by other
confounding factors.  The argument that the drop in stock price
was caused by other contemporaneous disclosures, and not the DMF
issue, goes to loss causation and is not appropriate for
consideration at the class certification stage, Judge Arleo said.

Judge Arleo also denied Prudential's motion to exclude the expert
opinion of financial analyst Steven Feinstein, rejecting the
defendant's claim that his testimony was unreliable.

Mr. Feinstein's report was intended to establish the market for
Prudential stock was efficient, but the defendant claimed
Mr. Feinstein failed to prove that the news concerning the
company's use of the DMF caused the stock price to fall the next
day.  Judge Arleo denied the motion to exclude the expert report,
finding Feinstein did not seek to prove that the DMF report caused
the stock price to drop, but merely demonstrated that the market
is efficient.

A lawyer for Prudential, Edwin Schallert --
egschallert@debevoise.com -- of Debevoise & Plimpton in New York,
declined to comment, as did Peter Pearlman -- psp@njlawfirm.com
-- of Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf in Saddle Brook,
who represents the plaintiffs.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Tobacco-Related Cases Served During Q2
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that during the second
quarter of 2015, 26 tobacco-related cases, including two Engle
Progeny cases, were served against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco
(before the Lorillard Tobacco Merger), or RJR Tobacco's affiliates
or indemnitees.  On June 30, 2015, there were 262 cases pending
against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or their affiliates or
indemnitees: 245 in the United States and 17 in Canada, as
compared with 170 total cases on June 30, 2014.  The U.S. case
number does not include the approximately 567 individual smoker
cases pending in West Virginia state court as a consolidated
action, 3,581 Engle Progeny cases, involving approximately 4,591
individual plaintiffs, and 2,545 Broin II cases, pending in the
United States against RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco or their
affiliates or indemnitees.  Of the U.S. cases pending on June 30,
2015, 17 are pending in federal court, 227 in state court and 1 in
tribal court, primarily in the following states: Illinois (39
cases); Maryland (36 cases); Florida (30 cases); New York (21
cases); Missouri (19 cases); Delaware (16 cases); and California
(11 cases).


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 442 Engle Progeny Cases Pending in Fed. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that 442 Engle Progeny cases
were pending in federal court, and 3,138 of them were pending in
state court as of June 30, 2015.  These cases include
approximately 4,590 plaintiffs.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida against the major
tobacco companies, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco
and Philip Morris USA Inc.  Such actions are commonly referred to
as "Engle Progeny" cases.

As of June 30, 2015, 442 Engle Progeny cases were pending in
federal court, and 3,138 of them were pending in state court.
These cases include approximately 4,590 plaintiffs.  In addition,
as of June 30, 2015, RJR Tobacco was aware of 11 additional Engle
Progeny cases that had been filed but not served. One hundred
eighteen Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida state and
federal courts since the beginning of 2012, and numerous state
court trials are scheduled for 2015.  The number of pending cases
fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and
involuntary dismissals.  Voluntary dismissals include cases in
which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in
Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJR Tobacco's affiliates.  An offer of
judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco and
Lorillard Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida
law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco or
Lorillard Tobacco.  Such offers are sometimes made through court-
ordered mediations.

During the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., tentatively settled
virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them
in federal district court.  The total amount of the settlement was
$100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million;
Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard Tobacco -
$15 million.  The settlement covers more than 400 federal progeny
cases but does not cover 13 federal progeny cases previously tried
to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal;
approximately two federal progeny cases pending as of June 30,
2015 involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two
federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.

In March 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco paid their share
of the settlement to an escrow account now under RJR Tobacco's
control for disbursements and has reflected this balance as
restricted cash in other current assets with a corresponding
balance in other current liabilities in RAI's condensed
consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of June 30, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion for Rehearing Pending in "Graham"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a decision is pending
on the motions for rehearing filed in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co.

At the beginning of the Engle Progeny litigation, a central issue
was the proper use of the preserved Engle findings.  RJR Tobacco
has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual
elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and
concealment) is a violation of federal due process.  In 2013,
however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh
Circuit, rejected that argument.  In addition to this global due
process argument, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco raise many
other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case.
These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the
plaintiff is not a proper member of the Engle class, that the
plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company,
that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are
preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation, or that
any injury was caused by the smoker's own conduct.

In Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Russo v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., decided on April 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held
that, in Engle Progeny cases, the defendants cannot raise a
statute of repose defense to claims for concealment or conspiracy.
The defendants in each of these cases filed a motion for rehearing
on April 17, 2015.

On April 8, 2015, in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
Eleventh Circuit held that federal law impliedly preempts use of
the preserved Engle findings to establish claims for strict
liability or negligence.  On April 28, 2015, the plaintiff in
Graham filed a motion for rehearing en banc.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 34 Engle Progeny Cases Have Become Final
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that 34 Engle Progeny cases
that were tried have become final through June 30, 2015.  These
cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco or Lorillard
Tobacco of $276.4 million ($212.3 million for compensatory and
punitive damages and $64.1 million for attorneys' fees and
statutory interest).  During the second quarter of 2015, payments
were made for attorneys' fees and statutory interest in Koballa,
Webb and Brown, the judgments of which were paid in 2014.  Based
on RJR Tobacco's evaluation, accruals for compensatory and
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and statutory interest for
Hiott, Starr-Blundell, Clayton, Ward, Hallgren, Cohen, Sikes,
Thibault, Buonomo, Mrozek and Tullo were recorded in RAI's
condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited) as of June 30,
2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: $363MM Judgments in Engle Progeny Outstanding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of June 30, 2015,
judgments in favor of the Engle Progeny plaintiffs have been
entered and remain outstanding against RJR Tobacco or Lorillard
Tobacco in the amount of $158,553,640 in compensatory damages (as
adjusted) and in the amount of $204,817,000 in punitive damages,
for a total of $363,370,640.  All of these verdicts are at various
stages in the appellate process.  RJR Tobacco continues to believe
that RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco have valid defenses in
these cases, including case-specific issues beyond the due process
issue.  It is the policy of RJR Tobacco and its affiliates to
vigorously defend smoking and health claims, including all Engle
Progeny cases.

Should RJR Tobacco or Lorillard Tobacco not prevail in any
particular individual Engle Progeny case or determine that in any
individual Engle Progeny case an unfavorable outcome has become
probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, a loss would
be recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on
earnings and cash flows of RAI in a particular quarter or year.
This position on loss recognition for Engle Progeny cases as of
June 30, 2015, is consistent with RAI's and RJR Tobacco's historic
position on loss recognition for other smoking and health
litigation.  It is also the policy of RJR Tobacco to record any
loss concerning litigation at such time as an unfavorable outcome
becomes probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated on an
individual case-by-case basis.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 33 Cases Scheduled for Trial Through June 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there are 33 cases,
exclusive of Engle Progeny cases, scheduled for trial as of June
30, 2015 through June 30, 2016, for RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco
or their affiliates and indemnitees: 2 non-smoking and health
cases, one class action, four individual smoking and health cases
and 26 filter cases.  There are approximately 85 Engle Progeny
cases against RJR Tobacco B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco set for
trial through June 30, 2016, but it is not known how many of these
cases will actually be tried.

Trial schedules are subject to change, and many cases are
dismissed before trial. It is likely that RJR Tobacco, Lorillard
Tobacco and other cigarette manufacturers will have an increased
number of tobacco-related trials in 2015.

From January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2015, 123 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco were defendants were
tried, including 10 trials for cases where mistrials were declared
in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W
and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or other defendants, were returned in 59
cases, including 18 mistrials, tried in Florida (58) and West
Virginia (1).  Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned
in 57 cases tried in Florida, one in New York, and one in
California.  Three cases in Florida were dismissed during trial,
but one of those cases continued against Lorillard Tobacco and
resulted in a plaintiff verdict.  One case in Florida was a
retrial only as to the amount of damages.  In another case in
Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include
compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are
pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "Ryan" Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the second quarter
of 2015, five Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried.  In Ryan v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., the court declared a mistrial due to the
opinion being issued by the Florida Supreme Court in Hess v.
Philip Morris USA Inc.  In the subsequent retrial, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff
35% at fault and RJR Tobacco 65% at fault, and awarded $21.5
million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive
damages.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "Russo" Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the second quarter
of 2015, five Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried.  In Russo v. Philip
Morris USA Inc., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants, including RJR Tobacco.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Declared Mistrial in "Dupre" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the second quarter
of 2015, five Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried.  In Dupre v. Philip
Morris USA Inc., the court declared a mistrial based on a surprise
change in testimony of a witness.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for RJR in "Gray" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the second quarter
of 2015, five Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried.  In Ethel Gray v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of
RJR Tobacco.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Punitive Damages Not Awarded in "Hardin" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the second quarter
of 2015, five Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or
Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried.  In Hardin v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff, found the decedent 87% at fault and RJR Tobacco 13% at
fault, and awarded $776,000 in compensatory damages.  Punitive
damages were not awarded.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "McCoy" Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that since the end of the
second quarter of 2015, a decision was entered in the Engle
Progeny case, McCoy v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.  The jury
returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent
35% at fault, RJR Tobacco 25% at fault, Lorillard Tobacco 20% at
fault and the remaining defendant 20% at fault, and awarded $1.5
million in compensatory damages and $_3 million in punitive
damages against each defendant.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Jury Returned Verdict for "Larkin" Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the second quarter
of 2015, one non-Engle Progeny individual smoking and health case
in which RJR Tobacco, B&W or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant was
tried:  In Larkin v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned
a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 38% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 62% at fault, and awarded approximately $4.96
million in compensatory damages and $8.5 million in punitive
damages.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 112 Individual Smoking & Health Cases Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of June 30, 2015,
112 individual cases were pending in the United States against RJR
Tobacco, B&W (as RJR Tobacco's indemnitee), Lorillard Tobacco or
all three. This category of cases includes smoking and health
cases alleging personal injury brought by or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs, but does not include the Broin II, Engle
Progeny or West Virginia IPIC cases. A total of 110 of the
individual cases are brought by or on behalf of individual smokers
or their survivors, while the remaining two cases are brought by
or on behalf of individuals or their survivors alleging personal
injury as a result of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke,
referred to as ETS.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Conn. Court Decision in "Izzarelli" Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a decision is pending
by the Connecticut Supreme Court in the case, Izzarelli v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

On May 26, 2010, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiff in Izzarelli v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
in December 1999 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal
injuries allegedly sustained as a result of unsafe and
unreasonably dangerous cigarette products and for economic losses
she sustained as a result of supposed unfair trade practices.  The
district court granted summary judgment to RJR Tobacco on the
plaintiff's claim for unfair trade practices.  After a trial on
the negligence and strict liability claims, the jury returned a
verdict finding RJR Tobacco to be 58% at fault and the plaintiff
to be 42% at fault, awarding $13.76 million in compensatory
damages and finding the plaintiff to be entitled to punitive
damages.

In December 2010, the district court awarded the plaintiff $3.97
million in punitive damages.  Final judgment was entered in
December 2010, in the amount of $11.95 million.  The district
court granted the plaintiff's motion for offer of judgment
interest, and awarded the plaintiff $15.8 million for the period
of December 6, 1999 up to and including December 5, 2010, and
approximately $4,000 per day thereafter until an amended judgment
was entered.  The amended judgment was entered in the amount of
approximately $28.1 million in March 2011.

In September 2011, RJR Tobacco filed a notice of appeal in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, referred to as the
Second Circuit, and the plaintiff thereafter cross appealed with
respect to the punitive damages award.

In September 2013, the Second Circuit certified the following
question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to
section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a suit
premised on strict products liability against a cigarette
manufacturer based on evidence that the defendant purposefully
manufactured cigarettes to increase daily consumption without
regard to the resultant increase in exposure to carcinogens, but
in the absence of evidence of any adulteration or contamination?"
Subsequently, the plaintiff moved in the Second Circuit to amend
the certification order to add a second question to the
Connecticut Supreme Court: "Does Comment i to section 402A of the
Restatement (Second) of Torts preclude a claim under the
[Connecticut Products Liability Act] against a cigarette
manufacturer for negligence (in the design of its cigarette
products)?"  The Second Circuit denied the plaintiff's motion to
amend.  The Connecticut Supreme Court accepted the certified
question and overruled the plaintiff's objection that sought to
amend the certification order to add the same additional question
that the plaintiff had proposed to the Second Circuit.

Oral argument in the Connecticut Supreme Court occurred on April
22, 2015.  A decision is pending.  The Second Circuit has retained
jurisdiction over the parties' appeals and will decide the case
after the Connecticut Supreme Court has completed its proceedings.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: New Trial Set for Feb. 2016 in "Whitney" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a new trial is
scheduled for February 1, 2016, in the case, Whitney v. R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

On June 19, 2013, in Whitney v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR
Tobacco.  The case was filed in January 2011, in the Circuit
Court, Alachua County, Florida.  The plaintiff alleged that as a
result of using the defendants' products, she suffers from lung
cancer and emphysema.  Final judgment was entered in July 2013.
The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the First DCA in August
2013.

On December 5, 2014, the First DCA reversed the trial court's
directed verdict in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff's
design defect claims, affirmed on all other issues, and remanded
the case for a new trial.  The defendants' motion for panel
rehearing, rehearing en banc, or certification to the Florida
Supreme Court was denied on February 26, 2015.  The new trial is
scheduled for February 1, 2016.


SCR MEDICAL: Illegally Procures Background Check, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SCR Medical Transportation, Inc., Case No. 2015CH13920
(Ill. Ch., September 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
alleged unlawful procurement of a criminal background check report
for employment purposes without first providing a pre-adverse
action disclosure that includes a copy of the individual's
consumer report, a description in writing of the individual's
rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), and a pre-
adverse action opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the reported
information.

SCR Medical Transportation, Inc. is an Illinois corporation
provides transportation services to elderly and disabled
individuals living in the greater Chicago area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
      Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
      HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
      Three First National Plaza
      70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 580-0100
      E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com
              cwilmes@hsplegal.com


SECURIGUARD INC: 5th Circuit Reverses Ruling in Lunch Break Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that companies
might have to pay hourly employees for time they spend consuming
lunch, if the employers impose traveling obligations on those
workers during that time, according to the U.S. Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

In a Sept. 15 ruling hailed as extremely consequential by
plaintiffs counsel, the Fifth Circuit ruled that a jury could
review whether an employer who schedules a 30-minute break for a
worker's lunch but imposes traveling obligations as part of that
time, should have to pay the employee for that break time.  The
meals, because of the traveling obligations, could be defined as
"rest periods" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
therefore be eligible for back-pay claims, the Fifth Circuit
ruled.

The FLSA requires that nonexempt employees be paid at least the
national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus
time-and-a-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40
hours per week.

In the litigation, employees sued a U.S. Navy defense contractor,
Securiguard Inc.  According to the Fifth Circuit opinion,
Securiguard provides guards for each gate of a naval yard, and
hired the plaintiffs to fill those positions.  During the time
period that was the subject of the litigation, the guards usually
worked eight-hour shifts with two scheduled 30-minute meal breaks.

Each meal break began when a relief officer arrived at the gate in
a company car.  The guard then had 30 minutes to spend away from
the guard post.  The guards had requested to eat at the gate or in
a parked car.  But Securiguard had nixed that idea, "apparently
fearful that the Navy would see the guards eating and believe they
were shirking their security duties," according to the opinion in
Naylor v. Securiguard, written by Judge Gregg Costa, who was
joined by Judges Thomas Reavley and Edward Prado.

A district court granted Securiguard's motion for summary
judgment, holding that the FLSA requires compensation for a meal
break only when an employer imposes "substantial duties or
restrictions" during the designated time.

But the Fifth Circuit panel reversed and remanded, concluding:
"Because a jury could find that the remaining meal breaks did not
allow enough time for the employees to use the break for their own
purposes to qualify as noncompensable."

Michael Goggans of Meridian, Mississippi's The Goggans Law Firm,
who represents the plaintiffs, said: "The clients are very
pleased.  They were disheartened by the district [court] ruling,
and now they can get some relief."

Stewart Manela -- stewart.manela@arentfox.com -- of Washington,
D.C.'s Arent Fox, who represents Securiguard, did not return a
call for this story.

Galvin Kennedy, partner in Houston's Kennedy/Hodges, who
represents workers in more than a dozen FLSA claims, welcomed the
ruling and said it will boost his clients' odds in two pending
cases against two hospital employers in which he represents
nurses.

"These facts mirror ours," Mr. Kennedy said about the Naylor
litigation.

"The nurses are told that they should take 30-minute breaks, but
they end up having to work through their meal period.  Health care
comes before eating a sandwich and the hospitals encourage the
nurses to respond to the needs immediately of patients and
families.  But the hospitals automatically deduct those 30 minutes
form each day of a pay period," he said.  Given the Naylor ruling,
Kennedy is optimistic that his clients may prevail on what he
calculates may be more than $5 million in claims. In one of the
case, he is seeking lunch-break back pay for more than 2,300
hospital employees.

In the opinion, Judge Costa wrote: "We have never addressed this
question about the legal effect of employer-mandated travel time
that significantly eats into an otherwise noncompensable
thirty-minute meal period.  The closest case addressed the
compensability of twenty-minute meal breaks given to police
officers after they arrived at a location where they could eat."

But in that case, the employees "did not log off until they had
arrived at their chosen eating place, and were therefore
compensated for traveling to their destination," Judge Costa
wrote.

In contrast, he wrote: "Securiguard treated the entire period of
the break -- both the travel time and time during which the guards
could eat -- as noncompensable."


ST JUDE: Faces "Dougherty" Over Unlawful Termination Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darrel Dougherty v. St. Jude Medical Center, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00810918-CU-WT-CJC (Cal. Super., September 21, 2015), seeks
to stop the Defendants practice of terminating employees because
of complaining about and refusal to engage in unlawful activity.

St. Jude Medical Center owns and operates a health care facility
within the County of Orange, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cecil E. Ricks Jr., Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF CECIL E. RICKS, JR., ALC
      315 Centennial Way
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone (714) 966-9 I 90
      Facsimile (714) 966-9195
      E-mail: CecilRicks@msn.com


STERLING JEWELERS: 2nd Circuit Reinstates Gender Bias Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
reinstated an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sex
discrimination case against the nation's largest jewelry retailer,
ruling for the first time that courts should not scrutinize the
sufficiency of the agency's pre-suit investigation.

The case, brought in 2008 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, alleged that Akron, Ohio-based Sterling Jewelers Inc.,
which operates several jewelry store chains including Kay Jewelers
and Jared-The Galleria of Jewelry, had a nationwide practice of
discriminating against its female sales employees in both pay and
promotion.

U.S. District Judge Richard Arcara of the Western District of
New York had granted summary judgment to Sterling in 2014 based on
the report of a magistrate judge who concluded that the EEOC's
pre-suit investigation hadn't been nationwide.

The Sept. 9 ruling by the Second Circuit expanded on the U.S.
Supreme Court's April 29 decision in Mach Mining v. EEOC, which
held that judges could review on a limited basis the agency's
efforts at conciliating claims prior to filing suit.

In a case of first impression, the Second Circuit found that the
EEOC, in demonstrating it conducted a pre-suit investigation, did
not need to "describe in detail every step it took or the evidence
it uncovered."

Writing for the appellate panel, Judge John Walker said, "Under
Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an
investigation, but not the sufficiency of an investigation."  He
added, "Extensive judicial review of this sort would expend scarce
resources and would delay and divert EEOC enforcement actions from
furthering the purpose behind Title VII  --  eliminating
discrimination in the workplace."

EEOC Associate General Counsel Jennifer Goldstein praised the
ruling.  "The court of appeals recognized that Title VII gives the
EEOC 'expansive discretion' in investigating claims of
discrimination," she wrote in an email.  "Such discretion is
critical for EEOC as it makes decisions about how to expend scarce
resources."

Sterling Jewelers spokesman David Bouffard wrote in an email: "We
have taken the allegations of pay and promotions discrimination
raised in the EEOC case very seriously and investigated them
thoroughly.  They are not substantiated by the facts and do not
reflect the culture of our company.  It is important to note that
this ruling does not address the merits of the case and we will
continue to vigorously defend the company against these
unjustified legal claims, which misrepresent our deep commitment
to, and history of, equal opportunity."

The EEOC launched its investigation based on 19 charges of
discrimination involving stores owned by Sterling in nine states.
On appeal, Sterling had argued that the EEOC's files and
depositions of its investigators revealed nothing to support a
nationwide investigation, but the agency, while defending its
scope, also argued for discretion in how it conducted its probe.
The case invited amicus briefs from several employer groups,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which wrote that the
agency "has unfortunately become an agency that sues first and
asks questions later."


STEVENS TRANSPORT: Engages in Spoliation Battle with FedEx Unit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a spoliation
battle in Beaumont federal court pits FedEx Freight against
Stevens Transport.  The two transportation companies are
co-defendants in litigation that arose following a 2012 highway
accident in Jefferson County involving more than 100 vehicles.
A driver of one of the automobiles in the accident filed suit
against both Stevens and FedEx, claiming that they were negligent
in the operation of their vehicles. Both companies have denied the
allegations.  Stevens, however, has also alleged that FedEx is
responsible in part for damage the Stevens Transport vehicle
incurred in the accident.

Most recently, FedEx filed a sanctions motion against Stevens and
requested that the court issue a spoliation jury instruction. In
its motion, FedEx alleges that Stevens destroyed its tractor and
trailer, which was involved in the collision.

"That equipment was crucial evidence," FedEx argues in it motion.
"Despite knowingly disposing of such evidence, Stevens now not
only seeks to blame FedEx and [its driver] for the accident made
the basis of this lawsuit, but also seeks recovery for the damages
to the Stevens tractor-trailer."

On Sept. 1, Stevens filed a response to FedEx's sanctions motion,
arguing: "FedEx's tactic is a transparent attempt to prevent the
jury from considering Stevens' expert opinions in this matter,
which establish FedEx's culpability for plowing into the
previously stopped vehicles."

In its response, Stevens alleges that it never received a
preservation letter from FedEx about the accident or the vehicle.

"In fact, FedEx's initial request for an inspection came more than
two years and five months after its own investigation," Stevens'
response states. Stevens also argues that it has produced an
inspection report, photographs and videos of its tractor-trailer
to all parties in the litigation.

Neither Les Pickett, a director in Houston's Galloway, Johnson,
Tompkins, Burr & Smith, who represents FedEx, nor Walter "Trey"
Williams, a member of Houston's Lorance & Thompson, who represents
Stevens, returned calls to each of their offices for this story.

The sanctions motion is pending in Hills v. Stevens Transport,
filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in
Beaumont.


TAKATA CORP: Automakers Ask Judge to Stay Airbag Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that automakers sued
over faulty airbags made by Takata Corp. have asked a federal
judge in the Southern District of Florida to halt the litigation
for at least six months, arguing that the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, and not the courts, has "primary
jurisdiction" over claims brought by consumers.

The automakers' July 17 stay motion -- which pertains only to the
consolidated class action complaint filed by consumers and not to
lawsuits filed on behalf of those who were injured or died -- is
an unusual twist in massive litigation involving an automotive
defect.

A stay could put on hold any potential compensation for consumers,
who are seeking damages for the diminished value of their
vehicles, including expenses they might have paid for alternative
travel while awaiting repairs and more.

The NHTSA, under pressure to be more aggressive in keeping safe
cars on the road, also has taken a more involved role in managing
the unprecedented Takata recalls and has teamed up with the
automakers to investigate the root cause behind why the airbags
suddenly explode, sending metal fragments at drivers. So far,
about 4 million vehicles have been repaired, according to the
NHTSA.

In their motion, the automakers say "a stay will avoid needless
waste of resources on discovery that cannot be effectively
conducted while there are so many unanswered questions about root
cause."

Lead plaintiffs lawyer Peter Prieto of Miami's Podhurst Orseck,
who has opposed the motion, called the request to stay the
litigation "unprecedented."

He said unlike the NHTSA, which is providing drivers with
replacement airbag inflators as part of the recalls, consumers in
the litigation are seeking monetary damages.

"We don't want to interfere with what NHTSA is doing," he said.
"We think that our request for compensatory damages -- and this is
what the law says -- complements what NHTSA does and doesn't
interfere."

In their consolidated complaint, plaintiffs lawyers blame the
airbag ruptures on Takata's use of ammonium nitrate, a cheap but
volatile chemical, and officials from the NHTSA and Takata have
said at Congressional hearings that they might not be able to
identify a root cause.

The automakers are due to file replies on Sept. 11. Spokespeople
for the four automakers who filed the motion -- Toyota Motor Sales
USA Inc., Subaru of America Inc., Nissan North America Inc. and
Ford Motor Co. -- either declined to comment or didn't respond, as
did spokespeople for Takata, BMW of North America LLC, Mazda Motor
of America Inc. and American Honda Motor Corp., which moved to
dismiss claims in the consolidated class action.

Some of the automakers sought dismissal based on NHTSA's
jurisdiction, but most argued that they weren't aware of the
defect prior to the recalls or that the specific plaintiffs who
sued them hadn't suffered injuries.  Many automakers accused
plaintiffs lawyers of using a "shotgun pleading" in lumping them
in as defendants with Takata and Honda, the only automaker accused
of conspiring with Takata to conceal the defect in violation of
the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

"We make some very, very detailed allegations against each of the
automakers, and each automaker reviewed the design for the airbags
before they were placed in their vehicles," Mr. Prieto said.

Takata and Honda, meanwhile, have moved to dismiss the RICO
claims.

"The alleged 'conspiracy' here revolves around the two entities
sharing information about airbag incidents as they tried to
determine what had gone wrong with Takata's airbags," wrote
Honda attorney Mitchell Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- a partner at
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod in Miami.

Mr. Prieto said there were a "litany of facts" that show
otherwise.

"They've described it as the normal give-and-take of a supplier
and an automaker, but we have specifically alleged very specific
facts about the conspiracy," he said.

The stay motion comes as the NHTSA on Sept. 1 revised the total
number of U.S. cars and trucks recalled over Takata's defective
airbags to about 23.4 million, down from its original estimate of
nearly 34 million vehicles.


TEXAS: Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs File Attorney Fee Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the same-sex
couples who had sought to overturn Texas's same-sex marriage ban
prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's historic ruling allowing for
recognition of same-sex marriages nationwide, now want $740,000 in
attorney fees and costs from the state.

The plaintiffs' fee request, filed Sept. 4, follows the high
court's historic June 26 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which
determined same-sex marriage bans violated couples' constitutional
rights.

On July 7, in the wake of Obergefell, a San Antonio federal judge
issued an order in the Texas' same-sex couples' case, DeLeon v.
Perry, which permanently bars Texas from enforcing its same-sex
marriage ban.

The DeLeon litigation began in 2013, when the couples filed their
complaint challenging Texas' same-sex marriage ban as
unconstitutional and a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment
rights to due process and equal protection under the law.  At the
time, only a California federal district court had found a state
law prohibiting same-sex marriages as violating those
constitutional rights.

In February 2014, the San Antonio federal court granted the DeLeon
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, ruling their due
process and fundamental right to marry had been violated.  Texas
appealed that ruling, prompting, prior to the Obergefell ruling,
the filing of 26 friends of the court briefs in support of Texas'
position.

In their fee request, the same-sex marriage plaintiffs argue they
are entitled to the payments as prevailing parties.

"Civil rights plaintiffs are prevailing parties 'if they succeed
on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the
benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit,'" their fee
request states, using language from a 1989 ruling in Texas State
Teachers Assoc. v. Garland Independent School District.

Neel Lane and Barry Chasnoff, partners in the San Antonio office
of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld in San Antonio, led the team
that represents the De Leon plaintiffs. In the plaintiffs' fee
request, Mr. Chasnoff's rate is listed as $980 per hour, Lane's,
as $825 per hour.

Cynthia Meyer, a spokeswoman for the Texas Office of the Attorney
General, which represents the state in DeLeon, said her agency
would be filing a response to the fee request.

According to public records supplied by the OAG to Texas Lawyer,
the office had spent as of July 28 a total of $69,622 in salaries
and expenses defending Texas' same-sex marriage ban in DeLeon.

In their fee request, plaintiffs state that they expect Texas to
argue that the plaintiffs do not qualify as the prevailing parties
because the law changed due to the ruling in Obergefell.  But they
counter: "No law or fact supports that contention."  They note
that the San Antonio federal court, although it stayed the order,
had issued one in February, months before the high court's
Obergefell ruling, against Texas' same-sex marriage ban.  The
plaintiffs also argue that Texas officials' recent efforts refute
"any argument that they voluntarily ceased their unconstitutional
conduct."

The fee request specifically notes that Texas Governor Greg Abbott
and Attorney General Ken Paxton initially refused to issue an
amended death certificate recognizing a legal same-sex marriage.
It was only after the San Antonio federal court issued an order
requiring state officials to issue the certificate did they do so,
the fee request states.


THOMSON SA: October 23 Motion for Attorney's Fee Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

If You Directly Bought A Cathode Ray Tube Product, A Class Action
Settlement May Affect You.

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Products include Cathode Ray Tubes and
finished products that contain a Cathode Ray Tube such as
Televisions and Computer Monitors.

A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

Why did I get this notice? You or your company may have directly
purchased a cathode ray tube (CRT) or a product containing a
cathode ray tube (television or monitor) between March 1, 1995 and
November 25, 2007.  A direct purchaser is a person or business who
bought a CRT, or a television or computer monitor containing a
CRT, directly from one or more of the Defendants, co-conspirators,
affiliates, or subsidiaries.  A direct purchaser is NOT a person
or company who purchased a CRT or CRT Product from a wholesaler or
a retail store.  If you are a direct purchaser, you have the right
to know about the litigation and about your legal rights and
options.  The Court in charge of the case is the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, and the
case is called In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 1917.  The people who sued are called Plaintiffs and the
companies they sued are called Defendants.

All Defendants who have appeared to date in the Direct Purchaser
Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-5944
SC have settled their claims.  The Court has finally approved each
of the settlements with the Defendants and the settlement proceeds
are ready to be distributed to qualifying claimants.  Attached to
this Notice is a Proof of Claim form that has been approved by the
Court.  All Proof of Claim forms must be postmarked or submitted
online no later than December 10, 2015.  Claims may be mailed to
the address set forth in the Proof of Claim form, or submitted
online at www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
Additional Proof of Claim forms may be obtained at
www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, by calling 1-877-
224-3063, or writing to CRT Direct Settlement, P.O. Box 808003,
Petaluma, CA 94975-8003.  Please do not contact the Court about
claim administration.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs is on file with
the Court and available at
www.CRTDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com
The Court has set a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for October 23,
2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1.  Any comments or objections to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs must be filed
with the Court (Honorable Samuel Conti, United States District
Court Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
Courtroom 3, 17th floor, San Francisco, CA 94102) no later than
October 2, 2015.

The Defendants are: Thomson SA (now known as Technicolor SA);
Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. (now known as Technicolor USA,
Inc.); Technologies Displays Americas LLC (formerly known as
Thomson Displays Americas LLC); Videocon Industries, Ltd.;
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc.
(formerly known as Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.);
Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc. (formerly known
as Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America, Inc.); LG Electronics,
Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics Taiwan Taipei
Co., Ltd., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips
Electronics North America Corporation, Philips Electronics
Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Philips da Amazonia Industria
Electronica Ltda., LP Displays International, Ltd. f/k/a
LG.Philips Displays, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Samsung SDI
America, Inc., Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Samsung SDI Brasil
Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., Tianjin Samsung SDI Co.
Ltd., Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba
America Consumer Products, L.L.C., Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.,
Panasonic Corporation f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial, Ltd.,
Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT Picture Display Co.,
Ltd., Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd. (BMCC), Hitachi,
Ltd., Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.), Hitachi
Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi
Asia, Ltd., Tatung Company of America, Inc., Chunghwa Picture
Tubes Ltd., Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., IRICO
Group Corporation, IRICO Display Devices Co., Ltd., IRICO Group
Electronics Co., Ltd., Thai CRT Company, Ltd., Daewoo Electronics
Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company, Ltd., Daewoo
International Corporation, Irico Group Corporation, Irico Group
Electronics Co., Ltd., and Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd.

Dated: September 11, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT


TILLY'S INC: Faces "Ward" Suit Over Failure to Pay Reporting Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Tilly's, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case
No. BC595405 (Cal. Super., September 21, 2015), seeks to put an
end on the Defendants' practice of scheduling employees in retail
stores for "on-call" shifts but failing to pay the employees
required reporting time pay.

Tilly's, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a chain of
retail clothing stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


TOYOBO CO: Bulletproof Vest Case Moves Closer to Trial
------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that the U.S.
Department of Justice's decade-old fraud case against a Japanese
textile company that supplied material for bulletproof vests
bought by law enforcement agencies is one step closer to a trial.

A federal district judge in Washington ruled that a jury should
decide if the federal government was defrauded by Toyobo Co., Ltd.
Toyobo supplied the synthetic fiber "Zylon," which is used to make
body armor.

The Justice Department claims Toyobo knew that body armor made
with Zylon would degrade during the five-year warranty period but
failed to tell the government -- with deadly consequences.  At
least one police officer died and another was seriously wounded
after bullets pierced their bulletproof vests, according to DOJ.

Toyobo was also accused of putting out false information about
Zylon that "fraudulently induced" state and local governments to
buy the body armor.

U.S. District Chief Judge Richard Roberts on Sept. 4 largely
rejected requests for summary judgment filed by both sides.  He
wrote that there were too many facts in dispute for him to decide
certain claims. Toyobo and the government disagree about how to
interpret the terms of a purchase agreement and whether Toyobo
made false statements about Zylon vests, among other things.

Trials in False Claims Act cases are rare. Defendants who lose
face treble damages and other penalties.  Second Chance Body
Armor, Inc., which sold the vests that contained Zylon supplied by
Toyobo, provided tens of thousands of the vests to law enforcement
agencies, according to filings in the case.  Second Chance filed
for bankruptcy in 2004 and is no longer part of the litigation.

Konrad Cailteux, a partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges representing
Toyobo, said on Sept. 8 that his team was studying Judge Roberts'
opinion.  He said they were "pleased with the part of the case
that the court did dismiss and hope that this can lead to a final
resolution of the case."  Judge Roberts granted Toyobo summary
judgment on certain claims related to vests sold before a contract
modification in 2002.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment.

The government's fraud case against Toyobo -- which grew out of a
whistleblower complaint against Second Chance -- has two main
components.

The first involves vests that were bought by federal agencies via
a contracting program administered by the U.S. General Services
Administration.  The second involves vests bought by state, local
and tribal law enforcement agencies, which then received partial
reimbursement from the federal government through the Bulletproof
Vest Grant Partnership Act.

On the federal agency claims, a key point of contention is
language in Second Chance's catalog about how the vests would
perform within the five-year warranty period.  The Justice
Department argued the catalog language represented an obligation
in the contract that the vests perform at a certain level for five
years.  Toyobo said the guarantee was an explanation of how Second
Chance would interpret its standard warranty.

Judge Roberts ruled in favor of Toyobo on claims related to vests
sold before the 2002 contract modification, since he found that
the pre-2002 agreement did not incorporate the catalog language.

As for claims related to post-2002 sales, Roberts wrote that the
government and Toyobo's arguments about how to interpret the
catalog language were both "reasonable." Absent a clear winner, it
was up to a jury to decide, he said.

Judge Roberts also said that he couldn't decide at this stage of
the case whether Toyobo made false statements about Zylon's
durability that "fraudulently induced" state and local governments
that received federal reimbursements to buy the vests.

"This factual dispute as to the nature and validity of Toyobo's
assurances to the market present a genuine dispute as to material
facts that cannot be resolved at the summary judgment stage,"
Judge Roberts wrote.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Joint Underwriting Assoc Cases Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
awaiting further court proceedings in the Joint Underwriting
Association Litigations.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) and 18 other defendants,
including TSP, alleging violations under the Puerto Rico Insurance
Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the local statute against
organized crime and money laundering. JUA is a private association
created by law to administer a compulsory public liability
insurance program for motor vehicles in Puerto Rico (CLI). As
required by its enabling act, JUA is composed of all the insurers
that underwrite private motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and
exceed the minimum underwriting percentage established in such
act. TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600, treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, which was opposed by plaintiffs on
February 17, 2012. On October 2, 2012, the court issued an order
certifying the class. On October 12, 2012, several defendants,
including TSP, filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First District, requesting the court to vacate the
District Court's certification order. The First Circuit denied the
authorization to file the writ of appeals. Discovery has been
completed. On November 3, 2014, all defendants, including TSP,
filed a joint motion to decertify the class and, on November 17,
2014, a joint motion for summary judgment requesting the dismissal
of the claim.

On February 2, 2015, the court ordered the stay of class notice
proceedings. On March 10, 2015, plaintiff filed their opposition
to the joint motion. The parties have filed several pleas in
connection with the summary judgment, the petition to decertify
the class and discovery matters.

"We are awaiting further court proceedings," the Company said.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in the In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

TSS is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) in a multi-district class action
litigation filed on July 24, 2012 that alleges that the exclusive
service area (ESA) requirements of the Primary License Agreements
with Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in these
suits seek monetary awards and in some instances, injunctive
relief barring ESAs. Those cases have been centralized in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Prior to centralization, motions to dismiss were filed by several
plans, including TSS. Plaintiffs opposed TSS' motion to dismiss.

On April 9, 2014, the Court held an argumentative hearing to
discuss the motions to dismiss. During the hearing, the Court did
not issue a ruling on the motions to dismiss thus, decision on
said motions are still pending. On June 18, 2014, the court denied
TSS' motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing.

TSS refilled its motion to dismiss, asserting lack of personal
jurisdiction and improper venue, which plaintiff opposed, and an
argumentative hearing was set for May 19, 2015.   Discovery is
ongoing.

"Also, on April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United
States District Court of Puerto Rico, which we believe does not
preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. The Company has joined
BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims," the Company said.


TWITTER INC: Faces Class Action Over Direct Messages
----------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that Twitter Inc.
has been hit with a proposed class action alleging that the
company's handling of direct messages between users violates the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The complaint, filed on Sept. 14 by attorneys at Chicago-based
Edelson, claims that the ostensibly private messages are scanned
and altered by an algorithm, which replaces hyperlinks with
customized links.  "But, while Twitter reads the contents of its
users' direct messages, Twitter never obtains (or even seeks) its
users' consent," the suit states.

A Twitter spokesperson denied the allegations.  "We believe these
claims are meritless, and we intend to fight them," the
spokesperson said.

In 2011, Twitter released an analytics tool that would improve
tracking. When a user embedded a link into a public tweet,
Twitter's tool would swap that link with one leading to a website
owned by Twitter.  Users who click on the link would first be
brought to Twitter's page and then referred to the intended
content, allowing websites to know how many page views were coming
from Twitter.

Though that feature is only openly discussed by Twitter for public
tweets, the same process is used for direct messages, according to
the Edelson lawyers.

"In order for Twitter to detect there's a URL, it basically has to
read and scan every word of the private message and then swaps out
any links," Edelson partner Alexander Nguyen --
anguyen@edelson.com -- said.

Edelson has pursued a number of privacy class actions, and its
founding partner Jay Edelson was recently called " if not the most
hated person in Silicon Valley, very close to it" by The New York
Times.

On Sept. 15, the firm secured final approval for a $1.25 million
settlement in a 2012 privacy case against LinkedIn Corp.   Edelson
was awarded $312,500 in attorney fees, roughly $50,000 less than
the firm had sought.

Asked about the relatively small award, Edelson partner Nguyen
said the firm doesn't do its work for the money.

"Privacy is something that is important for everybody but also
difficult to put into actual numbers," Mr. Nguyen said, adding
that some of the firm's victories come before the "general public
appreciates how important it is."

"That is something," he said, "that gives us our sense of
purpose."


TYSON FOODS: Obtains Favorable Rulings in Class Action Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Miami
attorney Michael Mueller won two appellate reversals for longtime
client Tyson Foods Inc., wiping out $24 million in class action
awards in two labor disputes.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Aug. 26
that Tyson didn't specifically agree to pay employees for time
spent donning and doffing protective equipment.  Decisions in both
cases came seven months after Mr. Mueller presented back-to-back
oral arguments.

The Hunton & Williams partner has served as lead counsel in 35
Tyson wage-and-hour class actions since he began representing the
Arkansas-based meat processing company in 1999.  He said he
believes he has brought more class actions to verdict than any
other lawyer.

"These are tough cases," he said.  "They raise all kinds of unique
and challenging issues.  It's a point of pride to be able to say
you've tried one of them and certainly a point of pride to say
you've tried a dozen of them."

His latest victories flowed from lawsuits filed by Tyson workers
at beef- and pork-processing plants in Nebraska.

The facts of each case differed significantly.  The beef plant was
unionized and paid its workers a flat rate for four extra minutes
of dressing and washing.  At the pork plant, the number of minutes
paid varied by job and changed over time, Mr. Mueller said.

The two classes sought relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Nebraska wage law. More than 13,000 workers were included in
the two classes.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon in Omaha awarded $6 million
to the beef plant workers in 2013 and more than $18 million to the
pork plant workers in 2014.

The appellate court reversed both judgments, finding FLSA claims
were not legitimate because the named plaintiffs hadn't filed
forms indicating they wanted to opt in to the lawsuit.

"If you're going to start a case as an FLSA collective action, you
need to file a consent form," Mr. Mueller said.  "The rationale
for this is that unions or someone else can't just slap your name
on a lawsuit."

The court also dismissed state law claims on the grounds that
Tyson had not agreed to pay for "donning and doffing" time.
Addressing the unionized beef plant, the court decided that if
something is not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the
employer doesn't have to pay for it.

The appellate court didn't address two significant issues Mueller
raised in oral argument because the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
consider them in its next term by hearing a third Tyson "donning
and doffing" case, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.

The high court will address whether plaintiffs can use sampling or
averages to establish liability and damages for a class and
whether plaintiffs who haven't suffered harm can be part of a
class.

The Tyson legal team has challenged the sampling question in all
of the "donning and doffing" cases.  The plaintiffs took an
average of the time it took workers to don or doff protective gear
in the locker room, on the production floor before their shift,
and before and after lunch breaks.

"They didn't sample any one person doing all the activities,"
Mr. Mueller said.  "What they did was they found a dozen or maybe
a couple dozen people doing parts of all the activities."

An Eighth Circuit panel split 2-1 against Tyson on the issue.
Then Mr. Mueller asked for the entire circuit to rehear the case
en banc.  Six judges, including a senior judge on the panel, voted
to grant rehearing, and six voted against.

"When you get a court of appeals split down the middle, it gets
the Supreme Court's attention, so they took the case," Mr. Mueller
said.

Hunton & Williams partner Emily Burkhardt Vicente in Los Angeles
and counsel Evangeline C. Paschal in Washington assisted Mueller
with the trial and appellate briefs.  Attorneys from Baird Holm in
Omaha also represented Tyson at trial, and Thomas Walsh of Bryan
Cave in St. Louis worked on the appeal.  The Supreme Court oral
argument has not been set.

But it's unlikely to be Mr. Mueller's most famous career case.
The litigator served as trial counsel for Food Lion in its
landmark case against Capital Cities/ABC Inc.  ABC News was
slapped for allowing producers to lie by using false names on job
applications for an investigative piece.  Mr. Mueller deposed
Diane Sawyer, reporter Sam Donaldson and then-network president
David Westin.

"It's now a famous case," he said.  "It's clearly the seminal case
on why you shouldn't break the law to get the news . . . . I'm
proud of that because on principle alone we made a point, and it's
still a point that's taught in school."


UBER TECH: Faces Class Suit Over Pre-Employment Background Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Inc. has
been hit with a putative class action in federal court in Newark
claiming it violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act by using
background reports in hiring decisions without allowing applicants
to dispute entries in their reports.

The case, Cuccinello v. Uber, was filed Sept. 2 on behalf of
persons who applied for jobs with Uber and were subjects of an
adverse employment action based on information from a consumer
reporting agency.  The suit claims Uber violated the FCRA by
failing to give each applicant a copy of their report and a
summary of their rights under the FCRA before the hiring decision
was made.

The suit is the latest in a series of class actions targeting
Uber's use of consumer credit reports to make employment
decisions.  Uber has been named in at least three other FCRA suits
in federal court in San Francisco, where the company is
headquartered, related to background checks on job applicants.

The plaintiffs, Joseph Cuccinello and James Brooks, applied for
jobs as drivers with Uber in 2014 but were turned down based on
reports from Hirease Inc., which is a co-defendant in the case,
according to the suit.  Hirease, of Southern Pines, North
Carolina, reviews public records and private databases containing
individuals' alleged criminal, financial and employment histories,
and sells background reports on individuals to Uber and other
employers, the complaint says.

Uber and Hirease failed to provide the applicants with copies of
the reports before the adverse employment actions occurred, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 b(b)(3), according to the
suit.

Messrs. Cuccinello and Brooks were required to sign online forms
consenting to the background checks, according to the complaint.
Uber and Hirease do not provide applicants with copies of the
forms they sign after the job application is completed, the suit
claims.

The forms they were asked to sign "unlawfully attempted to obtain
future protection for defendants for any unlawful actions, and
included other limitations on consumer protections and other
extraneous language," the suit alleges.  The FCRA contains a clear
prohibition on an employer's inclusion of any other provision,
aside from the authorization of the background check itself, on
the disclosure form, the suit says.

The suits seek statutory damages of not less than $100 and not
more than $1,000 per class member, plus unspecified punitive
damages, actual damages and legal fees and costs.

Uber did not respond to a request for comment about the suit.
Messrs. Cuccinello and Brooks are represented by Bruce Greenberg
of Lite DePalma Greenberg in Newark and Michael Donovan of Donovan
Axler in Berwyn, Pennsylvania.  Neither lawyer responded to calls
for comment on the case.

A spokeswoman for Hirease, Tiffany Williams, said she could not
discuss the specifics of the case, but added that "we follow our
duties and responsibilities under the FCRA."

Two FCRA suits, Gillette v. Uber Technologies and Mohamed v. Uber
Technologies, were filed against Uber in San Francisco in November
2014.  After a judge declined to compel arbitration in both cases,
Uber appealed the issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, where the matter is pending.

A third San Francisco case relating to the FCRA, Nokchan v. Uber
Technologies, was filed in June.


UBER TECH: Dolan Firm Withdraws Case Over App
---------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the lawyer
who accused Uber Technologies Inc. of stealing the idea behind its
ride-hailing app has requested to withdraw from the case, citing
"an irreparable and complete breakdown in communication" with his
client.

Christopher Dolan of The Dolan Law Firm sued Uber in San Francisco
Superior Court in May, claiming that Uber ripped off its
fundamental business model from precursor Celluride Wireless Inc.
But in a motion filed on Sept. 9, Mr. Dolan said he can no longer
work with Celluride founder Kevin Halpern.

"It's unfortunate," Mr. Dolan said in an interview, "because I
think there are real viable issues raised by the complaint that
are worthy of consideration.  And this is something that we do
only as a last resort."

Mr. Dolan wouldn't discuss what led to the withdrawal, citing
issues of client confidentiality and attorney-client privilege.

Mr. Halpern founded Celluride in 2002 as a means to connect limo
and black-car drivers to passengers through mobile technology.  In
his suit, Mr. Halpern claims that he reached out to several
entrepreneurs and investors for ideas and funding, including Uber
co-founder Travis Kalanick.  Mr. Halpern accuses Mr. Kalanick of
using the Celluride concept to launch Uber.

Mr. Halpern has a history of being an uncooperative plaintiff.  He
was sanctioned by the court in 2013 for "clowning around" during a
legal battle in Alameda County Superior Court against Offerpal
Media founder Anu Shukla.  Mr. Halpern claimed he co-founded
Offerpal, and accused Shukla of reneging on an agreement to give
him 15 to 20 percent of the company's equity.  Mr. Halpern refused
multiple times to respond properly to discovery requests,
according to a First District Court of Appeal opinion affirming
the terminating sanctions.  He also refused to show up for
scheduled depositions at Durie Tangri's San Francisco office --
once claiming the office was too dusty and the chairs were
uncomfortable -- and refused to pay court-ordered sanctions.

Mr. Halpern went through about half a dozen changes in counsel
throughout the litigation, appearing pro se on several occasions.

Mr. Halpern has not found new counsel to represent him in his case
against Uber, according to court records.  The hearing on
Mr. Dolan's motion to withdraw is set for Oct. 21.

Uber counsel Ragesh Tangri of Durie Tangri, who also defended
Shukla in the Alameda litigation, declined to comment on
Mr. Dolan's motion.


UBER TECH: Appeals Class Certification in Drivers' Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has appealed the certification of a class of
drivers seeking employee status, arguing that the case raises
"urgent questions" for the burgeoning on-demand economy which are
too important to leave to a single jury.

In a petition filed on Sept. 15 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, Uber's lawyers claim U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen handled the class-certification issue improperly when he
"swept aside" vast differences between class members and
disregarded declarations from Uber drivers who said they don't
want to be employees.

"The potential ramifications of this closely watched class-
certification order are difficult to overstate," wrote Uber's
legal team, led by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore
Boutrous Jr.

Judge Chen has acknowledged that California employment laws apply
imperfectly to the situation of Uber drivers.  Nevertheless, the
lawyers wrote, the judge intends to let a jury determine "in one
fell swoop" whether drivers are employees.

The class of Uber drivers, represented by Boston-based attorney
Shannon Liss-Riordan, argue they should be granted the benefits
that accompany employee status.  Uber maintains its drivers are
independent contractors, because the company does not control
their schedules, routes or other aspects of their work.

The petition for appeal comes two weeks after Chen certified a
class of drivers who have worked for Uber since 2009, allowing
them to proceed with claims that the company illegally withheld
their tips.  Judge Chen excluded drivers who signed up with Uber
in the summer of 2014 or later, ruling they could be bound by
Uber's arbitration agreement.

The arbitration issue strengthens Uber's case for appeal, the
company's lawyers argue.  While the named plaintiffs did not sign
arbitration agreements with class waivers, thousands of class
members did, the petition states.  The Ninth Circuit has yet to
issue a published ruling addressing whether named plaintiffs who
are not bound by arbitration agreements can represent a class of
plaintiffs who are, the lawyers wrote, making the case a prime
candidate for review.

Judge Chen has determined Uber's 2013 arbitration agreement is
unenforceable, a ruling Uber's lawyers also have appealed.  The
company argues it would make sense to hear the two appeals
concurrently.

Mr. Boutrous' team also took issue with Chen's dismissal of more
than 400 declarations from drivers stating that they intentionally
entered into an independent-contractor relationship with Uber.

Instead of acknowledging that those declarations suggest a
conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and the rest of
the class, the lawyers wrote, "the district court accepted
plaintiffs' unfounded claim that absent class members' interests
are 'irrelevant.'"


UBER TECH: French Court Upholds Ban on Ride-Hailing Service
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that France's top constitutional
court has ruled that Uber's lowest-cost ride-hailing service can
be banned, upholding legislation passed amid sometimes violent
protests by taxi drivers.

In a ruling on Sept. 22, the panel upheld French legislation that
outlawed the UberPop service, which the company suspended over the
summer in hopes of defusing an escalating legal dispute with the
government.

The Sept. 22 decision comes days ahead of a trial for two senior
European managers for the San Francisco-based company, who were
charged with deceptive commercial practices.  The suspended
service had linked users to drivers without professional taxi or
chauffeur licenses and taxi drivers claimed unfair competition.

Uber's regular app-based service continues to function in France.


UNITED STATES: DOJ Wants OPM Data Breach Suits Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that it was the worst data breach in the history of the U.S.
government, and now the Justice Department says the ensuing
lawsuits filed in six different jurisdictions belong in a single
court in Washington, D.C.

On Oct. 1, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in
New York is set to hear arguments on a motion filed in July by DOJ
trial lawyers who want to coordinate what are now eight lawsuits
pertaining to the massive data breach last summer at the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management.

The first breach, announced on June 4, compromised the personnel
files of more than 4 million current and former federal employees.
A second hack compromised the personal information of more than 21
million people who applied for security clearances, including
judges and judicial staff.

The OPM awarded a $133 million contract to provide identity theft
protection for those affected by the hacks.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment about the
lawsuits.

Most of the lawsuits are class actions filed on behalf of current,
former and prospective federal government employees, contractors
and family members who, citing the reports of OPM's Office of the
Inspector General, claim that the agency has been negligent since
2007 in failing to prevent cybersecurity hacks.  They assert
claims under the Privacy Act of 1974, which prohibits the
disclosure of records maintained by government agencies, and the
Administrative Procedure Act, which controls the way in which U.S.
administrative agencies regulate.  They seek damages for identify
theft and costs tied to credit monitoring and frozen accounts.

One class action was brought by the American Federation of
Government Employees, AFL-CIO, which represents about 650,000
government employees.  Another labor union, the National Treasury
Employees Union, which represents 150,000 federal workers, brought
an individual case against former OPM director Katherine
Archuleta, who resigned on July 10 following several contentious
hearings on Capitol Hill. NTEU is opposing consolidation with the
other OPM cases.

"We have a single claim, a constitutional claim, based on the
constitutional right to informational privacy, which is an
amorphous right that is firmly established," said Paras Shah,
assistant general counsel at NTEU.  "The primary thing we want to
have happen is for OPM to adequately secure its IT databases."
The cases were brought in federal courts in the District of
Columbia, Colorado, Kansas, Georgia, Idaho and California.

Plaintiffs lawyers in the class actions have supported
consolidation in the District of Columbia or Colorado, where
another defendant, KeyPoint Government Solutions, the contractor
that handled many of the background checks, is based in Loveland.

Jason Mendro, a partner in the Washington office of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, who represents KeyPoint, did not respond to a request
for comment.

One case was brought by Teresa McGarry, an administrative law
judge in the Social Security Administration's Office of Disability
Adjudication and Review in Jacksonville, Florida, who has had two
background checks done.  She also named the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, which was tasked with overseeing a program to
detect cyberattacks of federal government databases.

The cases also name OPM Acting Director Beth Cobert; U.S.
Ambassador to Australia John Berry, who was OPM director from 2009
to 2013; OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour; and U.S.
Court of Federal Claims Judge Elaine Kaplan, former OPM general
counsel who served as the agency's acting director in the months
before Archuleta came on board in 2013.

The MDL panel typically rules on consolidation motions a few weeks
after its hearings.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Loses Bid for Class Action Defense Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
insurers for Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie do not have to
defend the clothing stores against three class action lawsuits
over their collection of ZIP code information, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled.

A three-judge panel of the court ruled on Sept. 15 that OneBeacon
America Insurance Co. and Hanover Insurance Group will not need to
provide coverage since the suits allege violation of local laws,
and injuries not covered in the policies.  The nonprecedential
opinion, written by Judge Anthony Scirica, upheld a decision from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suits out of courts in Washington, D.C., California and
Massachusetts make various claims related to Urban Outfitters and
its subsidiary, Anthropologie, allegedly requesting and using ZIP
code information from credit card users.

According to Judge Scirica, Urban Outfitters made a request for
defense coverage to OneBeacon and Hanover against putative class
action suits, but in September 2013, OneBeacon sought a
declaratory judgment asking the court to find that it owed no duty
to defend or indemnify the company.  Urban Outfitters then joined
Hanover as a third-party defendant, and asked the court to find
that both insurers owed it a duty to defend against the class
actions.

According to Judge Scirica, plaintiffs in the case Hancock v.
Urban Outfitters, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, alleged the clothing company collected
ZIP code information from credit card users, and then used that
information to make money by, among other things, engaging in
direct marketing campaigns.

The suit alleged violations of a local code prohibiting companies
from making misleading facts in connection with the sale of goods,
and from requesting or recording address or phone information in
order for customers to pay with a credit card.

Judge Scirica said Urban Outfitters argued the carriers had to
defend against the Hancock suit because the policy requires them
to defend against any suit that seeks damages caused by "personal
and advertising injury," which is defined in the policy as
publishing materials that violate a person's right to privacy.

However, Judge Scirica agreed with the district court's reasoning
that the injuries did not arise due to having their information
published, since publication requires dissemination to the public
at large.

Judge Scirica noted that, although neither the policy nor the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court have defined "publication," the common
usage and district court case law held that publication requires
providing the information to the public at large.

"Accordingly, we hold that the actions of Urban Outfitters as
alleged in the Hancock complaint do not constitute 'publication'
within the policy's definition of 'personal and advertising
injury,'" Judge Scirica said.

Plaintiffs in the six putative class actions consolidated into the
California Superior Court in San Diego County case Dremak v. Urban
Outfitters alleged the clothing stores asked for ZIP code
information during credit card transactions, and then recorded the
information in an electronic database, Judge Scirica said.

Some common-law claims were dismissed from that case, and so the
only claim still at issue was a single alleged violation of
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

Judge Scirica noted the district court's findings that, while the
plaintiffs had alleged injuries within the scope of "personal and
advertising injury," coverage was barred under an exclusion that
precluded coverage for injuries stemming from alleged violations
of federal, state or local laws against distributing information.

Judge Scirica agreed with the district court's findings, and said
Urban Outfitters' arguments that, despite the cause of action, the
factual allegations controlled the duty to defend, misunderstood
the district court's decision.

The district court, Judge Scirica said, had looked to whether the
facts alleged a violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

"The fact that those same 'action[s] or omission[s]' were also
alleged to give rise to common-law claims (claims that were
dismissed) is irrelevant to the analysis," Judge Scirica said.

The putative class action Miller v. Urban Outfitters, which was
initially filed in Massachusetts state court and then removed to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleged
that Urban Outfitters collected ZIP codes at checkout from those
who used a credit card, recorded that information, and then used
it for marketing purposes.

The complaint, Judge Scirica said, alleged violations of a
Massachusetts law prohibiting entities from requiring information
that is not needed by the card issuer.

Judge Scirica said that, since the complaint focused on injuries
due to unsolicited marketing and junk mail, the allegations did
not involve issues related to the plaintiffs' right to privacy,
but instead concerned the plaintiffs' right to seclusion.

"Put simply, the complaint does not assert harms based on the
plaintiffs' interests in keeping their ZIP codes secret,"
Judge Scirica said.  "Accordingly, it does not allege publication
of materials that violates a person's 'right to privacy' under the
policies, and the insurers have no duty to defend or indemnify the
Miller action."

White and Williams attorney Michael O. Kassak --
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com -- who represented OneBeacon America
Insurance; Samuel W. Cortes -- scortes@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rothschild, who represented Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie;
and Hanover's attorney, Mark A. Aronsson of Boyle, Shaughnessy &
Campo in Boston, did not return a call for comment.


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative securities class action
suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and certain of
its officers, its board of directors, a former director and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering.

On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.   The consolidated complaint
names certain current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegedly false and materially misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement for the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering and in
communications regarding its business and financial results. The
suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between March 28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and
seeks compensatory damages, rescission, fees and costs, as well as
other relief.

On November 3, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion
as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on
that basis. On April 27, 2015, Defendants filed answers to the
consolidated complaint.

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bonda" Suit in Mass. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Bonda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
13419 (D. Mass., September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States
that contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Catlett" Suit in UT Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evin F. Catlett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00681-DB (D. Utah, September 22, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.

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:

      Andrew G. Deiss, Esq.
      Brent A. Orozco, Esq.
      Diana F. Bradley, Esq.
      DEISS LAW PC
      10 West 100 South, Suite 700
      Salt Lake City, UT 84101
      Telephone: (801) 433-0226
      E-mail: adeiss@deisslaw.com
              borozco@deisslaw.com
              dbradley@deisslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bonda" Suit in Mass. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Bonda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
13419 (D. Mass., September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States
that contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Catlett" Suit in UT Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evin F. Catlett, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00681-DB (D. Utah, September 22, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.

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:

      Andrew G. Deiss, Esq.
      Brent A. Orozco, Esq.
      Diana F. Bradley, Esq.
      DEISS LAW PC
      10 West 100 South, Suite 700
      Salt Lake City, UT 84101
      Telephone: (801) 433-0226
      E-mail: adeiss@deisslaw.com
              borozco@deisslaw.com
              dbradley@deisslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clinton" Suit in NY Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Clinton and Hannah Rose Schonwald, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05497 (E.D.N.Y., September 22,
2015), is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased
certain vehicles with diesel engines manufactured, distributed,
and sold by the Defendant and its related subsidiaries,
successors, or affiliates with a built-in emission defeat device
system that conceals the vehicles' actual emission of nitrogen
oxide (NOx).

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:

      Robin Greenwald, Esq.
      William Walsh, Esq.
      Maja Lukic, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Facsimile: (212) 344-5461
      E-mail: wwalsh@weitxlux.com
              mlukic@weitzlux.com
              rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

         - and -

      Donald Slavik, Esq.
      SLAVIK LAW
      2955 Village Drive, Suite 16
      Steamboat Springs, CO 80487
      Telephone: (970) 457-1011
      E-mail: dslavik@slavik.us


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Criston" Suit in NY Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael G. Criston, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
06988-KM-MAH (D.N.Y., September 22, 2015), ), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.

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 M. Golomb, Esq.
      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              rhonik@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
              dstanoch@golombhonik.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Defiesta" Suit in NJ Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Defiesta, Carrie Laspina and John Fernandez, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
Of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07012-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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:

      James E. Cecchi
      Lindsey H. Taylor
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      Benjamin Branda, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700

          - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      David S. Stellings, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94114
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000

         - and -

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-0000
      E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
              earonowitz@gelaw.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hall" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Hall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
04340-KAW (N.D. Cal., September 22, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased or leased certain vehicles with diesel
engines manufactured, distributed, and sold by the Defendant and
its related subsidiaries, successors, or affiliates with a built-
in emission defeat device system that conceals the vehicles'
actual emission of nitrogen oxide (NOx).

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:

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Joshua C. Ezrin, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      711 Van Ness, Suite 500
      San Francisco CA 94102-3229
      Telephone: (415) 982-1776
      Facsimile: (415) 576-1776
      E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
              jezrin@audetlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Harris" Suit in Tex. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Harris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00405 (S.D. Tex., September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States
that contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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 C. Hilliard, Esq.
      HILLIARD, MUNOZ & GONZALES, L.L.P.
      719 South Shoreline, Suite 500
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 882-1612
      Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
      E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com

         - and -

      Rudy Gonzales Jr., Esq.
      Catherine D. Tobin, Esq.
      John B. Martinez, Esq.
      Marion Reilly, Esq.
      Robert Howard George II, Esq.
      HILLIARD, MUNOZ & GONZALES, L.L.P.
      719 S. Shoreline, Suite 500
      Corpus Christi, TX 78411
      Telephone: (361) 882-1612
      Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
      E-mail rudy@hmglawfirm.com
             Catherine@hmglawfirm.com
             john@hmglawfirm.com
             marion@hmglawfirm.com
             rgeorge@hmglawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hendricks" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Danna Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-01948 (C.D. Cal., September 22, 2015), is an action
brought to remedy violations of law in connection with the
Defendant's manufacture and sale of Volkswagen and Audi brand
vehicles powered by four-cylinder Type EA 189 diesel engines for
model years 2009-2015 containing an emissions controls defeat
device.

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:

      Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq.
      Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
      EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP
      12555 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 155
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 350-1500
      E-mail: sme@eppsteiner.com
              ajk@eppsteiner.com

         - and -

      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      E-mail: ALevin@LFSBLaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kindsvatter" Suit Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kindsvatter and Nicole Hughes v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-01958 (N.D.
Ohio, September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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:

      Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
      Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Dicello, Esq.
      William B. Eadie, Esq.
      SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
      1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 696-3232
      Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
      E-mail: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
              sscott@spanglaw.com
              ndicello@spanglaw.com
              weadie@spanglaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Macauley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Macauley, 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 20, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-07430 (C.D. Cal., September 22,
2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of
selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
brand vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat
devices" that were designed and intended to operate the vehicles'
full emissions control systems only when the car was undergoing
its periodic emissions testing while the emissions control systems
would then mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including
during regular driving conditions.

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 of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive,
Herndon, Virginia and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      8730 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 310
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Minkina" Suit in NJ Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janusz Minkina, Izabela Szulc, Leo Glickman, Richard S. Corenthal,
Andra Fertig, Gregory H. Skidmore and Walter Muroya, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07020-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on over
482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United
States since 2009.

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:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & ANGELO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973)994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabvrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabvrne.com

         - and -

      Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com
              brown@whafh.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Naparstek" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Naparstek, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
13418 (D. Mass., September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States
that contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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:

      Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
      Matthew T. McCrary, Esq.,
      GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 639-9090
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
      E-mail: marie@gutrudesafier.com
              mattew@gutrudesafier.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Silverman" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Silverman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03332-TCB (N.D. Ga., September 22,
2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of
selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
brand vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat
devices" that were designed and intended to operate the vehicles'
full emissions control systems only when the car was undergoing
its periodic emissions testing while the emissions control systems
would then mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including
during regular driving conditions.

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

Audi AG is a German automobile manufacturer that designs,
engineers, produces, markets and distributes luxury automobiles.

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 L. Robbins, Esq.
      Lisa L. Heller, Esq.
      Craig G. Kunkes, Esq.
      J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
      ROBBINS ROSS ALLOY BELINFANTE LITTLEFIELD LLC
      999 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1120
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (678) 701-9381
      Facsimile: (404) 856-3250
      E-mail: rrobbins@robbinsfirm.com
              lheller@robbinsfirm.com
              ckunkes@robbinsfirm.com
              mbrigman@robbinsfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stricklin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Iris Stricklin, Daler Rakhmet-Zade, Lori Gottlieb, Amy Cock, Sarah
Greenwald, and Michelle Manning, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen Of America, Inc., and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07431 (C.D. Cal., September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States
that contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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 of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive,
Herndon, Virginia and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
      Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
      David R. Kaplan, Esq.
      Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
      Rachel Felong, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-0070
      Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
      E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com
              beng@blbglaw.com
              DavidK@blbglaw.com
              Gilmore@blbglaw.com
              felong@blbglaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Temkin" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Temkin, Michael Bechauf, Thomas Barger, Victor and Jennifer
Bonilla, Sarah Howard, Vikram Chabbra, Scott Bahr, Gerald
Gottschalk, Robert Platner, Scott Coleman, James Saul, Gary
Rizzato, and Carol Hale Wilson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07432 (C.D. Cal., September 22, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called
defeat devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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 "Wagner" Suit in Ky. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00748-DJH (W.D. Ken., September 22, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.

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:

      Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
      Alex C. Davis, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      312 S. Fourth Street, 6th Floor
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
              alex@jonesward.com

         - and -

      Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910)292-6676

         - and -

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL WHALEN, P.C.
      768 Plandome Road
      Manhasset, NY 11030
      Telephone: (516) 627-5610


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weiland" Suit in Fla Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Weiland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 9:15-cv-81316-DMM (S.D. Fla., September 22, 2015), arises
from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to
consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles
in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that were
designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.

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 the parent corporation of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Romano, Esq.
      Todd Romano, Esq.
      ROMANO LAW GROUP
      Post Office Box 21349
      West Palm Beach, FL 33416-1349
      Telephone: (561) 533-6700
      Facsimile: (561) 533-1285
      E-mail: john@romanolawgroup.com
              todd@romanolawgroup.com

         - and -

      Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
      Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
      William B. Eadie, Esq.
      SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
      1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 696-3232
      Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
      E-mail: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
              sscott@spanglaw.com
              ndicello@spanglaw.com
              weadie@spanglaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Yell" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Yell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi
AG, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07429 (C.D.
Cal., September 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.

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 the parent company of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

Audi AG is a German automobile manufacturer that designs,
engineers, produces, markets and distributes luxury automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
      Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
      Celene S. Chan, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      500 S. Grand Ave. Suite 1310
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 254-4800
      Facsimile: (213) 254-4801
      E-mail: kkasdan@kasdancdlaw.com
              glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
              cchan@klwtlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Legal Woes Over Emissions Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Biesecker and Eric Tucker, writing for The Associated
Press, report that Volkswagen is facing suits over emissions
scandal.

Who knew about the deception, when did they know it and who
directed it?

Those are among questions that state and federal investigators
want answered as they plunge into the emissions scandal at
Volkswagen that has cost the chief executive his job, caused stock
prices to plummet and could result in billions of dollars in
fines.

Legal experts say the German automaker is likely to face
significant legal problems, including potential criminal charges,
arising from its admission that 11 million of its diesel vehicles
sold worldwide contained software specifically designed to help
cheat emissions tests.

The Environmental Protection Agency has accused VW of installing
sophisticated stealth software that enabled "clean diesel"
versions of its Passat, Jetta, Golf and Beetle models to detect
when they were being tested and emit less-polluting exhaust than
in real-world driving conditions.  The agency says the "defeat
devices" allowed those models to belch up to 40 times the allowed
amounts of harmful fumes in order to improve driving performance.

The Justice Department says it's "working closely" with EPA
investigators.

"If there is sufficient evidence to show that Volkswagen
intentionally programmed its vehicles to override the emission
control devices, the company and any individuals involved could
face criminal charges under the Clean Air Act, and for conspiracy,
fraud and false statements," said David M. Uhlmann, a former chief
of the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Section who is
now a law professor at the University of Michigan.  He called
criminal charges "almost certain."

But Mr. Uhlmann cautioned that hauling the executives involved
into a U.S. courtroom could be challenging because much of the
conduct at issue probably occurred overseas.  While the U.S. has
an extradition treaty with Germany, European regulators are also
now investigating and could claim first dibs on prosecuting
company officials.

It's not the first time Volkswagen has been accused of cheating on
emissions testing by the EPA.  In July 1973, the agency found that
VW had installed temperature-sensitive devices that turned off
emissions controls on about 25,000 Fastback, Squareback and bus
models.  The company agreed to remove the devices and eventually
settled with the Justice Department, paying a $120,000 penalty.

CEO Martin Winterkorn resigned on Sept. 16, and Volkswagen
announced it would set aside $7.3 billion to cover the cost of the
scandal, but even that may not be enough.  The company has
apologized, but has not yet detailed who was responsible for the
defeat devices.

German media reported on Sept. 13 that Volkswagen had received
warnings years ago about the use of illegal tricks to defeat
emissions tests.  Bild am Sonntag said VW's internal investigation
has found a 2007 letter from parts supplier Bosch warning
Volkswagen not to use the software during regular operation.
Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung said a Volkswagen
technician raised concerns about illegal practices in connection
with emissions levels in 2011.

A Volkswagen spokesman declined to comment on the reports.

The Clean Air Act allows for fines of up to $37,500 for each of
the 482,000 suspect VWs sold in the United States, potentially
totaling more than $18 billion.  Attorneys general for nearly 30
states and the District of Columbia have announced a coordinated
investigation and said they are issuing subpoenas for company
records.

There's also a high likelihood of class-action lawsuits by angry
VW owners.

"They're facing a tsunami of possible state and federal
enforcement actions, and a potential large number of violations
-- including administrative, civil and criminal," said
William Carter, a former federal prosecutor in Los Angeles who
specialized in environmental crimes and served as general counsel
of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Investigators will almost certainly look for any false statements
made to the EPA and for signs that VW has tried to conceal
wrongdoing or obstruct regulators.  Fraud charges could be
considered if evidence emerges that company executives used the
Internet or the mail system to carry out the deception.  And money
laundering allegations will be explored if investigators suspect
that VW sent illicit proceeds overseas.

"If a software package such as this were intentionally designed to
defeat the emissions testing, there may well be email traffic,
meetings, records that would establish that intent," said
Gregory Linsin, a former environmental crimes prosecutor at the
Justice Department.

But Mr. Linsin said he expected the Justice Department also to
take into account the multiple investigations likely to take place
worldwide, and to not punish the automaker in a way that
jeopardizes its ability to stay in business.

The problems at VW come as the Justice Department faces growing
pressure to prosecute individual executives and employees for
corporate misdeeds.  The last two major criminal investigations
against auto companies -- Toyota and General Motors -- yielded
massive fines over car safety problems but has resulted in no
prosecutions of executives.  Those outcomes dismayed consumer
watchdog groups and grieving victims' relatives, who demanded
better accountability for failure to disclose vehicle defects.

A memo in September by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates sought
to reaffirm the Justice Department's commitment to prosecuting
employees and executives, directing among other policy mandates
that corporations pushing for credit for cooperating with the
government must first turn over evidence against individuals.

"Volkswagen has a fundamental choice to make," said Mr. Uhlmann,
the former prosecutor. "That is whether it intends to cooperate
and seek leniency, or whether it wants to fight the charges.
Every indication over the last several days from Volkswagen is
that it intends to cooperate."

Asked whether that meant he expected company executives to
voluntarily come to the United States to stand trial, he laughed.

"Absolutely not," he said.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Earmarks EUR6.5BB for Emissions Scandal Fallout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geir Moulson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
crisis enveloping Volkswagen AG, the world's top-selling carmaker,
escalated on Sept. 22 as the company issued a profit warning
following a stunning admission that some 11 million of its diesel
vehicles worldwide were fitted with software at the center of a
U.S. emissions scandal.

In a statement, the German company said it was setting aside
around 6.5 billion euros ($7.3 billion) to cover the fallout from
the scandal that is tarnishing VW's reputation for probity and
seriously undermining its share price.  There was no mention of
any fines or penalties.

In the wake of its statement, VW's share price was down another
17.6 percent at 110.20 euros and near a four-year low.  The fall
comes on top of the Sept. 21 hefty 17 percent decline and means
the company has lost an eye-watering 25 billion euros or so in
just two days of frenzied trading.

The trigger to the company's market woes was the Sept. 18
revelation from the U.S.'s Environmental Protection Agency that VW
rigged nearly half a million cars to defeat U.S. smog tests.

The company then admitted that it intentionally installed software
programmed to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official
emissions testing.  The software then switches off again, enabling
cars to drive more powerfully on the road while emitting as much
as 40 times the legal pollution limit.

In its statement on Sept. 22, Volkswagen gave more details,
admitting that "discrepancies" related to vehicles with Type EA
189 engines and involved some 11 million vehicles worldwide.

"A noticeable deviation between bench test results and actual road
use was established solely for this type of engine," it said.
"Volkswagen is working intensely to eliminate these deviations
through technical measures."

To cover the necessary service measures and what it says are
"other efforts to win back the trust of our customers," VW said is
setting aside some 6.5 billion euros in the current quarter.

That figure, it conceded, may be subject to revaluation in the
light of ongoing investigations. As a result, it said 2015
earnings targets will be adjusted but it didn't specify by how
much.  It added that the software is also installed in other
vehicles with diesel engines but that that for the "majority of
these engines the software does not have any effect."

Volkswagen said that new vehicles with EU 6 diesel engines
currently on sale in the European Union comply with legal
requirements and environmental standards.

CEO Martin Winterkorn issued an apology on Sept. 20 for the U.S.
scandal, promised an internal investigation and acknowledged that
his company had "broken the trust of our customers and the
public."

VW's troubles already are not confined to the U.S., though.

South Korea said on Sept. 22 it would investigate emission levels
of Volkswagen diesel vehicles in the wake of the rigging scandal
in the U.S. that has heaped pressure on Mr. Winterkorn.  The
German government is to also conduct new emissions tests in VW's
diesel cars, while France called for a wider Europe-wide
investigation into Volkswagen's practices  --  and into those of
French carmakers.

Even before the Sept. 22 statement, a member of Volkswagen's
supervisory board suggested that heads will roll in the wake of
the scandal, though he said it was too soon to start assigning
blame.

Speaking on Germany's Deutschlandfunk radio, Olaf Lies cautioned
against "over-hasty calls for resignations."  Mr. Lies, who is
also the economy minister of the German state of Lower Saxony,
which holds a 20 percent stake in Volkswagen, said he was sure
there would be "personal consequences" once the investigation is
complete.

The shockwaves from the scandal enveloping Volkswagen were being
felt far and wide across the sector as traders wondered who else
may get embroiled.  Germany's Daimler AG, the maker of Mercedes-
Benz cars, was down 6 percent, while BMW AG fell 5.3 percent.
France's Renault SA was 5.5 percent lower.

"It's an auto sector shaking incident," said Connor Campbell, a
financial analyst at Spreadex.


WALT DISNEY: Taps Two Veteran Lawyers to Defend No-Poach Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patience Haggin, writing for The Recorder, reports that The Walt
Disney Co. is bringing on two veteran trial lawyers to fight an
antitrust suit that accuses major California animation studios of
conspiring to suppress wages for artists and engineers.

John Keker and Robert Van Nest of Keker & Van Nest entered
appearances on Sept. 14 for Disney and subsidiaries Pixar,
Lucasfilm and ImageMovers Digital.  They join attorneys from
Covington & Burling on the studios' defense team.

Plaintiffs attorneys with Susman Godfrey, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll accuse the animation
studios of agreeing not to recruit each other's employees and of
meeting over dinner and drinks to illegally set caps on industry
salaries.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh preliminarily rejected the studios'
statute of limitations defense in August, allowing the case to
proceed.  Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe represents Sony Pictures
Animation and Sony Pictures Imageworks. Williams & Connolly
represents Blue Sky Studios.

The suit against the studios follows a similar "no-poach" action
against several major Silicon Valley tech companies that settled
earlier this year.  Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc.
and Intel Corp. paid $415 million to settle charges they had
suppressed wages for technology workers by agreeing not to recruit
each other's employees. Keker & Van Nest represented Google.


WALGREEN CO: Accused by Missouri AG of Deceiving Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Suhr, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Walgreen
Co.'s persisting failure to remove expired sales tags from its
shelves deceives customers and violates a 2014 settlement that
sought to resolve the matter in Missouri, the state's attorney
general argued on Sept. 22 in asking a state court to punish the
pharmacy chain.

Attorney General Chris Koster filed court documents asking a judge
to hold the nation's largest pharmacy retailer in contempt of the
settlement and issue steeper fines, including up to $5,000 for
each expired tag.  Mr. Koster said that since July, undercover
investigators have found a total of more than 1,300 shelf tags
displaying sales prices that had expired in all but one of 50
Walgreen stores.

Mr. Koster said the lapsed tags subjected customers to unwittingly
being overcharged and ran afoul of the company's promise to remove
the tags within 12 hours of their expiration.  Two of the tags had
expired in 2013, he said.

"Consumers should not have to dig through outdated and incorrect
information to find the true price of an item," Mr. Koster said in
announcing his latest legal filings against the company, based in
the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois.  He called the expired
sales tags "a flagrant defiance of the court's order."

"I believe the problem is rooted in negligence. I don't believe
they care," Mr. Koster added.  "This has become institutionalized
as a marketing technique for Walgreens, and it is outrageous."

The company issued a statement later on Sept. 22, saying it stands
behind the independent audits of its sites as called for under
last year's deal.

"We believe this process is in our customers' best interests and
we will continue to work with (Koster's) office in order to ensure
pricing accuracy on behalf of consumers across Missouri," the
company said.  "We are committed to continuing to earn our
customers' trust and loyalty."

Mr. Koster sued Walgreen in 2013, accusing it of overcharging
customers and using deceptive advertising and pricing schemes in
Missouri.  The undercover investigation took place in eight stores
in St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, Jefferson City and Osage
Beach after consumers complained that display prices didn't match
up with what they paid at checkout.

At that time, Mr. Koster cited several ways in which consumers
were overcharged, including outdated price displays for sale items
and confusion created by multiple prices displayed for the same
item.  Of 205 items purchased by investigators, 43 had price
discrepancies ranging from a few cents to $15, Mr. Koster said.

Under the 2014 settlement, Walgreen agreed to pay for an
independent auditor to scrutinize 25 percent of the company's
stores every three months until mid-2017.  Walgreen faced a
penalty of $1,500 for each store that failed its first inspection,
$3,000 for each one that fails a second inspection, and $5,000 for
each store that fails a third or subsequent inspection.

Mr. Koster said on Sept. 22 that the company already has paid the
state $136,500 for pricing violations uncovered by the audits.

"Obviously, $136,000 in fines doesn't seem to be enough to get
Walgreen's attention," he said.

Walgreen has roughly 8,240 stores in 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.


WHISPERTEXT LLC: Judge Tosses Text Message App Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that a team of lawyers
from Fenwick & West got a would-be class action against
WhisperText LLC tossed after a federal judge in California ruled
that the app does not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The consumer protection act makes it unlawful to use an automatic
telephone dialing system to call any telephone number assigned to
a cellular telephone service.  Text messages count too, according
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff Tony McKenna, represented by Parisi & Havens in Santa
Monica, California and McGuire Law in Chicago, sued after getting
a WhisperText invitation, claiming that it violated his rights
under the act.  He asked for an injunction requiring WhisperText
to "cease all wireless spam activities and an award of statutory
damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees."

He struck out the first time when the court dismissed his suit for
failure to allege plausible facts, then again for the same reason.
Now on his fourth amended complaint, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul
Grewal of the Northern District of California ruled that he's out
of chances.

"It is clear the complaint cannot be saved by amendment," he wrote
on Sept. 10.  "McKenna again fails to state a claim that
WhisperText used an [automatic telephone dialing system] to send
him an unwanted message . . .  The human intervention of a Whisper
App user is necessary to set those processes in motion."

If that wasn't enough, Judge Grewal also noted that the Federal
Communications Commission "recently found that an application that
required human intervention to send invitational messages was not
the 'maker or initiator' of the calls for [Telephone Consumer
Protection Act] purposes."

The Fenwick team was led by partner Tyler Newby --
tnewby@fenwick.com -- and associates Bradley Meissner --
bmeissner@fenwick.com -- and Angel Chiang -- achiang@fenwick.com


WILLIS GROUP: Motion to Dismiss Scheduled to be Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company's motion to dismiss a
class action complaint was scheduled to be fully briefed as of
September 17, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:9-
CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among
others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third
Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a
putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N.

On August 31, 2011, the court issued its decision in Roland,
dismissing that action with prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing and oral
argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied. On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's reversal in Troice.

"On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition.
Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court
heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February 26, 2014, the
Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision," the Company
said.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action stipulated to the
consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28, 2014,
the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus, consolidated
Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule 42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The
motion was scheduled to be fully briefed as of September 17, 2015.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Not Yet Responded to "Rupert" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in "Rupert".

Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was filed
on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same
Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and
seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January
24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar
County), but stayed the action until further order of the court.
On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the
stay, which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated
the appeal with the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et
al. action, and the consolidated appeal, which was fully briefed
as of March 24, 2015, is currently pending. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was scheduled for September 2, 2015. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.


WILLIS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Casanova" Case Set for Briefing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in "Casanova" was
scheduled to be fully briefed as of September 17, 2015.

Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of seven
Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for
Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal
of certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in
the Troice action and the Janvey action.

Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group
Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On
June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion was
scheduled to be fully briefed as of September 17, 2015.


WILLIS GROUP: Oral Argument Scheduled in "Rishmague" Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
oral argument on the consolidated appeal in Rishmague case was
scheduled for September 2, 2015.

Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585, was
filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending.

On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with the plaintiffs in
the Rupert action in their motion to lift the court's stay of the
Rupert action.

On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On
October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal,
which was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015, is currently
pending. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was scheduled
for September 2, 2015. The defendants have not yet responded to
the complaint in Rishmague.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Not Yet Responded to MacArthur Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed on
February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the
Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred
to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. Also on
April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the Southern
District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern District
of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the parties
stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris County))
and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court (in
accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague)), which stipulation was "so ordered" by the court on
October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint in MacArthur.


WILLIS GROUP: Have Not Yet Replied to "Ranni", "Barbar" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.

On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in
Florida state court (Miami-Dade County) alleging violations of
Florida common law. The five suits are: (1) Barbar, et al. v.
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-
05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford investors seeking
compensatory damages in excess of $30 million; (2) de Gadala-
Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et
al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64 Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5 million;
(3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3
million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases
to the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified
the JPML of the pendency of these related actions. On June 10,
2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua sponte staying
and administratively closing that action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation and coordination with the
other Stanford-related actions. On June 11, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four actions pending the
JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013, the JPML issued a
conditional transfer order for the transfer of the five actions to
the Northern District of Texas, the transmittal of which was
stayed for seven days to allow for any opposition to be filed. On
June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML
lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction.

"We believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are
likely to be reinstated," the Company said.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in Ranni or
Barbar.


WILLIS GROUP: Scheduling Order in "Troice", "Janvey" Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
the court has entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders
in Troice and Janvey cases, and vacated the July 20, 2015 class
certification submission date in the original Janvey scheduling
order.

Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S.
Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the
Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford Investors
Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii) on behalf
of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors against
Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege
claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
Complaint, which added certain defendants unaffiliated with
Willis.

On February 28, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint, which motions were granted in part and
denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On December 22,
2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's December 5 order
to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and, on
December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend and, to the
extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5 order.

On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended
Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion
to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory
appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015, the court
granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent necessary,
reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court "so ordered" that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.


WILLIS GROUP: Defendants Have Not Yet Responded to NJ Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in the New
Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta
Firefighters' Pension Fund or Cordell actions related to the
Towers Watson Merger.

On July 9, 10 and 31, 2015, four putative class action complaints
challenging the Towers Watson Merger were filed in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware, captioned New Jersey Building
Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v. Towers Watson & Co., et al.,
C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), Stein v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB (filed on July 9, 2015), City of
Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No.
11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015), and Cordell v. Haley, et al.,
C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31, 2015). The complaints in
these actions were filed by purported stockholders of Towers
Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers
Watson stockholders and name as defendants Towers Watson, the
members of its board of directors, Willis and Merger Sub. (The
various named defendants, to the extent they are stockholders of
Towers Watson, are excluded from the putative class.) The
complaints generally allege that Towers Watson's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson stockholders by
agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis through an inadequate
and unfair process, which led to inadequate and unfair
consideration and unfair deal protections, and that Willis and
Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
complaints seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger.

On July 28, 2015, the plaintiff in the Stein action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the
court the same day. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in the New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity
Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund or Cordell
actions.


ZULILY INC: Faces "Mada" Suit Over Proposed Liberty Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Krishna Mada, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No. 11529 (Del. Ch.,
September 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Zulily, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
Zulily by Liberty Interactive Corporation, through a flawed
process and inadequate consideration.

Zulily, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides merchandise
primarily to women purchasing for their children, themselves, and
their homes, through a flash sales model using its desktop and
mobile websites, and mobile applications.

Liberty Interactive Corporation operates and owns interests in a
broad range of digital commerce businesses. Those businesses are
currently attributed to two tracking stock groups: the QVC Group
and the Liberty Ventures Group.

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 -

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516


* Companies May Use Insurance for Call Recording Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Green, writing for Law.com, reports that companies often
monitor or record conversations between their employees and
customers for training or quality control purposes.  You've
probably heard messages to this effect yourself.  These
announcements are meant to satisfy laws that prohibit monitoring
or recording unless both parties to the call consent.  Despite
such precautions, however, companies sometimes run afoul of these
laws and find themselves facing class action lawsuits alleging
calls were recorded without the required notice.

States with "two-party consent" include California, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington and the District of Columbia.
A company may be subject to these laws even if it is located in a
different state.  The California Supreme Court, for example, ruled
in 2006 that if a caller in a one-party state records a
conversation with someone in California, that out-of-state caller
is subject to California law and must have consent from all
callers. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc.

Many companies obtain consent by announcing that the call may be
recorded, effectively obtaining the implicit consent of the
customer who continues with the call.  In Washington, the statute
expressly provides that a party can satisfy the consent
requirement by "announc[ing] to all other parties engaged in the
communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner,
that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or
transmitted," so long as this announcement is also recorded.
Wash. Rev. Code Sec. 9.73.030(3); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272,
Sec. 99. Other states have adopted a similar rule by case law.

Still, there have been many class action lawsuits filed by
customers who dealt with companies by phone.  They include Omni
Hotels, Applebee's, Hilton Worldwide, Eddie Bauer, Visa, Inc.,
Sirius XM Radio, Capital One, ADT Security Services, other
financial service companies and collection agencies and a wide
range of other businesses. These claims can lead to significant
liability.  Seven-figure settlements are common and some of the
reported settlements have been in the $10 million to $20 million
range.

Insurance is a potentially valuable asset to protect a company
against these claims, including potential coverage for both the
costs of defending such a claim and for any ultimate settlement or
liability.  But companies should check their policies carefully
for potential exclusions.

General Liability Coverage for Call Recording

Call recording claims may be covered by a company's general
liability (CGL) policy.  These generally provide coverage for
personal injury offenses, which are defined to include "oral or
written publication of material that violates a person's right of
privacy."  Call recording implicates the right of privacy.  In
California, for example, recording is prohibited by California's
Invasion of Privacy Act, which was enacted to protect "the right
of privacy of the people of this state." Cal. Penal Code Sec. 630.
Thus, call recording claims fall within the personal injury
coverage for privacy claims.

Publication of Material That Violates the Right of Privacy

Insurers sometimes contend that the policy only applies to
"publication" of material that violates a right of privacy, and
recording a call is not publication.  The very act of recording
the conversation, however, is a publication.  The term
"publication" is not defined in the policy, but dictionaries
define the term to mean the production of material in a fixed
medium which becomes available for review; it does not require
actual review of the material.  A book, for example, is a
publication, regardless of whether anyone actually reads it.  At
least one case has expressly held that recording alone is
"publication." Encore Receivable Management, Inc. v. ACE Property
and Casualty Insurance Company (S.D. Ohio, July 3, 2013)

In any event, this is usually an academic debate, since the calls
are recorded for the express purpose of later review, and any
subsequent replay would clearly be a publication.  Insurers
sometimes contend that the playing of recorded calls within the
company is not publication. The law, however, is to the contrary.
Lenscrafters, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (N.D.
Cal 2005)

Whether the Suit Seeks 'Damages'

Insurers also take the position that claims are not covered on the
ground that the claim is not for money damages, but only
penalties.  This depends on the particular state law at issue, of
course, but the laws generally provide for damages.  The
California Act has been fertile ground for disputes about this
issue, since it specifies a minimum statutory damage amount, which
insurers mischaracterize as a "penalty." The statute, however,
clearly treats this as "damages." Section 637.2(b) of the Act
states that any party bringing an action may "seek damages as
provided by subdivision (a)." (Emphasis added.) Subdivision (a)
provides that damages are the greater of: "[1] Five thousand
dollars ($5,000) [or] [2] Three times the amount of actual damages
. . ." Thus, the minimum award of $5,000 is "damages," not a
penalty, and plaintiffs may also seek "actual damages" in a
greater amount.

The 'Distribution of Material' Exclusion

Insureds should carefully review their policies as insurers
sometimes include an endorsement excluding call recording claims.
Until recently, the CGL exclusion for "Distribution of Material in
Violation of Statutes," did not apply to call recording.  The most
recent forms, however, now refer to this exclusion as "Recording
And Distribution Of Material Or Information In Violation Of Law"
and have extended the exclusion to recording.  This does not mean
insureds are now out of luck.  Many insurers continue to use older
forms long after the standard forms are revised.  The company's
actual policy should be reviewed carefully.  Moreover, even if the
most recent policy has such an exclusion, call recording claims
trigger all policies in effect during the alleged period of
recording, so earlier polices would still apply, even if a newer
policy excludes such claims.

Criminal Acts Exclusion

Since a number of state statutes provide for criminal liability,
insurers with "criminal act" exclusions sometimes deny coverage on
this basis.  This exclusion, however, is inherently ambiguous,
given the wide range of conduct potentially subject to criminal
laws. In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Raynor (Wash. Sup. Ct. 2001), for
example, the court explained that "a criminal act exclusion does
not apply to all acts technically classified as crimes, but only
to serious criminal conduct 'done with malicious intent, from evil
nature, or with a wrongful disposition to harm or injure other
persons or property.'"  Thus, the exclusion should apply only to
conduct widely and generally understood as wrongful and criminal,
not all acts which technically constitute a crime.

Other Coverages to Consider

Other types of liability insurance should also be considered.  For
example, many privately held companies have Management Liability
coverage (sometimes referred to as "private company D&O").  This
coverage is similar to traditional public company directors and
officers insurance, but provides much broader coverage for the
entity itself.  A Management Liability policy covers all liability
of the company which is not excluded, and will apply absent a
specific exclusion for call recording.

Companies should also consider whether they have any potentially
applicable professional liability or errors and omissions (E&O)
coverage.  Visa, for example, sued its professional liability
insurer seeking coverage for the call-recording class action filed
against it.  The court rejected the insurer's argument that the
underlying settlement fell under an exclusion for penalties and
sanctions. Visa Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's,
San Francisco Superior Court (January 6, 2012).

Finally, companies should review whether they have any form of
"media" or "technology" coverage.  These are non-standard
coverages and vary greatly from carrier to carrier.  One common
form, provides coverage for "unauthorized interception or
recording of images or sound" as part of its "Technology
Protection Module."  A number of other forms provide broad
coverage for invasion of privacy.  These coverages should be
carefully reviewed if the insured is facing call-recording
litigation.


* Supreme Court Set to Hear Four Class Actions This Upcoming Term
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur H. Bryant, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that two years ago, dissenting in American Express v. Italian
Colors Restaurant, Justice Elena Kagan, referring to the civil
procedure rule on class actions, wrote, "To a hammer, everything
looks like a nail.  And to a court bent on diminishing the
usefulness of Rule 23, everything looks like a class action, ready
to be dismantled." The message to people and companies involved in
class actions was clear: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court basically left class actions
alone.  This upcoming term, however, the court has already agreed
to hear four cases that could dramatically restrict or terminate
class action litigation in numerous ways.  The concern is real.
Will the court keep hammering class actions or let them be?
To understand why so many are worried, just look at the decisions
that prompted Kagan's remarks. In 2011, AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion effectively held that the Federal Arbitration Act gave
corporations the power to violate state laws and use mandatory
arbitration clauses in their form contracts to bar customers and
workers from bringing class actions against them.

Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes announced several new rules making it
harder to prosecute cases as class actions and precluded the
courts from determining whether the country's largest private
employer was discriminating against its female workers nationwide.

In 2013, neither Comcast v. Behrend, an antitrust case, nor
Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk, a Fair Labor Standards Act case,
presented the questions the court heard them to address.  But,
instead of dismissing them, the court stopped both from proceeding
as class actions on grounds not addressed by the parties.

Finally, in American Express, the court held corporations could
use mandatory arbitration clauses to ban class actions when, as a
practical matter, that prevented their customers from vindicating
their substantive rights and let the companies illegally obtain
billions.

FOUR NEW CHALLENGES

Against this background, the court's decision to hear four new
challenges to class actions has understandably raised grave
concerns.  Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, attacking a $5.8 million
jury verdict against the company for underpaying its workers,
raises two questions: first, whether the trial judge should have
permitted Tyson's workers to rely on statistical sampling to
establish liability and damages; and second, whether a class can
be certified that contains some members who have not been injured
and have no legal right to damages.

But statistical sampling has been used to establish liability and
damages in cases for years.  And classes have always been
certified even though they contain some members who have not been
injured and are not entitled to damages.  For example, even if an
employer is discriminating against women in hiring, unqualified
female job applicants would not have been injured or be entitled
to damages.  That fact has never stopped class actions charging
gender discrimination in hiring from proceeding.

In Spokeo v. Robins, a Fair Credit Reporting Act case, the
company, charged with publishing inaccurate information and
failing to provide legally required notices, contends that
Congress cannot constitutionally give people the right to seek
statutory damages, individually or collectively, when corporations
violate the law.

Based on this rationale, it urges the court to bar class actions
for statutory damages authorized by Congress to enforce the Truth
in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Lanham Act, Fair Housing
Act, Americans With Disabilities Act, Video Privacy Protection
Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Stored Communications
Act, Cable Communications Privacy Act, Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Expedited Funds Availability
Act, Homeowners Protection Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act and
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez presents the question the court granted
review of Genesis Healthcare to decide: whether defendants can
stop class actions and render them moot by offering the individual
class representatives their full damages and the class members
nothing.  Since Genesis Healthcare, the lower courts have
unanimously agreed that Judge Kagan's dissent in that case was
right: the answer is no.  But the court took the case anyway.
And, in DirecTV v. Imburgia, which charges early-cancellation
penalties imposed on consumers were illegal, the company's 2007
customer agreement said its mandatory arbitration clause was
invalid if the clause's class action ban violated "the law of your
state."  It did.  AT&T Mobility later held federal law pre-empted
that state law, but the lower court found that didn't matter --
because the parties' agreement was to follow state law. Contract
interpretation is supposed to be governed by state law, which the
Supreme Court does not create.  The court could, however, still
find a way to enforce the class action ban.

These cases are important to everyone in America.  While they
involve class actions -- a procedural device -- what's at stake
are the substantive and constitutional rights class actions are
designed to preserve and enforce.  When corporations or the
government harm many people or businesses, class actions are often
the only way that justice can be done.

The court will be deciding whether class actions can continue to
be used, as they have been, to enforce state and federal consumer
protection, employment, civil rights, civil liberties,
environmental and other laws -- and the state and U.S.
constitutions.  If it keeps hammering nails in class actions'
coffin, it could be burying significant portions of these laws as
well.  We will see.


* Surge in Lawsuits Seen Over Inadequate Cybersecurity
------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in the wake of a federal appeals court's decision giving the
Federal Trade Commission authority to come down on companies with
inadequate cybersecurity, legal observers said the lack of clear
regulation and the FTC's newfound power will mean a surge in
lawsuits.

The decision spawned from a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit in which the court ruled that the Wyndham
hotel chain, sued by the FTC, could be held responsible for three
data breaches of its computer network that resulted in $10.6
million in fraudulent charges to customers' credit cards.

The FTC's authority to enforce in cybersecurity matters comes
specifically from the court's decision to give the commission
latitude to determine what is considered an "unfair" trade
practice.

Scott Vernick, a Philadelphia-based Fox Rothschild attorney who
represents Fortune 500 companies in data breach matters, said the
authority gained from the Third Circuit's decision coupled with
the lack of solid regulations governing cybersecurity means the
FTC will be putting many more companies in its crosshairs.

This could affect the likes of Sony, Ashley Madison, Target and
Home Depot, Mr. Vernick said, because "aside from the regulations
put out by the credit card companies, for a broad swath of
companies there are no regulations that you can look up" on
software, firewalls and data encryption, to name a few areas.

While other industries, like health care, transportation and the
financial sector, have more definitive regulations, Mr. Vernick
said for most commercial entities, the FTC points to its past
enforcement actions for guidance.

Furthermore, Mr. Vernick said the FTC has no interest in
establishing clear regulations because it has more flexibility to
police cybersecurity without them.

However, the resolution of the Wyndham case will likely produce
more specific guidance, especially if the FTC wants to win the
case, according to Michael Sussmann, who focuses on consumer
privacy litigation at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Sussmann said the FTC does tend to use the lack of clarity to
its advantage, but in a case where Wyndham is not likely to back
down and enter into a settlement, the FTC will have to enumerate
at least some standards for cybersecurity practices geared toward
companies that hold consumer data.

"They're going to have to lay out what this is," Mr. Sussmann
said.

"There will be some de facto standard," he continued.  "It may not
be comprehensive, but it should begin to answer the question of
what is an unfair business practice when it comes to cybersecurity
and consumer data."

While it's still possible for Wyndham to prevail, Mr. Sussmann
said, "If the FTC gets a strong win, I suspect it'll be open
season because they have this defined jurisdiction."

Steven Caponi, co-chair of Blank Rome's cybersecurity and data
privacy group in Wilmington, Delaware, also predicted that more
FTC cases would pop up in the aftermath of the Third Circuit's
decision.

"Since the FTC seems intent on filling the void in the absence of
a federal regulation on cyberlitigation, in light of the Third
Circuit decision, I would anticipate an increase in enforcement
actions by the FTC," Mr. Caponi said.

But that decision still leaves companies in the dark about how to
comply with the FTC in terms of cybersecurity.  Additionally,
Mr. Caponi said that since there are so many private enforcement
actions undertaken by the FTC, there is a dearth of precedent
available for companies to draw from.

And because of the discretion given to the FTC by the court in
determining what standards, if any, to articulate, Mr. Caponi
said, "it's going to be something that's going to be developed
over time.  Given the FTC's response, they'll clearly want the
flexibility of not having everything written out in concrete
terms."

"I think there does need to be clarity," he continued.  "I think
the threat is evolving very rapidly and the technology is evolving
very rapidly, and given that it takes the federal government a
long time to develop regulations," once those regulations are
cemented, the threat has already evolved past the regulations.
This leaves the government consistently playing catch-up.

Roberta Anderson, the co-founder of K&L Gates' cyberlaw practice
group in Pittsburgh, said that as the FTC begins to more
aggressively pursue companies, businesses should get ahead of the
curve by becoming more savvy in becoming "cyber-resilient."

In addition to protecting their customers' data, companies can
avoid regulatory scrutiny by investing time in researching best
practices, Ms. Anderson said.  However, it all comes back to the
lack of concentrated information on standards.

"I think that this is still a space where companies are trying to
get their arms around many things surrounding cybersecurity,
including what to do in the event of a breach and dealing with
regulatory exposure.  There's a real hunger for knowledge,
including how you deal with the FTC and state attorneys general
and the other cops walking the block," Ms. Anderson said.

She added, "In the absence of promulgated regulations, companies
really do have to cobble what's available in the public domain."

David Katz, a partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough and
head of its privacy and information security practice group, told
Legal affiliate Corporate Counsel that the FTC means business: "If
you don't train your employees to use strong passwords, the battle
is lost right there."

Mr. Katz noted that companies in situations similar to Wyndham
should emphasize their compliance with industry standards.

"I think you have to be able to make a credible argument that the
controls you have in place are consistent with best practices and
consistent with nationally and internationally recognized data
security standards," Mr. Katz noted.


* Tech Companies May Face Suits Over Subscription Auto-Renewal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that defense
lawyers are warning clients to carefully vet their subscription
renewal policies amid a flurry of consumer litigation under an
untested state law.

Since late 2013, two Southern California plaintiffs lawyers have
systematically targeted Google, Apple, Spotify, Lifelock, Blue
Apron and other companies with subscription-based services under a
2010 California statute that prohibits automatic renewal charges
without affirmative consent.

The suits seek restitution for unauthorized charges, some as low
as $1.99 per customer.  Though most cases are still in early
stages or have been driven into arbitration, defense lawyers warn
that the new brand of litigation could become more than a nuisance
if it succeeds on a classwide basis.

"You take a big company that's got millions of subscriptions and
you find out that they've been violating one of these laws -- the
potential liability is enormous," said David Fuad --
dfuad@orrick.com -- a lawyer in Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe's
Los Angeles office who is following the litigation.

The lawyers behind the wave, Julian Hammond of HammondLaw P.C. and
Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group, said the litigation is
already having an affect on corporate behavior.

"These companies are starting to actually make the terms clear and
conspicuous," said Mr. Hammond, who has filed nearly a dozen
automatic-renewal suits against companies including Apple Inc.,
Google, Spotify, Hulu, Dropbox and SeaWorld Entertainment Inc.
The biggest challenge faced by lawyers on both sides of the bar is
the newness of the law.  There have been few decisions out of any
court, said Davis Wright Tremaine partner Joseph Addiego III --
joeaddiego@dwt.com -- who represents Spotify, Hulu and Microsoft
Corp. in automatic-renewal cases.

"You have no judicial guidance on the interpretation of the
language of the statute," said Mr. Addiego, who spoke on the topic
last year during a firm-sponsored class action panel in New York.
"It's exciting in a way because you have an opportunity
. . . to be part of that process."

In many cases, defendants may be shielded by arbitration
agreements and class action waivers.  A 2013 Northern District of
California case against Spotify was moved into arbitration last
year, as was a case brought against Hulu in Los Angeles Superior
Court.

Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy principal Justin Berger --
jberger@cpmlegal.com -- said he's considered filing suits under
the automatic-renewal law, but in "most of them, we take a pass
because of the arbitration issues.

"The California law, which lawyers say is one of the strictest in
the country, requires companies to present their subscription
terms in a clear and conspicuous manner, and to obtain affirmative
consent before charging a customer's credit card on a recurring
basis.

It mandates that customers be reimbursed for any services or
products they paid for in violation of the law, but doesn't
provide for additional damages.  Most often the claims are brought
in conjunction with California's Unfair Competition Law, which
also only allows for restitution.  Mr. Kazerounian said he
suspects plaintiffs lawyers are waiting to see what the early
suits recover before they jump on board.

Mr. Kazerounian has reached several preliminary settlements in
automatic-renewal cases, including a deal struck in July with
Blizzard Entertainment Inc., maker of the "World of Warcraft"
video game.  While the amounts remain confidential and he's
waiting for his fees to be approved, Mr. Kazerounian said he's
satisfied with the results.

"I haven't actually seen a penny in return yet," he said, "but in
principal, yes I'm happy."

Mr. Hammond, who founded HammondLaw in 2010, has a background in
wage-and-hour litigation.  He's also branched out into privacy and
consumer law, and is currently litigating a "no-poach" suit
against California animation studios, a suit targeting the
security protections in Intuit Inc.'s TurboTax software, and a
privacy suit over a recent security breach at AshleyMadison.com.
The Sydney native joked it's his "Australian spirit" that prompted
him to jump into the untested field of automatic-renewal
litigation.

Lawyers on the other side of the bar say that instead of upholding
the purpose of the consumer-protection law, Mr. Hammond is suing
over minor technicalities.  Lawyers with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, representing Google in a suit over recurring Google Drive
charges, say customers were warned multiple times that their
credit card would be charged every month if they upgraded their
cloud storage plan.

"It simply would not be plausible for plaintiff to claim that he
was confused or misled about what he was purchasing or how he
would be billed for it," partners David Kramer and Brian Willen
wrote in their demurrer, set to be argued later in September in
Santa Clara County Superior Court.

The Google lawyers also say that the automatic-renewal law doesn't
create a private right of action, and therefore it must be tied to
a claim brought under another law.  Mr. Hammond, who has teamed up
with Berman DeValerio partner Todd Seaver on the case, attached
his automatic-renewal claims to an unfair-competition claim, which
Google also is trying to get thrown out.

Mark Ankcorn, a San Diego-based consumer law attorney, said
defendants, such as Google, could have a decent case.

"There seems to be a pretty good defense," he said.  "As I recall,
as long as they don't check the box for you, I think they're OK.
And as long as they give you ample warning, then they're OK with
it."

Michael Sobol, chair of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein's
consumer-protection practice group, sued McAfee Inc. in the
Northern District of California last year.  The scope of the suit
extended beyond the company's basic compliance with the automatic-
renewal law -- plaintiffs lawyers said McAfee misled customers by
claiming it charged the same price for its antivirus software if
shoppers signed up for automatic renewal or bought a new copy in
the store.  In reality, the lawyers wrote, McAfee consistently
charged automatic-renewal customers more.  McAfee is represented
by Williams & Connolly and Lubin Olson & Niewiadomski.  The
parties reached a settlement this summer.

In July, U.S. District Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central
District of California dismissed an automatic-renewal claim
against Tinder.  Plaintiffs lawyers had argued the dating app
misled customers by imposing a recurring charge without warning,
and by making users above the age of 30 pay more. Morrow ruled the
claim couldn't proceed because the named plaintiff isn't a citizen
of California.

Still, Orrick's Fuad said companies that do business nationwide
ignore California's law at their own risk.

"I see no reason why these cases would go away," he said.
"Plaintiffs lawyers are going to latch onto these rules and try to
find a company that is not in compliance, and try to make an
example out of them."


                            *********

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  * * *