CAR_Public/151006.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 199


                            Headlines


4 CORNERS: Faces "Farris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Removed "Gilbert" Suit to S. District Ohio
AIRPORT MORTUARY: Botched Cremations, Suit Says
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Court Narrows Investors' Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: District Court Denies Motion to Remand

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BFC MANAGEMENT: Settlement in Exotic Dancers' FLSA Suit Approved
BLUE CROSS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Wandel" Suit Over Altice Merger Plan
CACH LLC: Removed "Wojcik" Suit to E.D. New York

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Schlumberger Merger
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Healthcare Workers Can Pursue Pay Suit
CITIGROUP INC: "Cimini" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss
CON-WAY INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit

CONOCOPHILIPS: 8th Cir. Reverses Class Certification Order
CONFORMIS INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
CONFORMIS INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Suit
DOORDASH INC: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Employment Expenses
ELECTROBRAS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit

EXPRESS ENERGY: "Cornell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EXPRESS ENERGY: "Trevino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Gullen" Class Suit Over Privacy Invasion
FIAT CHRYSLER: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
FMG INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ochoa" Suit Claims

GRUBHUB INC: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Employment Expenses
GSIVE LLC: "Abston" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
HEWLETT-PACKARD: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Ferranti"
HKA ENTERPRISES: "Jowers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
INTERGLOBO NORTH: Faces "Veras" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
KATES DETECTIVE: Faces "Dean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Mass. Over Arbitration Awards Policies
LSB INDUSTRIES: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
LOUISIANA: Transfer of Prisoners Hurting Inmates, Lawyers Say

LOUISIANA: CA Rules in Appeal in Suit v. Health Department
M BROTHERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: GPM Files Securities Class Suit
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCKENZIE ENTERPRISES: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Alleged Use of Non-OEM Auto Parts
MILWAUKEE BUCKS: "Herington" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MOBILEIRON INC: Removed "Steinberg" Suit to N.D. California
MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Appeal on Class Action Waivers Pending
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Ambrose Suit Over Out-Of-Market Games

NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Vogel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NUTRACLICK INT'L: Falsely Marketed Somnapure Drugs, Suit Says
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Securities Lawyers Circling Company
PRO SOURCE: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: 6th Cir. Affirms Probiotics Case Certification

REHRIG PACIFIC: Sued Over Employees Meal and Rest Periods
REPUBLIC FOODS: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
ROYAL BANK: Faces $1BB Class Suit Over ForeEx Rigging
SBS TRUST: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

SCARLETT'S: Oct. 19 Deadline for Claims in $6-Mil. Settlement
SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Slams CMO Suit Standing in High Court Plea
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Class Suit
SHAC LLC: Ruling Interprets TCPA "Autodialer" Definition
SOLARWINDS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

SPRAYPRO INC: "Villa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUN SHUI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Gudino" Suit Claims
SUPER MICRO: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
TECH DATA: Faces "Hunt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TEXAS: Prison Transport Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

TWIN CITY FIRE: Court Denies Defendant's Summary Judgment Bid
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Inks $26-Mil. Proposed Class Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued in E.D. Va. Over Misleading Financial Reports
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McLaughlin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Sargent" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Blake" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Covell" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Darovsky" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Deehl" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "De Romero" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Erickson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Firman" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gurevich" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hart" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hess" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hildebrant" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Holton" Suit in Ark. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ivanoski" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jeanice" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jelkmann" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McCann" Suit in D. Tenn. Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Malig" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Proudlove" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Shalov" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Sims" Suit in Wash. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Smith" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stolz" Suit in R.I. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Studer" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Toebben" Suit in Mo. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Yeoman" Suit in Utah Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Yousef" Suit in Ark. Over Defeat Devices
WASTEWATER SPECIALTIES: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
YAPSTONE INC: Faces "Koles" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

* Time Bar for Class Opt-Outs Continues to Divide Trial Courts


                            *********


4 CORNERS: Faces "Farris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Farris, Randy Datcher, Gustavo Garnica, Rito Ojeda,
Christopher Risley, Julian Pitt, Daniel Siller, William Siller,
Marcos Herrera, Carlos Romero, Avelino Avalos, Manuel Ramirez,
Gene Ellison, Brandy Trujillo, Jeff Kinnicut, Jairon Alexander,
Jose Loya, on behalf of persons similarly situated v. 4 Corners
Construction Mgmt., Inc., et al., Case No. RG15786992 (Cal.,
Super., September 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

4 Corners Construction Mgmt., Inc. is a general contractor in the
business of constructing or remodeling large housing and apartment
complexes throughout the Bay Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Victoria Booke, Esq.
      BOOKE & AJLOUNY, LLP
      606 North 1st Street
      San Jose, CA 95112

         - and -

      James Dal Bon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON
      606 North 1st Street
      San Jose, CA 95112


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Removed "Gilbert" Suit to S. District Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Eric Gilbert, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Co., et al., Case No. 15-CV-007354, was removed from the Common
Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-2854 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff purports to assert a claim for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Individual Defendants due to the presence of
"dead hand proxy put" and "poison put" provisions in two credit
agreements entered into by ANF, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells
Fargo) and a group of lenders on August 7, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maribeth Meluch, Esq.
      ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
      Two Miranova Placce, Ste 700
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-2121
      Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
      E-mail: mmeluch@isaacwiles.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 190877
      Telephone: (614) 221-2121
      Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
      E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
      Spencer Oster, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER, PLLC
      240 E. 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Telephone: (888) 529-1108
      E-mail: jfriedman@friedmanoster.com
              soster@friedmanoster.com

The Defendant Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is represented by:

      John J. Kulewicz, Esq.
      VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
      52 East Gay Street, P.O. Box 1008
      Columbus, OH 43216-1008
      Telephone: (614) 464-5634
      Facsimile: (614) 719-4812
      E-mail: jjkulewicz@vorys.com

The Defendants Arthur C. Martinez, James B. Bachmann, Bonnie R.
Brooks, Terry L. Burman, Sarah M. Gallagher, Michael E. Greenlees,
Archie M. Griffin, Charles R. Perrin, Stephanie M. Shern and Craig
R. Stapletonis are represented by:

      John R. Gall, Esq.
      Aneca E. Lasley, Esq.
      SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
      2000 Huntington Center
      41 South High Street
      Columbus, OH 43215-6101
      Telephone: (614) 365-2700
      Facsimile: (614) 365-2499
      E-mail: john.gall@squirepb.com
              aneca.lasley@squirepb.com


AIRPORT MORTUARY: Botched Cremations, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------
Doug Richards, writing for WXIA.com, reported that a lawsuit
claims a metro Atlanta crematorium botched a cremation, and the
attorney behind it thinks it's happened thousands of times.

There are two lawsuits. One is by the parents of a stillborn girl
whose remains were sent to the crematory. The other is a class-
action suit the attorney says represents more than twenty years
worth of botched cremations.

Cremation reduces human remains to granules, often impossible to
independently identify. But when an Atlanta couple examined the
cremated remains of their infant daughter in September 2013,
something was amiss.

"My clients probably would never have known anything, that the
ashes were perhaps not their child's ashes, but for the fact that
there were grown teeth with dental work within those ashes," said
attorney CK Hoffler.

Her lawsuit names Airport Mortuary Services in Hapeville as the
defendant that cremated the infant and and allegedly mishandled
the remains. The lawsuit claims the mortuary showed "conscious
indifference" in its handling of remains -- and claims that the
mortuary gave "fraudulent certificates of cremation" to "thousands
of Georgia families."

The funeral home declined our request for comment on the
allegations in the lawsuit. Attorney Hoffler says it's unclear how
the remains were allegedly mishandled.

"Whether they co-mingled, whether there was sloppiness, whether
they were even ashes from the infant, whether it was just dirt on
the street, I don't know," Hoffler said. "But I know there should
not have been two grown teeth in that urn for this family. And
that is unacceptable."

Hoffler says she has sworn deposition testimony that backs her
claim that thousands of additional customers of that crematory are
impacted -- but she won't give any more details.

The website for Airport Mortuary Services, the defendant in the
lawsuit, describes it as a family-owned business that started in
1986. It appears to specialize in transporting human remains
around the world -- but lists cremation as one of its services.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Court Narrows Investors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District
for Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motions to
dismiss in part in the case captioned, KUWAIT INVESTMENT OFFICE,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. et al.,
Defendants. TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. et al.,
Defendants. GIC PRIVATE LIMITED Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., Defendant. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. et
al., Defendants. LORD ABBETT AFFILIATED FUND INC. et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC. et al.,
Defendants. GENERAL ELECTRIC PENSION TRUST et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 11 CV
8403-LTS-DCF, 13 CV 3377-LTS-DCF, 13 CV 6565-LTS-DCF, 14 CV 1270-
LTS-DCF, 15 CV 774-LTS-DCF, 15 CV 957-LTS-DCF.

Plaintiffs in the cases are investors who opted out of the class
and settlement in In re American International Group, Inc. 2008
Securities Litigation, No. 08-CV-4772 (Class Action)  and, at
various times, filed individual actions for damages against the
Defendants. The complaints filed in the Individual Actions
substantially mirror the consolidated complaint filed in the Class
Action, alleging that Defendants made a series of misstatements
and omissions between March 16, 2006, and September 16, 2008
regarding AIG's exposure to risks in the market for sub-prime
mortgages, which ultimately led to AIG's well-publicized bailout
by the U.S. government in 2008. Like the Class Action, the
Individual Actions assert a combination of claims for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule 10-b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t-1; Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933; Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act; Section 15 of
the Securities Act; and various state common law causes of action
for fraud and unjust enrichment.

Several motions to dismiss claims asserted in the Individual
Actions, including a joint omnibus motion to dismiss arguing that
(1) Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims are wholly barred by the
three-year statute of repose established by Section 13 of the
Securities Act; (2) Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims are wholly or
partially barred by the five-year statute of repose established by
28 U.S.C. Section 1658(b); (3) Plaintiffs' state common law claims
are precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Reform Act;
alternatively, such claims are not pleaded with the particularity
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) or fail to state
valid claims for relief on state law grounds; and (4) Individual
defendants Joseph Cassano and Andrew Forster were not the "makers"
of certain alleged misstatements, and claims against them based on
statements issued by AIG or made by other individuals should be
dismissed.

In her Opinion dated September 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/mDT77efrom Leagle.com, Judge Swain dismissed
Plaintiffs' complaints against all Defendants to the extent their
federal claims are untimely and the remaining timely federal
claims asserted against Forster and Cassano in the Individual
Complaints will be dismissed in part. The dismissal motions of
Cassano and Forster are granted to the extent that they are
directed to Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims based on statements
issued by AIG, for failure to state plausibly a claim that Cassano
and Forster were "makers" within the meaning of Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of any allegedly fraudulent statements issued by AIG.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ira M. Press, Esq. --
ipress@kmllp.com -- Meghan J. Summers, Esq. -- msummers@kmllp.com
-- KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP

Defendants are represented by Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq. --
joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- Robert F. Carangelo, Esq. --
robert.carangelo@weil.com -- Stacy Nettleton, Esq. --
stacy.nettleton@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP


BANK OF AMERICA: District Court Denies Motion to Remand
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George H. King of the United States District Court
for Central District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion to
remand in the case captioned, Stevie Bradford, et al. v. Bank of
America Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 15-5201-GHK(JCX).

On June 11, 2015, 263 California homeowners (Plaintiffs) filed an
action against Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of
America, N.A., Banc of America Mortgage Securities, Inc., and
ReconTrust Company, N.A. (Defendants) in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Plaintiffs' complaint presents the following eight
claims: (1) consumer relief under an August 20, 2014 settlement
agreement between the U.S. Department of Justice and Bank of
America; (2) violation of California's unfair competition law; (3)
violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act; (4)
negligence; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6) fraudulent
misrepresentation; (7) breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; and (8) declaratory relief.

On July 9, 2015, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. removed the case
under the "mass action" provisions of the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA) and granted by the district court.

In the motion, Plaintiffs argued that Central District of
California lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both
Plaintiffs' claims or, in the alternative, Plaintiff Bradford's
claims individually and that complete diversity does not exist
between Plaintiff, a California citizen, and Defendant ReconTrust,
a California citizen.

In his Civil Minutes dated September 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/AFOX8Ofrom Leagle.com, Judge King concluded that
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. provided sufficient evidence that
each of CAFA's mass action removal elements was satisfied and thus
met its burden of establishing removal jurisdiction and that the
action was removed pursuant to CAFA, not Sec. 1332(a) thus,
Defendant Bank of America, N.A. needed only to establish that one
plaintiff was a citizen of a different state from any one
defendant at the time of removal so that CAFA's minimal diversity
requirement was satisfied at the time of removal, and remand based
on lack of complete diversity is not proper.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan E. Tarkowski, Esq. --
jontarkowski@gmail.com

Defendants are represented by Nafiz Cekirge, Esq. --
nafiz.cefirge@bryanncave.com -- Sarah Samuelson, Esq. --
sarah.samuelson@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08417 (N.D. Ill., September 24, 2015) arises
from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to manipulate the market for U.S.
Treasury securities, including Treasury bills, notes, bonds,
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities and floating rate notes,
and derivative instruments based on such securities, including
U.S. Treasury futures and options.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Rifkind, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN RIFKIND NORMAN RIFKIND
      100 E. Huron Street #1306
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (847) 372-4747
      E-mail: Norman@RIFSLAW.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com


BFC MANAGEMENT: Settlement in Exotic Dancers' FLSA Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, approved the
Settlement Agreement proposed by the parties in the case captioned
Jane Does 1-25, Plaintiffs, v. Lahkman Younis Al-Hakim, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-11307 (E.D. Mich.).

On April 8, 2015, a wage-and-hour case was filed by current and/or
former exotic dancers at the Ace of Spades club in Detroit,
Michigan, alleging that the defendants failed to pay them minimum
and overtime wages as required pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.  The
plaintiffs argued that the defendants BFC Realty, LLC, and Lahkman
Younis Al-Hakim, who own the building and land upon which the Ace
of Spades club operated, were "employers" within the meaning of
the FLSA, and thus, liable to them for unpaid wages.

On or about August 11, 2015, the parties notified the court that
they have reached a resolution of all of the plaintiffs' claims,
as well as an agreement as to the amount of attorney's fees and
costs to be awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel.

Judge Cox held that the proposed settlement agreement is a fair
and reasonable resolution to the parties' bona fide dispute.  The
judge also concluded that the attorney's fees and costs award is
reasonable.

A full-text copy of Judge Cox's September 1, 2015 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/puZkHFfrom Leagle.com.

Jane Does 1-25 is represented by:

          Deborah L. Gordon, Esq.
          John A.E. Pottow, Esq.
          UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL

            -- and --

          Sarah Prescott, Esq.
          DEBORAH L. GORDON ASSOC.

Lahkman Younis Al-Hakim and BFC Realty, LLC are represented by:

          Lisa C. Ward, Esq.
          Nicole J. Schmidtke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LISA S. WARD, PLLC

            -- and --

          Stuart A. Gold, Esq.
          GOLD, LANGE

Josephine Marie Mistretta, Kino Kareem Gardner, Joseph Masoad
Sesi, Jaffrey Sesi, and Brandon Gilliam are represented by:

          Lisa C. Ward, Esq.
          Nicole J. Schmidtke, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LISA C. WARD, PLLC

                  About BFC Management

BFC Management Company, based in Detroit, Michigan, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 14-55862) on
October 9, 2014.  Bankruptcy Judge Mark A. Randon presides over
the case.  Mark H. Shapiro, Esq., at Steinberg Shapiro & Clark,
serves as counsel to the Debtor.  In its petition, BFC estimated
$500,000 to $1 million in assets, and $1 million to $10 million in
liabilities.  The petition was signed by Masoud Sesi, president.
A list of the Debtor's 20 largest unsecured creditors is available
for free at http://bankrupt.com/misc/mieb14-55862.pdf


BLUE CROSS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Michigan granted Defendant's motion
to dismiss for lack of standing to bring the action in the case
captioned, KIMBERLY COX, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-13556.

Plaintiffs Kimberly Cox and Heather Claus initiated a putative
class action under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) alleging that Defendant Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
(BCBSM) breached its fiduciary duty by charging Plaintiffs'
respective ERISA plans hidden fees seeking injunctive and other
equitable relief. Plaintiff Kimberly Cox has been an employee of
Genesys since June 2005, and she was a participant and beneficiary
of the Genesys plan from that time until January 1, 2014, on which
date BCBSM ceased to administer the plan. Plaintiffs allege that,
in 1993, BCBSM began secretly misappropriating funds under the
ASCs and Schedule As.  According to an internal memo, in order to
appear to be a lowcost provider and compete with other third-party
administrators that might underbid it, BCBSM would fraudulently
misrepresent that it would take a smaller administrative fee than
it would ultimately charge plans.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of ERISA self-funded plans, as well as the plans
themselves, for which BCBSM was a third-party administrator, and
in which BCBSM assessed "charges in excess of the amount of
healthcare claims paid by BCBSM.

In the motion, BCBSM contends that Plaintiffs lack two types of
standing that are relevant to this action: statutory standing and
constitutional standing under Article III.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/46sVFffrom Leagle.com, Judge Goldsmith concluded
that Central States, not Loren, controls the outcome of the
present case, and Plaintiffs have failed to set forth sufficient
allegations to establish statutory standing to pursue their
requested relief under Sec. 1132(a)(3)(B).

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to file an amendment to the
complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by David M. Honigman, Esq. --
dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- John J. Conway, III, Esq. --
jconway@mantese.com -- Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. --
gmantese@mantese.com -- MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON, PC

Blue Cross and Blue Shield is represented by Eric S. Mattson, Esq.
-- emattson@sidley.com -- Kathleen Carlson, Esq. --
kathleen.carlson@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Kathleen A.
Lang, Esq. -- klang@dickinsonwright.com -- Michelle L. Alamo, Esq.
-- malamo@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Faces "Wandel" Suit Over Altice Merger Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Wandel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al., Case No. 11539
(Del. Ch., September 24, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of Cablevision Systems Corp. to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of all of the Company's outstanding stock by
Altice N.V. at the inadequate price of $34.90 per share in either
cash or stock, depending on the each stockholder's election, and
on unfair and inadequate terms.

Cablevision Systems Corp. is a Delaware corporation that offers
Optimum-branded digital cable television, high-speed Internet, and
voice services as well as Optimum WiFi, the nation's most robust
WiFi network.

Altice N.V. is a limited liability public company organized under
Dutch law.

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 -

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


CACH LLC: Removed "Wojcik" Suit to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jaroslaw Wojcik, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Cach, LLC, Paul A.
Larkins and Square Two Financial Corporation, Case No. 704635/2015
was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Queens, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

The complaint alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, and the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual
damages as well as attorney fees and other relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      MITCHELL L. PASHKIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
      Huntington, NY 11743

The Defendant is represented by:

      Arthur Sanders, Esq.
      BARRON & NEWBURGER
      30 South Main Street
      New City, NY 10956
      Telephone: (845) 499-2990
      E-mail: hlenett@bn-lawyers.com


CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Proposed Schlumberger Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Weeks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cameron International Corporation, et al., Case No.
11542 (Del. Ch., September 24, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the public stockholders of Cameron International Corporation to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Cameron by Schlumberger N.V.,
through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Cameron International Corporation
is a Fortune 500 company and a global provider of pressure
control, processing, flow control and compression systems as well
as project management and aftermarket services for the oil and gas
process industries.

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 -

      Shane Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500

        - and -

      Vincent Wong, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WONG
      39 Broadway, Suite 304
      New York, NY 10002
      Telephone: (212) 425-1140
      E-mail: VW@WongESQ.com


CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING: Healthcare Workers Can Pursue Pay Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol R. Edmead of the United States Supreme Court, New York
County, denied in its entirety Defendant's motion to dismiss
pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(7) to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint or, in the alternative, to compel
arbitration pursuant to CPLR 7503(a) in the case captioned, LAI
CHAN, HUI CHEN, XUE XIE, INDIVIDUALLY and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING
COUNCIL HOME ATTENDANT PROGRAM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
650737/2015.

Plaintiffs (class members) are current and former employees of
defendant, a not-for-profit corporation that provides home health
care services to elderly and disabled residents of New York City.
In the class action suit alleging, inter alia, violations of the
New York Labor Law and asserting claims against defendant for
unpaid minimum wages under NYLL Sec. 652 and 12 NYCRR Sec. 142-3.1
(Count I), unpaid overtime wages under NYLL Sec. 650 and 12 NYCRR
Sec. 142-3.2 (Count II), unpaid spread of hours wages under NYLL
Sec. 650 and 12 NYCRR Sec. 142-3.4 (Count III), wages due and
attorneys' fees, costs, and interests under NYLL Sec. 653 (Count
IV), and failure to comply with proper notification requirements
set forth in NYLL Sec.Sec. 195 and 661, and 12 NYCRR Sec. 142-3.8
(Count V). Plaintiffs also assert a third party beneficiary claim
for breach of contract (Count VI) and unjust enrichment (Count
VII) for failing to properly pay plaintiffs pursuant to New York
Public Health Law Sec. 3614-c (Public Health Law), also known as
the NY Home Care Worker Wage Parity Act (Wage Parity Act), and New
York City's Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act, also known as the
Living Wage Law ("Fair Wages Act) as required under defendant's
various contracts with government agencies.

In the motion, Defendant Chinese-American Planning Council Home
Attendant Program, Inc. (defendant) moves pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(7) to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint
or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration pursuant to CPLR
7503(a) contending that plaintiffs' claims require interpretation
of a collective bargaining agreement, and thus, must be submitted
to the contractual grievance process, as required by Section 301
of the Labor Management Relations Act and that plaintiffs are
covered by a separate arbitration clause requiring the submission
of all state law claims to arbitration.

In her Memorandum Decision dated September 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/l8aBiTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Edmead concluded that
Defendant's contention and arguments,  request to compel
arbitration of the claims pursuant to the MOA in the complaint and
dismissal on the ground that ERISA preempts plaintiffs lack
merits.

Plaintiffs are represented by Liane Fisher, Esq. --
liane@serrinsfisher.com -- SERRINS FISHER LLP

Defendants are represented by Kenneth H Kirschner, Esq. --
krischner@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS LLP

                           *     *     *

Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reported 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, 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.

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, 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, 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."

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 Edmead, according to 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, 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.


CITIGROUP INC: "Cimini" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Cimini, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Citigroup, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02244-SDM-JSS (M.D.
Fla., September 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Citigroup, Inc. is a banking and financial services corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 425-8171
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
              Cleach@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: Frisch@forthepeople.com


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted in the case captioned, MICHAEL A. DICICCO, STACEY A
DICICCO, JOSEPH S. MAGUIRE and RITA M. MAGUIRE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly aggrieved v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL
GROUP, INC., et al, Case No. 15-267.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Citizens
Financial Group, Inc. and Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, Inc.
(Citizens), alleging that Citizens overbilled borrowers on Home
Equity Lines of Credit (HELOC) loan agreements by requiring higher
monthly payments during the first part of the loan repayment
period than the loan contracts permitted. The Second Amended
Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, violation of the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and violation of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The
Complaint alleges that the Maguires entered into an Agreement in
April 2004, which permitted them to borrow up to $475,000.00
during a ten-year Draw Period. According to the Complaint, before
the end of the Maguires' Draw Period, Citizens sent them an End-
of-Draw Notice that was substantially identical to the Notice sent
to the DiCiccos. The Complaint further alleges that the Maguires
should have been charged $3,049.23 as a minimum monthly payment
(under the Equal Payment Method), but instead were charged
$3,592.91 for the month ending January 16, 2015.

The Second Amended Complaint contains four Counts. Count I asserts
a breach of contract claim, alleging that Citizens calculated the
HELOC Minimum Payment in a way that the Agreements do not
authorize, and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Count II
asserts a second breach of contract claim on the same basis, but
instead seeks restitution as the remedy. Count III asserts a TILA
claim based on Citizens' alleged (1) failure to disclose how
Plaintiffs' Minimum Payments would be determined during the
Repayment Period, and (2) unilateral change to the method by which
it would calculate the Minimum Payment. See 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1637a(a)(8)(c) (mandating certain disclosures in connection with
loan applications); 12 C.F.R. Sec. 226.5b(f)(3) (prohibiting
lender from unilaterally changing terms of loan). Count IV asserts
a UTPCPL claim based on Citizens' allegedly "unfair or deceptive
practices" in connection with the HELOC loans.

In the motion, Citizens argues that the Agreement unambiguously
authorizes it to use the Add-on-interest Method to calculate
Plaintiffs' Minimum Payment and the Court should therefore dismiss
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims for failure to state claims
upon which relief may be granted and that the Agreement plainly
provides that only the principal balance will be amortized.

In his Memorandum dated September 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2An1XUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pavoda rejected
Citizens' contention that the Agreement unambiguously authorizes
it to utilize the Add-on-interest Method and could not conclude
that Plaintiffs had knowledge of and assented to the allegedly
incorporated terms and rejected Citizens' argument that the breach
of contract claims should be dismissed because the Agreements
plainly and unambiguously provide for the calculation of Minimum
Payments using the Add-on-interest Method concluding that the
Complaint plausibly alleges that Citizens breached a contractual
duty.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Ronald J. Smolow, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
7511 New La Grange Rd,
Louisville, KY 40222
Tel:  (502)423-1151

Defendants are represented by Joseph J. Mahady, Esq. --
jmahady@reedsmith.com -- Perry A. Napolitano, Esq. --
pnapolitan@reedsmith.com -- Robert A. Nicholas, Esq. --
rnicholas@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


CON-WAY INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is investigating potential claims against the
board of directors of Con-Way Inc. ("Con-Way" or the "Company")
concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of law related to the Company's efforts to sell the
Company to XPO Logistics, Inc. in a transaction valued at
approximately $3.0 billion.

If you own shares of Con-Way and would like to learn more about
this class action or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/cnw.   You may
also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com.

Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of Con-Way will
receive $47.60 per share in cash for each share of Con-Way they
own.

Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of Con-Way
for not acting in the Company's shareholders' best interests in
connection with the sale process.

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

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


CONOCOPHILIPS: 8th Cir. Reverses Class Certification Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Diane E. Murphy of the United States Court of Appeals, Eight
Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court's
certification of a class on the theory that possible pockets of
contamination exist within the identified area in the case
captioned, Bruce Smith; JoAnne Smith; Walter Wunderlich; Victoria
Wunderlich, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ConocoPhillips Pipe Line
Company, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-2191.

Phillips 66 (Phillips) owns a petroleum products pipeline which
runs through the town of West Alton, Missouri. After a leak in the
line was discovered in 1963, its source was repaired, but the
contamination at the leak site was not remediated. In 2002
contaminants from the leak were discovered in a family residence
in West Alton. Walter and Vicki Wunderlich and Bruce and JoAnne
Smith filed the class action against Phillips in Missouri county
court in October 2011. Plaintiffs' complaint identified two
separate classes, each including property owners within a 1.1 mile
radius of the contamination site. The first class sought
injunctive relief and damages on nuisance and negligence theories
and sought injunctive relief and damages on nuisance and
negligence theories and injunctive relief and damages on nuisance
and negligence theories. In their motion to certify the class
plaintiffs modified the proposed class boundaries to include
property owners within 0.25 miles of the site, an area containing
61 properties.

The class plaintiffs presented evidence by two experts. The expert
most relevant is Dr. Patrick Agostino who explained that leaked
contamination is pulled downward by gravity and spreads out, thus
shifting over time. Based on his analysis, Dr. Agostino concluded
that the resulting plume of contamination was "considerably
larger" in the past than in 2013 and that it would therefore have
affected other properties outside the contamination site.
Defendant moved to exclude the opinions of plaintiffs' experts.
The motion by Phillips to disqualify the experts offered by the
class was denied.

The district court certified the class seeking nuisance based
damages and injunctive relief concluding that the evidence on that
contaminants had been shown in the monitoring wells, that the
pollution was continually shifting, and that MTBE had been
discovered at the Wunderlich residence which is located roughly
0.25 miles away from the epicenter of the contamination. The
district court did not certify the medical monitoring class,
noting that plaintiffs had offered no evidence of actual exposure
to benzene or lead.

On appeal, Phillips appeals the certification of the class and the
denial of its motion to disqualify plaintiffs' experts.

In the Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LwH1Wxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Murphy concluded that
the putative class fear of contamination spreading from the West
Alton leak site to harm their property is not a sufficient injury
to support a claim for common law nuisance in the absence of proof
and certifying a class in the absence of evidence showing class
members were commonly affected by contamination on their property
is an abuse of discretion.


CONFORMIS INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased ConforMIS, Inc. ("ConforMIS" or the "Company")
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the ConforMIS's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the ConforMIS's initial public offering on or about July 1, 2015;
and/or on the open market between July 1, 2015 and August 28,
2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The Complaint
charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the federal securities laws.

The Complaint alleges Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements and/or omitted material information,
including that: (i) the Company's manufacturing processes were
flawed; (ii) due to the flaws in the Company's manufacturing
process, a number of the Company's knee replacement product
systems were defective; and (iii) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 2, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.


CONFORMIS INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP announced that a class action lawsuit is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of investors who acquired ConforMIS, Inc.
("ConforMIS" or the "Company") (CFMS) securities in connection
with its July 1, 2015 initial public offering or thereafter
through August 28, 2015 (the "class period"). Pursuant to
applicable law, investors have until November 2, 2015 to file a
motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the investor lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose in its IPO
documents or in any of its public statements during the class
period that the Company's manufacturing processes were flawed and
that as a result many of the Company's knee replacement product
systems were defective. On August 31, 2015, ConforMIS revealed
that it had initiated a voluntary recall of certain
instrumentation for some of its knee replacement product systems.
On this news, the stock price fell from $19.78 per share to close
at $16.00 (a decline of $3.78).

If you acquired ConforMIS securities during this period and you
are interested in learning more about this matter and any rights
you might have with respect to these claims, contact Rona Li or
Daniel Bialer at securitiescases@kmllp.com, by telephone at (212)
371-6600, or by filling out this form. In addition, information
about the suit can be obtained from Kirby McInerney's website.
Please bear in mind that some of these rights may be time-
sensitive.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, whistleblower, antitrust and consumer
litigation. The firm has specialized in complex litigation,
including securities class actions, for several decades. Kirby
McInerney LLP has repeatedly demonstrated its expertise in this
field, and has been recognized by various courts that have
appointed the firm to major positions in consolidated and multi-
district litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders
in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling
billions of dollars, and the firm's achievements and quality of
service have been chronicled in numerous published decisions.
Additional information about the firm or the claims against
ConforMIS can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP's website:
http://www.kmllp.com.

         Rona Li, Esq.
         Daniel Bialer, Esq.
         KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
         825 3rd Ave #16
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: 212.371.6600
         Toll Free: 888-529-4787
         Fax: 212.751.2540
         Web: http://www.kmllp.com
         Email: securitiescases@kmllp.com


DOORDASH INC: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Employment Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Kissner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. DoorDash, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-548102 (Cal. Super.,
September 23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to reimburse delivery driver's expenses of their employment, such
as expenses for vehicles, gas, bikes, and other expenses.

DoorDash, Inc. is a food delivery service that provides delivery
drivers who can be scheduled and dispatched through a mobile phone
application or through its website and who will deliver food
orders from restaurants to customers at their homes and
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              apagano@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com


ELECTROBRAS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of Centrais Eletricas
Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras ("Eletrobras" or the "Company") who
purchased U.S. listed Eletrobras securities between February 10,
2014 to April 29, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

On April 29, 2015, Eletrobras announced that its Form 20-F will
not be filed with the SEC within the required time period in order
for the Company to further investigate claims that its officers
had engaged in a long standing corruption and bribery scheme. The
Company has since announced that it is planning an independent
commission to oversee an investigation of possible corruption in
projects where it is involved. Further news reports and Company
announcements indicate that Electrobras may be implicated in a
larger government corruption investigation that ensnared
Petrobras, or Petroleo Brasileiro SA. On news of the various
investigations, and alleged corruption, the Company's securities
declined sharply in value, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its officers violated
securities laws by issuing misleading information to investors,
and allegedly engaged in a corruption and graft scandal.

If you purchased Eletrobras securities during the Class Period you
have until September 21, 2015 to file a motion for appointment as
a lead plaintiff, if you have information or would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire
by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and
number of shares purchased.

CONTACT:

         Casey Sadler
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
         Los Angeles, CA
         Tel: 310-201-9150
         Toll Free: 888-773-9224
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
         Web: www.glancylaw.com


EXPRESS ENERGY: "Cornell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Cornell and Jonathan Snyder, both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Express Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01261-LPL (W.D. Penn., September
28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Express Energy Services, LLC is a nationwide oilfield services
with significant completion and land drilling operations
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


EXPRESS ENERGY: "Trevino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Trevino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Express Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00841
(W.D. Tex., September 28, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Express Energy Services, LLC is a nationwide oilfield services
with significant completion and land drilling operations
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Gullen" Class Suit Over Privacy Invasion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a man is
suing Facebook on allegations that the ubiquitous online business
has committed privacy law infringement in the state of Illinois.

Frederick William Gullen filed individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated against Facebook Inc., of Menlo Park,
Calif., claiming violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, on Aug. 31.

The suit states that the law was specifically enacted to prevent
private entities from obtaining or having a person's biometrics
without explicit permission. A biometric is any personal feature
unique to an individual, such as fingerprints, iris scans, DNA and
facial geometry.

According to the suit, the defendant engaged unlawfully in
collecting, storing and using the plaintiff's and other similarly
situated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric
information (referred to collectively at times as "biometrics")
without consent, in violation of the BIPA.

Gullen claims that Facebook is illegally actively collecting,
storing and utilizing this data without providing notice,
obtaining informed written consent, or publicizing its data
retention procedures. He brings the class action against Facebook
for its purported unauthorized collection, storage and use of
"unwitting non-users' biometrics." He does not have a Facebook
profile himself.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages of
$5,000 for each intentional violation, or alternatively, statutory
damages of $1,000 if the court finds that the actions were
negligent; pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees,
expenses and costs.

Gullen is represented by Katrina Carroll and Kyle Shamberg of Lite
DePalma Greenberg in Chicago; and David Milian and Frank Hedin of
Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya in Miami, Fla.

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois case number
1:15-cv-07681


FIAT CHRYSLER: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. ("Fiat Chrysler" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FCAU) and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-07199, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Fiat Chrysler securities between August 1, 2014 and July 24, 2015
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Fiat Chrysler securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 10, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

The Company was founded in October 2014 as the result of a merger
that completed the integration of Fiat Group Automobiles ("Fiat")
and Chrysler LLC ("Chrysler").  Chrysler is incorporated in the
Netherlands, with headquarters in London, United Kingdom.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
flaws in the Company's manufacturing processes, supply chain,
electronic security measures, and/or quality control rendered at
least 3.1 million Chrysler cars and trucks unsafe to drive; (ii)
the Company's slow completion rates for recalls, slow or
inadequate notifications to consumers, and faulty approaches to
addressing safety issues and improper actions by dealers were not
in compliance with federal laws and regulations; and (iii) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Chrysler's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 28, 2015, the Company announced a recall that included
model-year 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs.  The
Company advised approximately 65 vehicle owners to immediately
stop driving their vehicles.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.06, or roughly 6.8%, to
close at $14.53 on June 29, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, Chrysler issued a recall affecting approximately
1.4 million Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs after it
was demonstrated that a security flaw in the vehicles' systems
rendered the vehicles vulnerable to remote electronic manipulation
("hacking"), including cutting the vehicle's brakes, shutting down
the vehicle's engine, steering the vehicle off the road, and
shutting down the vehicle's electronics systems.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.39, or 2.5%, to close at
$15.15 on July 24, 2015.

On Sunday, July 26, 2015, the NHTSA announced its imposition on
the Company of a record $105 million fine in connection with the
Company's handling of 23 previous recalls affecting more than 11
million vehicles.  The NHTSA penalties were tied to violations in
an array of areas, including misleading regulators, inadequate
repairs, and failure to alert affected car owners in a timely
manner.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.74, or roughly 4.9%, to
close at $14.41 on July 27, 2015.

On September 4, 2015, Chrysler issued a recall notice affecting
approximately 7,810 Jeep Renegade SUVs, reflecting further hacking
concerns.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.27, or 1.9%, to close
at $13.60 on September 4, 2015.

On September 10, 2015, Chrysler issued further recall notices
affecting nearly 1.7 million recent-model Ram pickups, addressing
faulty wiring harnesses, airbags, and steering components.

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

CONTACT:

         Robert S. Willoughby
         POMERANTZ LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


FMG INC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ochoa" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Humberto Ochoa, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. FMG, Inc. d/b/a Hadley Tow, Hadley Collision Center,
Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC595724 (Cal.
Super., September 24, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide all net, 10-
minute rest periods, failure to pay for all hours worked,
including minimum wage, straight time, and overtime pay, failure
to timely pay all wages to terminated employees, failure to
furnish accurate statements and maintain required records, failure
to indemnify and reimburse expenses, and failure to permit to copy
or inspect records, in accordance with California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission.

The Defendants own and operate an auto glass shop in Whittier,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      Joshua Lange, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      1010 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 100
      Torrance, CA 90501
      Telephone: (310)961-9600
      Facsimile: (310)961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
              josh@rastegarlawgroup.com


GRUBHUB INC: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Employment Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Tan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Grubhub, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-548103 (Cal. Super., September
23, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
reimburse delivery driver's expenses of their employment, such as
expenses for vehicles, gas, bikes, and other expenses.

Grubhub, Inc. is a food delivery service, which provides food
delivery to customers in cities throughout the country via an on
demand dispatched system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              apagano@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com


GSIVE LLC: "Abston" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asia Abston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Gsive, LLC, and Antonio Bryant, Case No. 32379486
(11th Cir. Fla., September 23, 2015) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages and for
retaliation under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment venue and employ
servers and bartenders to serve food and alcoholic drinks to
patrons at their North Miami Beach, Florida location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd. Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: District Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Ferranti"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District for
Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, VINCENT FERRANTI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEWLETT-
PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:13-CV-03847-EJD.

Plaintiffs Vincent Ferranti (Mr. Ferranti) and Carlos Martinho
(Mr. Martinho) filed the instant consumer class action suit
against Defendant Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) alleging fraud-related
claims for the sale of defective wireless printers. Plaintiffs
bring forth the action on behalf of all individuals who purchased
or leased a HP wireless printer, alleging that the printers
contain a design and/or manufacturing defect because the
transceivers are unable to maintain wireless communication with
the computer, and are thus unable to print using the wireless
function. Plaintiffs allege that HP falsely represented it could
fix the problem by directing customers through troubleshooting
procedures, which include uninstalling and reinstalling software,
downloading and installing firmware updates or patches, restarting
the computer, restarting the wireless router, restarting the
printer, downloading and installing HP diagnostic tools to help
identify and fix issues, inputting wireless router settings into
the LCD panel on the printer, disabling "energy save mode" on
printer, and changing the setup of the standard IP address.

In November 2013, Plaintiffs filed their first amended class
action complaint alleging fraud-related claims.  Thereafter, the
case was reassigned to the undersigned judge, and HP filed its
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint.  This court
granted HP's motion to dismiss ruling that Plaintiffs' Consumers
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claims were barred by the statute of
limitations, Mr. Ferranti's unfair competition law (UCL) claim was
barred by the statute of limitations, Mr. Martinho's UCL claim was
insufficiently pled, and Plaintiffs' breach-of-warranty claims
were also insufficiently pled. Plaintiffs subsequently filed their
second amended class action complaint which alleged claims on (1)
violation of the CLRA; (2) unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
business practices under California's UCL; (3) breach of express
warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); (4) breach
of express warranty; (5) in the alternative, by Mr. Ferranti on
behalf of the Arizona subclass, violation of the Arizona Consumer
Fraud Act, A.R.S. Sec. 44-1522; and (6) in the alternative, by Mr.
Martinho on behalf of the New York subclass, violation of the New
York General Business Law Sec. 349. Plaintiffs seek damages for
financial losses associated with their purchase and/or lease of a
defective HP wireless printer that include repair costs, shipping
charges, loss of use, diminished value, and seek punitive damages
and attorneys' fees.

In the motion, HP moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims on the
grounds that each of the claims is barred by the statute of
limitations and are insufficiently pled.

In his Order dated September 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ebNMvffrom Leagle.com, Judge Davila found that the
2015 TCPA Order does not support plaintiff's argument that the FAC
adequately states a claim on which relief can be granted, and the
arguments plaintiff raises in opposition to dismissal are
unpersuasive.

The Court directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
CADDELL & CHAPMAN
1331 Lamar St
Houston, TX 77010
Tel: (713)751-0400

Hewlett-Packard Company is represented by Aaron H. Bloom, Esq.
-- abloom@gibsondunn.com -- Timothy William Loose, Esq. --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP


HKA ENTERPRISES: "Jowers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Jowers and Trai Vo, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. HKA Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00472 (S.D. Ala., September 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, attorney's fees
and costs, and other damages and remedies pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

HKA Enterprises, Inc. is a privately held corporation, supplies a
variety of skilled craftsmen to support ongoing projects in
multiple locations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Reid Krell, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW REID KRELL
      1805 8th Ave., #121
      Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
      Telephone: (662) 469-5342
      Facsimile: (866) 237-2478
      E-mail: matthewrkrell@gmail.com

         - and -

      Virginia L. Lococo, Esq.
      Joseph A. Lococo, Esq.
      Jacob "Jake" King, Esq.
      LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, P.A.
      10243 Central Avenue, P.O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39540
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      Facsimile: (228) 392-3890
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com
              joseph.lococo@lococolaw.com
              jake.king@lococolaw.com


INTERGLOBO NORTH: Faces "Veras" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Veras, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
persons v. Interglobo North America, Inc., et al., Case No. L3958-
15 (N.J. Super., September 23, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Interglobo North America, Inc. owns and operates a freight
forwarding company located at 2 Colony Road, Jersey City,, New
Jersey, 07305.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
      THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
      116 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (609) 799-1266
      Facsimile: (609) 799-1267
      E-mail: rsattiraju@sattirajulawfirm.com


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Khang & Khang Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Investment Technology Group, Inc.
("Investment Technology" or the "Company") (NYSE: ITG). Investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 28,
2011 and July 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are
encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal
options.

If you purchased shares of Investment Technology during the Class
Period, please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang,
18101 Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

According to the complaint, the Company is engaged in settlement
talks with the SEC regarding how it allegedly operated a private
stock trading venue also known as a "dark pool." The potential
settlement would require the Company to pay an aggregate amount of
$20.3 million. When the news reached the investing public, shares
dropped causing investors harm.

If you purchased shares of Investment Technology during the Class
Period you have until November 5, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint
you as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this
lawsuit, or if you have any questions concerning this notice or
your rights, please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator
for almost two decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email
at joon@khanglaw.com.

KHANG & KHANG LLP
Joon M. Khang, Esq.
Telephone: 949-419-3834
Facsimile: 949-225-4474
E-mail: joon@khanglaw.com


KATES DETECTIVE: Faces "Dean" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Dean, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Kates Detective & Security Services Agency and Special
Events Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08478 (N.D. Ill., September
25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Kates Detective & Security Services Agency and Special Events
Services Inc. operates a security guard services company located
at 7810 S. Claremont Ave., Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WS 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
              cmadden@hq-law.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Sued in Mass. Over Arbitration Awards Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Edwards & Alex Gutierrez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company,
Case No. 15-2872-BLS (Mass. Super., September 23, 2015) is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendant's unlawful
practice and policy of not paying post-award interest on
arbitration awards and violations of a class-action settlement
agreement.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is an automobile insurance
company, with a principal office located at 175 Berkeley Street,
Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Yasi, Esq,
      YASI & YASI, P.C.
      Two Salem Green
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (978) 741-0400
      E-mail: yassi@pipcollect.com

         - and -

      Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
      MAZOW & MCCOLLOUGH, P.C.
      10 Derby Square
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (978) 744-8000
      E-mail: rem@pipcollect.com

         - and -

      Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq.
      PIP COLLECT, LLC
      Two Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (978) 745-7950
      E-mail: mtl@pipcollect.com


LSB INDUSTRIES: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LSB Industries, Inc., Barry H. Golsen, Mark T.
Behrman, Tony M. Shelby, and Harold L. Rieker, Jr., Case No. 1:15-
cv-07614 (S.D.N.Y., September 25, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

LSB Industries, Inc. is a manufacturing and marketing company of
chemical products for the agricultural, mining and industrial
markets and residential climate control products, such as water
source and geothermal heat pumps, hydronic fan coils, modular
geothermal and other chillers and large custom air handlers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Howard G. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, PA 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


LOUISIANA: Transfer of Prisoners Hurting Inmates, Lawyers Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Grimm, writing for The Times-Picayune, reported that inmate
advocates blasted Sheriff Marlin Gusman's transfer of 180
prisoners facing trial in Orleans Parish to jails four hours north
of New Orleans, saying some have already missed court dates and
are too far to regularly visit with their defense attorneys.

Gusman moved the prisoners to jails in East Carroll and Franklin
parishes, claiming he will have no room for them when he opens a
new, 1,438-bed jail in Mid-City and shutters the decrepit
buildings it replaces.

Lawyers representing New Orleans inmates in a class-action lawsuit
over jail conditions said they were "outraged" by the transfers.
They raised concerns about conditions in the new facilities and
the 200-plus miles between inmates and the New Orleans courts.

"The prisoners that they moved are pretrial -- not yet convicted
or sentenced," said Katie Schwartzmann, attorney for the MacArthur
Justice Center, in a statement.

"That means they need to go to court and have access to their
lawyers. They have been moved over four hours away from their
lawyers, the court and their families."

MacArthur Center staff were told several prisoners missed court
hearings Thursday, according to Schwartzmann's statement.

"This decision is going to result in Orleans holding even more
prisoners, because people will miss court dates and lawyers and
judges won't be able to move cases forward to resolution," she
said.

Gusman's attorney, Blake Arcuri acknowledged the transfer would
create an ongoing "logistical nightmare," but said that the
sheriff's office was unable to find jails closer to New Orleans
that would meet the standards of federal monitors and also had
room for hundreds of inmates. Another 70 or so inmates will be
transferred out of Orleans Parish, Arcuri said.

"It creates an immense operational challenge to move inmates,"
Arcuri said. "It takes people away from their attorneys and their
families. We certainly hope it lasts no longer than it has to."

Arcuri said the inmates moved were mid- to low-security inmates,
considered to be minimal behavior risks behind bars, even though
they might be facing charges for murder or other violent crimes.
Inmates also were prioritized based on their next court dates in
Orleans Parish, he said.

The inmate transfers come amid a rancorous debate between Gusman
and Mayor Mitch Landrieu over the the size-- and cost-- of New
Orleans' prison system. Gusman for years has pushed to build yet
another new building to house prisoners, with a price tag of up to
$85 million. Landrieu's administration has called for measures
that would reduce the number of inmates, including expelling all
inmates who have been sentenced to serve time in state prisons.

Further complicating the debate over the size of New Orleans'
inmate population are terms of a settlement of a class-action
lawsuit by jail inmates and the Justice Department, which placed
the parish's jail system under the oversight of a federal judge.

As lawyers for the inmates, the MacArthur Center had given the
sheriff's office a list of priorities for any jail that would
receive Orleans Parish inmates, and had requested copies of any
agreement with another parish, Schwartzmann said. However, details
of the transfer were "kept secret" from the MacArthur lawyers
until late Thursday, and no contracts have been turned over to
them.

We have deep concerns about the conditions at the receiving
facilities," Schwartzmann said. "We will demand that they comply
with the critical requirements of our consent decree because it
sure doesn't make sense to move our clients from one
unconstitutional jail to another.

"We have plenty of jail beds here in Orleans Parish, they just are
unconstitutional."

The sheriff and mayor have sparred over plans for the new $145
million jail since before construction began in 2012. The city
permit authorizing construction of the new jail, called Phase II,
limits the size of the building to 1,438 beds. City officials say
the Phase II building, with modifications, should be large enough
to hold all Orleans Parish inmates if policy changes by police and
the courts continue to reduce the number of people locked up in
the city.

A team of experts evaluating the jail system called for all
inmates to be moved out of "deplorable" conditions in the oldest
of the current jail buildings if the Phase II building did not
open by mid-September. Arcuri said Thursday's transfers were
observed by a monitoring team member.

Landrieu asked the state Department of Corrections to take custody
of some 300 inmates in Orleans Parish who were serving state
sentences, and has claimed that the the the cost of housing state
inmates is far greater than the $24 per day, per inmate paid by
the state.

Arcuri said that only a handful of the DOC inmates at the jail can
be turned over to the state, and that around 130 state inmates are
winding down their sentences in a re-entry program run by the
sheriff.

"That program is one of the only things that is going to bring
down the jail population in the long term, because it's going to
keep those guys from going out and getting sent back to jail,"
Arcuri said.

Schwartzmann also suggested moving state inmates out of the jail
to create space for the inmates who have been transferred out of
the parish.

"Why would you move hundreds of Orleans prisoners hours away when
you've got 1,250 brand new beds coming online in the next few
weeks? Why wouldn't you move the DOC prisoners or ask DOC to
relocate the re-entry program to another jurisdiction?" she wrote.
"This decision does not make any sense to us."


LOUISIANA: CA Rules in Appeal in Suit v. Health Department
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Terri F. Love of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Fourth District, affirmed in part and reversed in part trial
court's judgment in the case captioned, SHARON HARPER AND MICHAEL
JOHNSON HARPER v. THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS; AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HOSPITALS, Case No. 2014-CA-0110.

On March 30, 1984, Willie Warren Harper was arrested for theft and
possession of stolen property listed as, "aluminum pressure bars
and door frames from the Louisiana World Exposition in downtown
New Orleans, Louisiana. He was acquitted by reason of insanity for
theft and a commitment to the custody of Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals and released from custody. He filed a class
action lawsuit seeking damages, but passed away. His children then
filed suit against the State of Louisiana and the Louisiana
Department of Health and Hospitals seeking damages individually
and on behalf of their father. Mr. Harper's class action petition
was dismissed. Following a jury trial, the Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals was found 100% liable for Mr. Harper's period
of illegal confinement. The jury awarded $4,050,000.00 in damages
to Mr. Harper's children on his behalf and individually.

On appeal, the Defendants contend that: 1) the jury erred in
finding that DHH had the authority to release Mr. Harper without a
court order, 2) the "trial court erred in refusing to reduce the
jury verdict pursuant to the statutory cap in La. R.S. 13:5106, 3)
the trial court erred in denying the exception of no cause of
action as to the civil rights claims because neither the State,
nor its agencies constitute a "person," 4) the jury committed
manifest error "in failing to allocate fault to the Orleans Parish
Criminal Court the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office; and Willie
Harper," 5) the jury committed manifest error "in finding the DHH
liable for the entire period of Mr. Harper's alleged illegal
confinement," and 6) the jury erred in awarding the Plaintiffs
individual damages because the jury found that DHH was not liable
for Mr. Harper's death.

In the Order dated September 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Xe8MYdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Love held that, "we
find that DHH did not possess the sole authority to release Mr.
Harper without a court order, and reverse. The evidence
demonstrated that DHH was responsible for Mr. Harper's
confinement. The jury abused its discretion by awarding Sharon and
Michael $275,000.00 for loss of consortium because they failed to
present proof of a measurable loss. Accordingly, we vacate the
awards for civil rights violations and Sharon and Michael's
individual damages. The trial court erred by denying Defendants'
exception of no cause of action because the State and DHH are not
considered "persons" pursuant to Sec. 1983. Lastly, the trial
court erred by refusing to limit the Plaintiffs' damage awards to
$500,000.00, pursuant to the statutory cap. We affirmed the
$1,500,000.00 in damages awarded on behalf of Mr. Harper's
wrongful detention. DHH's thirty-five percent of liability equals
$525,000.00. Once reduced in compliance with the statutory cap,
$500,000.00 is awarded. Consistent with our findings, we affirm in
part, reverse in part, and render."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Darleen M. Jacobs, Esq.
Melvin J. Burmaster, Esq.
Hunter Harris, IV, Esq.
JACOBS, SARRAT, LOVELACE, & HARRIS
823 St Louis St
New Orleans, LA 70112
Tel:(504)522-0155

Defendants are represented by:

Patricia Nalley Bowers, Esq.
Marian T. Harrison, Esq.
BOWERS & BOWERS
201 Saint Charles Ave Ste 3315,
New Orleans, LA 70170
Tel: (504) 522-3340


M BROTHERS: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth H. Gonzalez and other similarly situated individuals v. M
Brothers Express Inc. and Mauri J. Sanchez Brito, Case No.
32418910 (11th Cir. Fla., September 23, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

M Brothers Express Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation, having
its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida 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


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: GPM Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
of purchasers of the securities of Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.
("Marvell" or the "Company") between November 20, 2014 and
September 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders
have 60 days from the date of this notice to file a motion to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

Please contact Casey Sadler at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire
by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

On September 11, 2015, the Company reported a quarterly loss of
$382.4 million for its fiscal second quarter, whereas analysts on
average had predicted a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. The
Company also announced an internal probe by its Audit Committee
into Marvell's accounting practices including its revenue
recognition, litigation reserves, and internal controls. On this
news shares of Marvell fell $1.71 per share, or nearly 17%, to
close on September 11, 2015 at $8.84 per share, on unusually high
volume.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that : (1) Marvell had engaged in inappropriate revenue
recognition practices; (2) the Company's management permitted an
inappropriate and ineffective control environment; (3) as a
result, Marvell's key accounting metrics were misstated; (4) that
the Company lacked adequate controls at all relevant times; (5)
and as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Marvell's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than November 10, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler,
Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq
         Casey Sadler, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150
         Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
         Fax: (310) 432-1495


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherrelle Carter v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02923-JFM (D. Md., September 28, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


MCKENZIE ENTERPRISES: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jade Jackson, and all others similarly situated v. McKenzie
Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Southpoint Divers and Donald McKenzie,
Case No. 4:15-cv-10185-JEM (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dive shop located in Key West,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nolan K. Klein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
      Wells Fargo Tower - Suite 1500
      One East Broward Blvd.
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954)745-0588
      E-mail: klein@nklegal.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Sued Over Alleged Use of Non-OEM Auto Parts
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Ferrari and Mike Keynejad, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC,
Autobahn, Inc. d/b/a Autobahn Motors, David Ahlheim, Sonic
Automotive Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04379 (N.D. Cal., September 24,
2015) is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who brought
a Mercedes Benz automobiles to Autobahn Motors, in Belmont,
California during the period of 2005-present, who received non-OEM
(original equipment manufacturer) or non-genuine Mercedes Benz
parts, supplies, and oil from Autobahn Motors, and were invoiced
OEM parts at OEM price levels.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Mercedes-
Benz is responsible for the distribution and marketing of
Mercedes-Benz and smart products in the United States.

Autobahn, Inc. is a California Corporation with a principal place
of business in Los Angeles, CA. Autobahn operates Audi, BMW,
Mercedes Benz, Mini, Porsche and Volkswagen service center.

Sonic Automotive, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
of the state of Delaware, having a principal place of business in
North Carolina. Sonic is one of the largest automotive retailers
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Herman Franck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Betowski, Esq.
      FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
      1801 7th Street, Suite 150
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 447-8400
      Facsimile: (916) 447-0720


MILWAUKEE BUCKS: "Herington" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Herington, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Milwaukee Bucks, LLC, f/k/a Milwaukee Bucks,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01152 (E.D. Wis., September 24, 2015) seeks
to recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and manage the Milwaukee Bucks professional
basketball team.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 E Erie St, #210
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurhid@hq-law.com

         - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560

         - and -

      Scott A. Andresen, Esq.
      ANDRESEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      3025 N. California Avenue, Suite 4 S.E.
      Chicago, IL 60618
      Telephone: (773) 572-6049
      Facsimile: (773) 572-6048


MOBILEIRON INC: Removed "Steinberg" Suit to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Chaile Steinberg, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mobileiron, Inc.,
Case No. 115CIV284761, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:15-cv-04412-PSG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claim under violation of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The Defendant is represented by:

      John C. Dwyer, Esq.
      Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Esq.
      Jacqueline B. Kort, Esq.
      Sarah R. Binning, Esq.
      COOLEY LLP
      3175 Hanover Street
      Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
      Telephone: (650) 843-5000
      Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
      E-mail: DWYERJC@COOLEY.COM
              JSANTAMARIA@COOLEY.COM
              JKORT@COOLEY.COM
              SBINNING@COOLEY.COM


MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Appeal on Class Action Waivers Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tony.lathrop@mvalaw.com -- at Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, reported
that as it stands, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") has
taken the position that class action waivers in individual
employee/employer arbitration agreements are illegal and the
agency continues to invalidate these agreements even though the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that they are enforceable.

In D.R. Horton (2012), the NLRB invalidated class action waivers
in individual employment agreements on the grounds that such
waivers interfere with an employee's rights to collective action
provided by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").  The Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and struck down the agency's
decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir.
2013).  While this was a significant victory for employers, the
NLRB asserts that it is not bound by Circuit Court of Appeals
opinions and it will continue to strike down class waivers unless
and until the U.S. Supreme Court rules against it on the issue.
The agency has reiterated its firm position several times, and
explicitly reaffirmed its D.R. Horton ruling in Murphy Oil (2014).

As a result, companies like Murphy Oil that do business in the
Fifth Circuit (TX, MS, LA) find themselves caught in a legal
conundrum, having the NLRB strike down their arbitration
agreements based on its D.R. Horton ruling despite having judicial
approval for class action waivers.  As with Murphy Oil, these
companies must seek judicial review to overturn the agency's
adverse decision even though D.R. Horton already was resolved by
the court in their favor.  The tides could turn for companies
doing business in the Circuit, however, if Murphy Oil prevails in
its current appeal before the Fifth Circuit.  Murphy Oil has
requested that the Fifth Circuit either hold the NLRB in contempt
for refusing to honor the court's D.R. Horton ruling, or issue a
Writ ordering the NLRB to comply.  The August 31, 2015 oral
arguments reveal that there may be questions regarding the scope
of the Fifth Circuit's authority to put an end to this nonsensical
cycle, but members of the panel certainly expressed their distaste
for the agency's practices and noted the tension between executive
and judicial branch authority raised by this case.

"Look, don't argue D.R. Horton to us"

One point resonated throughout the Murphy Oil oral arguments --
this issue already was decided by the Fifth Circuit in D.R.
Horton.  There is nothing to distinguish Murphy Oil from D.R.
Horton, yet the parties stood before the Fifth Circuit presenting
the exact same issue . . . deja vu.  Murphy Oil asserted that "the
decision in this case was written before the appeal was ever
filed," given the principle of stare decisis and the NLRB's
acknowledgement that Murphy Oil's case is indistinguishable from
D.R. Horton.  Judge Jones went so far as to admonish the NLRB for
even attempting to argue the substantive points underlying its
position, stating:

Look, don't argue D.R. Horton to us, because you've argued it in
your brief and we're bound by it, and I don't think you can expect
us to be writing against the binding precedent of this court. Now
my colleagues may want to hear all of these arguments . . . they
will fall on my deaf ears as a matter of stare decisis.

In response, the NLRB noted that this is the reason the agency
requested an en banc panel to hear this matter, but that request
had been denied.  The NLRB believes that the Fifth Circuit's D.R.
Horton decision "relies on a principle of FAA jurisprudence that
the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed."  Nonetheless, the
outcome of Murphy Oil likely will come as no surprise.  But, what
of future cases presented to the Fifth Circuit by Murphy Oil or
other companies if the NLRB persists?  Murphy Oil noted the recent
appeal filed by Neiman Marcus against the NLRB.  Can the court put
an end to the "circus of uncertainty," as it has been coined by
Murphy Oil?

Preventing the "Circus of Uncertainty" -- An Attack on Executive
Authority?

In addition to requesting that the NLRB's decision be overturned,
Murphy Oil petitioned the Fifth Circuit to restrain the NLRB from
continuing its practice of striking down arbitration agreements
with class waivers in contravention of the Fifth Circuit's D.R.
Horton decision.  Citing the Contempt Statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec.401
and the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651 as authority, Murphy
Oil urged the court to grant the extraordinary remedy given the
NLRB's "abundantly explicit" defiance of the court's D.R. Horton
decision.  But, would this be "a broadside attack on executive
authority?" Judge Jones inquired of Murphy Oil.

During arguments the panel probed whether Murphy Oil seeks an
order that pertains only to the NLRB's treatment of Murphy Oil or
whether it seeks a broader order that would impact other companies
as well.  While Murphy Oil's counsel stated that his interest is
in protecting the interest of his client, the court noted that
Murphy Oil's petition does seek a broader scope of relief.  Should
and could such an order extend to all employers who operate within
the three states in the Fifth Circuit, they discussed.  This
question is complicated by the venue provisions of the NLRA, which
allow companies to appeal to the Circuit Courts in the
jurisdictions in which they do business, as well as the D.C.
Circuit.  A company operating in multiple circuits can choose
where to appeal, making it difficult to predict whether an appeal
ultimately would end up before the Fifth Circuit.  The Fifth
Circuit currently is the only one to address the issue presented
by D.R. Horton, although the parties noted a pending case in the
Eighth Circuit.  While it can be assumed that companies that are
able to appeal in the Fifth Circuit will choose to do so for the
favorable law, there is no guarantee.  In fact, one member of the
Murphy Oil panel inquired as to why Murphy Oil did not choose to
file in a different circuit to facilitate the possibility of
creating a circuit split and hasten U.S. Supreme Court review of
the issue.

"It just seems to me an abuse of companies" -- A Matter of
Perspective

The NLRB stood its ground in the midst of the court's criticisms
of its practices, which include striking down these arbitration
agreements despite D.R. Horton and seeking attorneys' fees from
these companies because in the NLRB's view the attempt to enforce
these arbitration agreements seeks an illegal end.  Judge Jones
verbalized her disdain for the NLRB's tactics:

    "So you're saying that any company that has this kind of
agreement is vulnerable to having to defend something before an
ALJ, before the Board and spend thousands of dollars doing that
and then if they transact business in the Fifth Circuit come and
file a petition for review costing thousands of dollars more?
. . . It just seems to me an abuse of companies when you've
received an adverse decision in a Circuit Court to pummel them
. . . and make them litigate back to the Circuit that's already
decided in their favor . . . So basically everybody's gonna to
have to pay the penalty until you either vindicate or have your
policy repudiated, is that right?"

The NLRB's counsel "disagree[d] with the characterization that
they have to pay the penalty," and stated that "if they want to
continue to impose arbitration agreements that deprive their
employees of their core Section 7 substantive right to engage in
concerted activity, then the Board will maintain its well
established principle that these agreements cannot be enforced."
So, it seems we may be at an impasse.  We will be watching for the
Fifth Circuit's ruling and whether it will offer a reprieve for
Murphy Oil and other companies doing business in the Circuit.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Ambrose Suit Over Out-Of-Market Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ambrose BD, LLC, Ambrose BD 2, LLC, and Keystone University
Square, LLC, for themselves and for all others similarly situated
v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV,
LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-07556 (C.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2015) seeks to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable
restraint of trade that Defendants have implemented through
DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon
out-of-market games.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

         - and -


      David P. McLafferty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. MCLAFFERTY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      923 Fayette Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (610) 940-4000
      Facsimile: (610) 940-4007
      E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com

         - and -

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      Brian Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: lablert@glancylaw.com
              bmurray@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com
             jspector@srkw-law.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
      One West 4th Street, 18th Floor
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 345-8291
      Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
      E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

         - and -

      Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
      James D. Ludwig, Esq.
      MINNILLO & JENKINS, CO., LPA
      2712 Observatory Avenue
      Cincinnati, OH 45208
      Telephone: (513) 723-1600
      Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
      E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
              jludwig@minnillojenkins.com


NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces "Vogel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Vogel, individually and for all others similarly situated v.
National Oilwell Varco, LP, Case No. 4:15-cv-02814 (S.D. Tex.,
September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

National Oilwell Varco, LP is one of the largest providers of
equipment and components used in the drilling and production of
oil and gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (7130 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
              adunlap@fhl-law.com


NUTRACLICK INT'L: Falsely Marketed Somnapure Drugs, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Rowe v. Nutraclick International LLC and Peak Life LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-13445-JCB (D. Mass., September 26, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged false, unfair and deceptive practices in
advertising, marketing and selling of Somnapure sleep aid
supplement, that it is "natural," "all natural" and that it
contains "all natural ingredients." In fact, Somnapure contains
numerous non-natural ingredients, some of which are known to be
harmful.

The Defendants own and operate a health and nutritional supplement
company with its principal place of business at 24 School Street,
Suite 401, Boston, Massachusetts 02108.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
      Seth A. Safier, Esq.
      Todd Kennedy, Esq.
      Marie McCrary, Esq.
      GUTRIDE SAFIER, LLP
      100 Pine St., Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 529-4995
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
      E-mail: adam@gutridesafier.com
              seth@gutridesafier.com
              todd@gutridesafier.com
              marie@gutridesafier.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Securities Lawyers Circling Company
---------------------------------------------------
Maria Halkias, writing for Dallas News, reported that shareholder
lawsuits often come and go quietly. But some end up with big
payouts to shareholders.

Several big law firms that specialize in such litigation are
actively trying to get a lead plaintiff for a case against Fort
Worth-based Pier 1 Imports.

One of those firms, The Rosen Law Firm, was ranked No. 2 last year
by Institutional Shareholder Services in the number of settlements
it received, 10.

No lawsuit has been certified as a class action against Pier 1
yet.

The 50 largest plaintiffs' law firms that work on shareholder
cases handled 105 court-approved settlements in 2014 valued at
more than $2.4 billion. Nine cases were valued at more than $100
million each, according to Institutional Shareholder Services,
which provides corporate governance research and recommendations.

Some of the biggest cases stemming from the financial crisis in
2008 are still being settled.

In 2013, the total settlement amount was $7.4 billion and included
high-profile cases involving Bernie Madoff, Citigroup,
Countrywide, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan.

Pier 1 stock hasn't recovered since February, when longtime chief
financial officer Cary Turner abruptly left.

After the market closed Feb. 10, Pier 1 revised its outlook
downward and said sales were lower than expected in January and
February. It also said expenses associated with its e-commerce
business were higher than expected.  The next day, Pier 1 stock
fell 25 percent to $12.94 a share. It closed at $10.16.

Pier 1 didn't reply to a request for comment. The home furnishings
retailer will report its fiscal second-quarter results Sept. 24.
Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters have forecast that Pier 1
will report a decline in profit to 7 cents a share vs. 10 cents a
share a year ago. Sales are estimated to increase 4.1 percent to
$435.7 million.

The deadline for filing a class-action lawsuit against Pier 1 is
coming up in late October.

"There wouldn't be this many firms after the action if there
wasn't some fire behind the smoke," said Andy Cottrell, head of
Institutional Shareholder Services' Securities Class Action
Services.

Company executives may view shareholder lawsuits as a nuisance,
and these cases may seem to go nowhere, but the cases are intended
to protect investors, Cottrell said.

"I'm an investor, and I like the fact that shareholders have an
avenue to hold management of a company accountable," he said.
Outside North America, investors don't have the same rights.

Usually the lead plaintiffs in shareholder suits are big pension
funds, which must participate in shareholder lawsuits if the
fund's loss from an investment is over an amount designated in the
fund's bylaws.

These cases can take years to settle. Individual investors have to
be identified and contacted after a case is certified as a class
action by a judge.

So far this year, the settlements tracked by Institutional
Shareholder Services exceed $6 billion and include big cases such
as one associated with Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill
Lynch.


PRO SOURCE: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Vazquez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Pro Source Granite, Inc.
and Roy E. Smith, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-08477 (N.D. Ill.,
September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Pro Source Granite, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that offers
custom fabrication and installation of granite countertops, custom
tables, fireplaces and tub surrounds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      Werman Salas, P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: 6th Cir. Affirms Probiotics Case Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I Weinstein, Alexander Kaplan & John M. Browning, writing
for The National Law Review, reported that a recent Sixth Circuit
decision that affirmed certification of a multi-state consumer
class action asserting false advertising claims concerning Align -
- a Proctor & Gamble probiotic product promising digestive health
benefits -- has left us with an uneasy feeling in the pit of our
stomachs.

In Rikos v. P&G, the judge writing the opinion of the Court in a
split decision (with one concurrence and one dissent) found that
the class plaintiffs had shown commonality and typicality, despite
the fact that unrebutted evidence tended to show that the product
actually worked as advertised for a subset of the class.

As the dissenting judge persuasively pointed out, certification
should have been denied under recent Supreme Court precedent. As
it is, this case has the potential for allowing doomed class
actions to linger in court much longer than they should and
creating logistical problems for trial courts applying this
precedent.

The product in question is an over the counter probiotic marketed
to the general public as a supplement that "naturally helps build
and support a healthy digestive system, maintains digestive
balance, and fortif[ies] your digestive system with healthy
bacteria." The consolidated class plaintiffs, suing under
California, Illinois, Florida, New Hampshire and North Carolina
law, argue that the digestive benefit marketing claims were false
because Align is a placebo at best and snake oil at worst.

Probiotics are considered to be a promising field of medicine with
potential as an effective treatment, but research is in its
infancy. That said, Procter & Gamble provided evidence at the
"rigorous analysis" stage of class certification that indicated
Align is an effective treatment for sufferers of irritable bowel
syndrome. The class plaintiffs did not rebut this evidence, but
promised to prove definitively that Align does not work through a
yet to be designed clinical trial after certification.

The majority decision reasoned that the commonality requirements
were fulfilled because the common question presented by the class
was "whether Align is 'snake oil' and thus does not yield benefits
to anyone" and certification was appropriate if the plaintiffs
"can prove" that all class members suffered the same injury. In
other words, the fact that the class plaintiffs proposed a
clinical trial that could theoretically prove that Align does not
work at all for irritable bowel syndrome sufferers and otherwise
healthy consumers alike was sufficient to justify class
certification. This reasoning incorrectly disregards evidence in
the record at the certification stage, however, and sets the
certification bar far too low.

Under recent Supreme Court precedent, Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Duke
in particular, evidence showing that the product works as
advertised is not beyond the scope of the court's "rigorous
analysis" for class certification. In this case, the unrebutted
evidence that Align worked for irritable bowel syndrome sufferers
-- who were not excluded from the putative class of consumers --
should have torpedoed certification under Rule 23 for failure to
prove commonality and that common questions will predominate.

As the dissent cogently explained, "[b]ecause the evidence tends
to show that these two groups [i.e. irritable bowel syndrome
sufferers and otherwise healthy consumers] respond differently to
Align, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of showing that
their theory of liability leads itself to common investigation and
resolution." In practice, as the dissent recognized, the decision
to allow plaintiffs to "define the question at an impossibly high
level of abstraction" will create confusion and redundancy. If the
product does work for some consumers (as the evidence indicated it
does), the trial court will either have to whittle down the class
it certified so broadly to eliminate sub-classes for whom the
product actually works or dismiss the claim entirely, as it could
have done previously. The correct approach -- as the Supreme Court
recognized -- is to take care of this issue at the class
certification stage.

The concurrence, which suggests that its author felt a degree of
queasiness with the majority decision, proposes a Solomonic
solution: bifurcate the case to decide first whether Align
provides any gastric health benefits at all. "If, as Plaintiffs
claim, there is no scientific evidence that Align promotes
digestive health for anyone, the case can proceed in the regular
course. If on the other hand, Plaintiffs' proofs fail to establish
that Align has no digestive health benefits, the case should be
dismissed." It is still unclear, however, why this issue was not
or could not be resolved in Proctor & Gamble's favor at the class
certification stage: the defendant actually came forward with
evidence the product works for class members suffering from
irritable bowel syndrome, which the plaintiffs did not rebut.
Allowing the plaintiffs another bite at the apple defeats the
point of "rigorous analysis" at the certification stage.


REHRIG PACIFIC: Sued Over Employees Meal and Rest Periods
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anthony Flint, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Rehrig Pacific Company, and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC595545 (Cal. Super., September 23, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees
meal and rest periods as required under California Labor Law.

Rehrig Pacific Company is a manufacturer of plastic pallets,
plastic crates, slip sheets, beer kegs, rigid packaging, bakery
trays & collapsible containers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


REPUBLIC FOODS: Faces "Mejia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deny Esperanza Mejia, on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals v. Republic Foods, Inc. d/b/a Burger King,
Case No. 8:2015cv02899 (D. Md., September 24, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Republic Foods, Inc. owns and operates approximately 18 Burger
King Restaurants in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
      519 H Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20001
      Telephone: (202) 803-6083
      Facsimile: (202) 683-6102
      E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of
Resource Capital Corporation ("Resource" or the "Company") between
March 2, 2015 and April 4, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The action
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Resource
and certain of its executive officers and directors issued
materially false and/or misleading information regarding the risk
of the Company's commercial loans portfolio and its processes and
controls for assessing the quality of its portfolio.

On August 4, 2015, Resource disclosed a GAAP net loss of $31.0
million during the quarter ended June 30, 2015, citing the
recording of a $41.1 million allowance for loan loss. Upon this
news, shares of Resource Capital fell from a closing price of
$3.48 on August 4, 2015, to a close of $3.05 the following day.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in RSO securities during the Class Period. If you
invested in RSO securities, and lost money on the transactions,
you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In
order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in
the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than
November 9, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an RSO
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.


ROYAL BANK: Faces $1BB Class Suit Over ForeEx Rigging
-----------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Financial Post, reported that three
Ontario law firms have launched a $1 billion class action alleging
that a coterie of the world's largest financial institutions and
their subsidiaries conspired to rig foreign exchange markets using
electronic chat rooms with names such as "The Cartel," "The
Bandits Club" and "The Mafia."

"The issues raised by this case are very troubling," said Kirk
Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP, who with lawyers from Sotos LLP and
Siskinds LLP, represent the plaintiff Christopher Staines, an
Ontario investor who was exposed to the FX market through his
dealings with RBC subsidiaries.

"This claim will make sure that Canadians who have been harmed
will be properly compensated for any losses they may have
suffered."

"A number of banks throughout the world have reached plea
agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice or the EU. A number
of others have settled similar class actions filed in the United
States. This claim will make sure that Canadians who have been
harmed will be properly compensated for any losses they may have
suffered."

The list of defendants reads like a financial institution all-star
team and includes Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of America, The Bank
of Tokyo Mitsubishi, Barclays Bank, BNP Paribas Group, Citigroup,
Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase,
Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland, Societe Generale, Standard
Chartered and UBS.

The action filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is what
is known as a "copycat" action. In 2013, U.S. law firm Scott+Scott
filed a similar complaint. As a result of cooperation obtained
from certain defendants who settled the initial suit, the U.S.
plaintiffs revised their claim to allege a broader conspiracy
involving seven currency pairs with the highest global market
volume.

The allegations in both the U.S. and Ontario Superior Court cases
cover the period from 2003 to 2013. They focus on the spot market,
which accounts for 23 per cent of all FX turnover in Canada and
about half of U.S. volume. Spot transactions determine FX pricing
and affect other FX transactions, including futures contracts and
options.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to fix spot
prices, including U.S. and Canadian dollar transactions, one of
the world's highest volume trading currency pairs. More
particularly, the defendants are accused of widening the bid/ask
spread artificially, fixing key FX benchmark rates, and other
collusive conduct. This conduct, the Claim maintains, "reflected a
culture of increasing profits at the expense of the Class and the
very integrity of the FX Market."

None of the allegations has been proven in a Canadian court.
However, there are ongoing criminal and regulatory investigations
in the U.S., United Kingdom, European Union, Switzerland, Germany,
Asia, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. The International
Financial Stability Board is also actively investigating.

Barclays, Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase, RBS and UBS have already plead
guilty to felony conspiracy charges in the U.S and have agreed to
pay fines of more than US$2.5 billion. The U.S. Federal Reserve
fined the same institutions as well as the Bank of America some
US$1.8 billion in total.

For its part, the U.K.'s Financial Conduct Authority imposed fines
totalling the equivalent of some US$1.7 billion on Citibank, HSBC,
JPMorgan Chase, RBS and UBS.

RBC did not return a call for comment.

         KOSKIE MINSKY LLP
         20 Queen St W #900
         Toronto, ON M5H 3R3
         Phone: +1 416-977-8353
         www.kmlaw.ca

            -- and --

         Charles Wright, Esq.
         SISKINDS LLP
         680 Waterloo St
         London, ON N6A 3V
         Phone: 519.672.2121
         Toll Free: 877.672.2121
         Fax: 519-672-6065
         www.siskinds.com

            -- and --

         SOTOS LLP
         180 Dundas St W #1200
         Toronto, ON M5G 1Z8, CA
         Phone: +1 416-977-0007
         Toll-free: 1.888.977.9806
         Fax: 416.977.0717
         Email: info@sotosllp.com


SBS TRUST: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Behrouz A. Ranekouhi, Fereshte Ranekouhi, Goli A. Ranekouhi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly sitauted v.
S.B.S. Trust Deed Network d/b/a S.B.S. Lien Services, Case No.
8:15-cv-01541-CJC-JCG (C.D. Cal., September 24, 2015) is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendant's unlawful and abusive
debt collection practices.

S.B.S. Trust Deed Network is a debt collection company,
incorporated in the State of California, and registered in the
State of California, with an Agent for Service of Process located
in the City of Westlake Village, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SCARLETT'S: Oct. 19 Deadline for Claims in $6-Mil. Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Swenson, writing for News Times, reported that a class-action
lawsuit organized by savvy ex-dancers took on Scarlett's, the
popular gentleman's club with locations in Hallandale, Ybor City,
Florida, and Toledo, Ohio. The clubs' owners agreed to settle the
case in June for $6 million. The challenge now is to find the
4,700 former dancers who are eligible for payouts as part of the
suit. To receive settlement money, they must meet an upcoming
deadline.

The lawsuit, filed by former dancer Adonay Encarnacion, alleged
that by treating dancers as "independent contractors" and not as
full-time employees, the clubs were illegally cheating women out
of full pay and benefits. Before those issues could be wrestled
over in a courtroom, the lawsuit settled.

The $6 million is meant to restore a portion of what the dancers
should have earned had they been classified as full-time
employees. Per the settlement, eligible women will be able to
"receive cash payments over a 24-month period, depending on the
amount of time during which they performed at one or more of the
Scarlett's Nightclubs."

However, the clock is ticking.

"Although the lawsuit went into settlement in February, claim
forms were just mailed out around, June 23, 2015," Encarnacion
told New Times. "I am still fighting to inform 4,700 women of the
rights to claim, and desperately searching to inform them before
the deadline on October 19, 2015. It is a continuous work in
progress to reach justice, and such work requires outside support
from fellow advocates."

The website where former dancers can get more information is
www.scarlettscabaretlawsuit.com. Eligible individuals are "exotic
dancers who performed at Scarlett's of Hallandale, and/or
Scarlett's of Ybor Strip between December 4, 2009 and February 2,
2015 and exotic dancers who performed at Scarlett's of Toledo
between December 4, 2011 and February 2, 2015," according to the
fine print.


SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Slams CMO Suit Standing in High Court Plea
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, reported that Schwab
Investments has told the U.S. Supreme Court that the plaintiffs
bringing a putative class action claiming it made risky bets on
collaterized mortgage obligations despite policies in its
investment guidelines have no standing and are relying on
"distractions" to fight Schwab's appeal of a Ninth Circuit
decision reviving the suit.

Schwab filed a reply on Sept. 8, telling the justices that
Northstar Financial Advisor Inc. doesn't have standing to bring
the suit over alleged losses in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund
because it didn't own any shares in the fund when it filed the
complaint. Schwab urged the court to reject Northstar's claims
that the Ninth Circuit decision was supported by past precedent,
saying Northstar's arguments rely on cases where parties were
added or changed that are irrelevant to the underlying suit.

Schwab urged the justices again to take another look at the
portion of the appellate court's March ruling that a mutual fund's
mandatory disclosures with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Committee could constitute a "contract" between the fund and its
advisers. The decision revived the suit after U.S. District Judge
Lucy H. Koh dismissed it in August 2011.

"The petition argues that the consequences of this decision are
extreme and caustic to the securities market, which Northstar does
not refute," Schwab said in the brief.

Schwab disputed Northstar's claim that it cured a potential
standing deficiency in the suit by obtaining an assignment of
claims from an individual shareholder. The assignment couldn't
cure the deficiency, Schwab said, because Northstar needs to have
had standing when it first filed the complaint in August 2008, and
unlike Northstar's cited cases, no parties have actually been
added to the suit.

Northstar had sued Schwab, its trustees and advisory group Charles
Schwab Investment Management Inc. on behalf of investors, alleging
the brokerage operation had sold out Northstar by deviating from
its stated investment strategy of matching the fund to a bond
index run by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and making heavy bets
in CMOs the Lehman index wouldn't touch. That decision led to
heavy losses compared to the Lehman index, the complaint alleged.

Northstar's "bald assertion" that the decision hasn't hurt Schwab
is "both untrue and irrelevant," the reply said, because the court
can't act without jurisdiction even if there is no prejudice to
any party and because Schwab has already been forced to spend time
and money "litigating an action over which the federal courts have
had no constitutional authority."

Schwab also disputed Northstar's claim that its petition for writ
of certiorari is jumping the gun by asking the Supreme Court to
determine whether the breach of contract claim is preempted by the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act before the district
court can address the issue on remand.

In fact, Schwab said, the Ninth Circuit's decision allowing
Northstar to bring the breach of contract claim is "fully ripe"
for review as it conflicts with federal securities law by allowing
a common-law cause of action based on a mutual fund's SEC
disclosures.

"Treating ever-changing disclosures as contracts creates an
unmanageable situation for mutual funds, subjecting them to the
disfiguring complexity of a patchwork of disparate and inevitably
conflicting common-law contractual obligations," Schwab said.

An attorney for Northstar declined to comment. An attorney for
Schwab did not respond to a request for comment.

Northstar is represented by Joshua W. Ruthizer, Lester L. Levy and
Robert C. Finkel of Wolf Popper LLP, Marc J. Gross, Alan S. Naar,
Gary K. Wolinetz and Jemi Goulian Lucey of Greenbaum Rowe Smith &
Davis LLP and Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. and Christopher T.
Heffelfinger of Berman Devalario.

Schwab is represented by Matthew L. Larrabee, Joshua D. N. Hess,
Brian Raphel, G. Eric Brunstad Jr. and Kate M. O'Keeffe of Dechert
LLP.

The case is Schwab Investments v. Northstar Financial Advisors
Inc., case number 15-134, in the Supreme Court of the United
States.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier, LLP, specializing in class action suits announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (15-cv-07192) on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of SFX Entertainment, Inc. ("SFX" or the "Company")
SFXE between February 25, 2015 and August 17, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period") against SFX Entertainment, Inc., Robert F.X.
Sillerman ("Sillerman"), D. Geoffrey Armstrong, John Miller,
Michael John Meyer (the "Defendants") for violations of section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The lawsuit seeks class action status and monetary
damages

The complaint alleges, among other things, that Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements in connection with the
proposed acquisition of SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman
("Sillerman"), SFX's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") and largest
shareholder, for all of the outstanding common stock he did not
already own.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendant Sillerman repeatedly affirmed his commitment to
acquire SFX.  However, Defendant Sillerman knew or recklessly
disregarded and failed to disclose that he did not have any
financing in place at the time he made his proposal and knew or
recklessly disregarded that he could not obtain the financing to
consummate the transaction.

The Complaint further alleges that given the Company's growing
debt and decreasing margins it was not feasible that Sillerman was
ever going to buy the Company and, with the aid of the other
defendants, Sillerman initiated and maintained a sham process
designed to lure third party offers, in an attempt to shed his
failing investment before the truth about the deterioration of the
Company could no longer be concealed.  The effect of the false and
misleading statements by Defendants during the Class Period was to
fraudulently inflate and maintain the market price of SFX shares
at levels that would not otherwise have prevailed based on the
true financial performance and future prospects of the Company.

Investors who bought SFX during the Class Period may move the
court to appoint them as lead plaintiff within 60 days from the
date of this notice.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

The attorneys at Abbey Spanier, LLP have extensive experience in
securities class action cases, and have played lead roles in major
cases resulting in the recovery of over one billion dollars for
investors.  If you would like to discuss this action or if you
have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights as a
potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

         Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
         ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
         212 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212.889.370
         Fax: 212.684.5191
         Toll Free: 800.889.3701
         Email: nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


SHAC LLC: Ruling Interprets TCPA "Autodialer" Definition
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Blynn and Samuel D. Boro, writing for All About
Advertising Law, reported that on August 19, 2015, in Luna v.
SHAC, LLC, No. 5:14-cv-00607 (N.D. Cal.), the Northern District of
California issued one of the first decisions interpreting the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act's ("TCPA") definition of
"automatic telephone dialing system" (i.e., autodialer) following
the FCC's July 2015 omnibus TCPA order.  Luna may serve as
guidepost for future litigants, as the key to the court's decision
lies in the degree of human involvement in the call making
process.

In Luna, the defendant-gentleman's club engaged a third-party
mobile marketing company to provide a web-based platform for
sending promotional text messages to its customers.  The process
to send the text messages through the web-based platform involved
multiple steps, all of which required human involvement.  First,
an employee would input telephone numbers into the platform
manually, or by uploading or cutting and pasting an existing list
of phone numbers.  Next, the employee would log in to the platform
to draft the message content.  The employee, then, would designate
specific phone numbers to which the message would be sent.
Finally, the employee would click "send" on the website to
transmit the message to the defendant's customers.  The messages
could be transmitted in real time or as prescheduled messages sent
at a future date.

The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.  In
its decision, the court assessed whether the defendant's
dialing/texting platform constituted a prohibited dialer under the
TCPA in the wake of the FCC's July 2015 order and found that the
level of human intervention in dialing precluded liability under
the Act.  Although briefing on summary judgment likely was
completed before the FCC order issued, the Luna court cites to the
FCC order in its decision.

Luna is important for several reasons.  First, the court found
that human involvement -- in this case, multiple manual actions --
defeated a claim that the dialing platform constituted a
prohibited autodialer.  Second, the decision is the first to issue
following the FCC's July 2015 order.  Third, the court
distinguished numerous recent cases cited by the plaintiff on the
grounds that the human involvement in those prior cases did not
reach the level necessary to make the programs "autodialers."  The
human involvement in Luna was held to be sufficient to warrant
exclusion from the definition.  Finally, although the court cited
the FCC's July 2015 order, it did not discuss the FCC's
conclusions regarding the future "capacity" of a platform to
autodial.  With respect to the latter, the court, instead, cited
the pre-FCC order line of cases, such as Glauser v. GroupMe and
McKenna v. WhisperText.  Those cases held that it is the actual,
present capacity to autodial that matters for purposes of TCPA
liability.

Luna is an encouraging decision although the plaintiff has filed a
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to set aside the judgment, arguing
that the court's interpretation of the FCC's order constituted
clear legal error.  Oral argument on the motion will take place in
October 2015.


SOLARWINDS INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers
SolarWinds, Inc. securities during the period from April 28, 2015
through July 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for SolarWinds investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the SolarWinds, Inc. class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-670.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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

According to the case, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's
domestic business was struggling against the Company's
expectations; (2) that the Company's license sales growth of core
license products and resulting license revenue was lower than
expectations and guidance; (3) that the general quality of the
"demand capture" the Company was capturing was dropping; and, (4)
consequently, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On July 16, 2015, SolarWinds
announced that its second quarter earnings failed to meet its
revenue forecast. Additionally, SolarWinds lowered its full-year
2015 outlook from $512-$527 million to $502-$512 million. On this
news, shares of SolarWinds fell $11.51 per share or over 24% to
close at $35.54 per share on July 17, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-670.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


SPRAYPRO INC: "Villa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Mara Villa and other similarly situated individuals v.
SprayPro Inc. and Mark Jordan, Case No. 32419051 (11th Cir. Fla.,
September 23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscape maintenance,
fertilization, pest control and irrigation company in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

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@rgpattomeys.com


SUN SHUI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Gudino" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Gudino, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. Sun Shui Restaurant, Inc., and Yu
Yun Chen, Case No. 1:15-cv-08407 (N.D. Ill., September 24, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime for
work in excess of 40 hours per week wages.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      Werman Salas, P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


SUPER MICRO: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities
of Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("SMCI" or the "Company") between
September 15, 2014 and August 31, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The action alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

SMCI develops and provides high performance server solutions based
on modular and open-standard architecture. The Company offers a
range of server, storage, blade, workstation, and full rack
solutions, as well as networking devices, server management
software, and technology support and services. The Company offers
its products to data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big
data, high performance computing, and embedded markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company improperly recorded expenses in its
financial reports; (ii) as a result, the Company's reported net
income was misstated; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal
financial controls; and (iv) the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 31, 2015, post-market, SMCI announced that it "has
determined that it is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-
K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 within the prescribed
time period without unreasonable effort or expense. [SMCI]
recently discovered certain irregularities regarding certain
marketing expenses and additional time is required for [the
Company] to complete its investigation of the matter." On this
news, SMCI shares declined $2.58 per share, or 9.43%, to close at
$24.77 on September 1, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in SMCI securities during the Class Period. If you
invested in SMCI securities, and lost money on the transactions,
you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In
order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in
the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than
November 3, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an SMCI
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Contact Information:

         Joseph R. Seidman, Jr.
         BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
         Tel: (212) 779-1414
         Email: seidman@bernlieb.com


TECH DATA: Faces "Hunt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raylene Hunt, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tech Data Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-02227-MSS-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., September 24, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Tech Data Corporation operates a publicly traded technology
wholesale and distribution business with a principal place of
business located at 5350 Tech Date Drive Clearwater, FL 33760.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


TEXAS: Prison Transport Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonas Ellis and Daryn Kline, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Texas Prisoner Transportation Division,
L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-00857 (W.D. Tex., September 24, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
and minimum wage violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Texas Prisoner Transportation Division, L.L.C. provides prisoner
transportation services in Texas and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER BRADY, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
              scott@bohrerbrady.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.

      8 Greenway Plaza
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: Rburch@brucknerburch.com


TWIN CITY FIRE: Court Denies Defendant's Summary Judgment Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the United States District
Court for Northern District of Illinois denied Defendant's motion
for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff's cross-motion for
partial summary judgment in the case captioned, BIG BRIDGE
HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-8052.

Plaintiff Big Bridge purchased a $3 million liability-insurance
policy (the Policy) from Defendant Twin City, covering the period
from March 1, 2011 to March 1, 2012. The Policy covers the entire
Big Bridge organization, including its subsidiary, Sempris, LLC.
Sempris sells membership programs that provide discounts at
various restaurants and retailers. Between July of 2011 and August
2013, Sempris was sued eight times in various federal courts
across the country which allege a myriad of state- and federal-law
violations, brought on behalf of putative classes. Defendant
confirmed via letter dated September 2, 2011 that it would provide
a defense for Sempris with regards to the first-filed lawsuit.
When the eighth and final case was filed, Defendant informed
Plaintiff (by letter dated November 22, 2013) that it was denying
coverage for any losses exceeding $1,000,000. And indeed,
Defendant did pay $1,000,000 in defense costs to or on behalf of
Sempris in connection with these eight lawsuits, with the final
payment processed as of September 25, 2014.

On October 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed this two-count lawsuit,
raising (1) a declaratory-judgment claim that Defendant has
breached its duty to defend and/or indemnify Sempris, and that
Defendant has waived, or is estopped from asserting, Policy
exclusions or other coverage defenses, and (2) a related breach-
of-contract claim that Defendant has breached the Policy by
failing to provide coverage in the full amount of the Policy. In
its answer, Defendant raised a counter-claim for declaratory
relief, seeking (1) a declaration that Plaintiff's claim is barred
by Section V(A)(5) of the Policy, and (2) a declaration that
Plaintiff's claim is barred in whole or in part on other grounds
(not relevant to this motion).

In the motion, Defendant sought summary judgment in its favor on
all counts of the complaint and Count I of its counterclaim, and
Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking only
a declaration that its claim is not barred by Section V(A)(5) and
thus that Defendant cannot refuse coverage on that basis.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 15, 2015
available at http://is.gd/LqV8X7from Leagle.com, Judge Dow, Jr.
found that the underlying claims at issue lie beyond the scope of
the Section V(A)(5) exclusion, and thus that exclusion is not a
viable basis for Defendant Twin City to deny Sempris coverage with
regard to the underlying claims up to and including the full $3
million Policy limit. The case is set for a status hearing on Oct.
6, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to discuss how the parties wish to proceed
with their remaining claims not resolved in the order.

Big Bridge Holdings is represented by Christopher C. Dickinson,
Esq. -- cdickinson@jenner.com -- Craig Christopher Martin, Esq. --
cmartin@jenner.com -- Brienne M. Letourneau, Esq. --
bletourneau@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP

Defendants are represented by Charles Collins Lemley, Esq. --
clemley@wileyrein.com -- WILEY REIN LLP & Regina A. Ripley, Esq.
-- rripley@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES


UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Inks $26-Mil. Proposed Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
A summary notice on In re:Universal City Studios LLC Class Action:

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

If You Are a Profit Participant on a Motion Picture Released by
Universal City Studios for Home Video or Electronic Sell-Through,
You Could Financially Benefit from a Class Action Settlement

What Is This Settlement About?

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit over how
Universal City Studios LLC ("Universal") calculated profit
participation relating to revenue derived from the sale of Home
Videos (e.g. physical copies such as videocassettes, DVDs, and
Blu-Ray) and Electronic Sell-Through (e.g. digital copies
delivered for permanent download such as iTunes or Amazon) on
certain motion pictures. The settlement is not an admission of
wrongdoing and the Court has not decided who is right and who is
wrong. Instead, the parties decided to settle the dispute.

Am I A Class Member?

You may be a Class Member if you are a person or entity (or their
successors-in-interest, assigns, and heirs) who is a party to a
"Class Profit Participation Contract" (defined by the Settlement
Agreement as a Profit Participation Contract, entered on or before
December 31, 2014, that does not include express provisions
regarding the calculation of the Profit Participant's Profit
Participation with regard to Home Video Revenue and/or Electronic
Sell-Through Revenue). To obtain more information regarding
whether you are a Class Member, please visit
www.UniversalHVSettlement.com or call 1-877-319-9141.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

This settlement provides Class Members with a: (1) $13 million
Settlement Fund, which will be used to pay recouped profit
participants who are already receiving profit participation on
their contracts; and (2) $13 million Accounting Relief Fund, which
will be used to credit the accounts of unrecouped profit
participants who are not yet receiving profit participation on
their contracts. You may receive benefits from either or both of
these funds if you qualify.

What Are My Options?

You have the following rights and options as a Class Member. You
have to take action on or before November 12, 2015 in order to
exercise your legal rights and options under the settlement.
Please visit www.UniversalHVSettlement.com or call 1-877-319-9141
for more information on how to exercise your rights and options.

This notice summarizes the proposed settlement. You can view the
complete Settlement Agreement, Long Form Notice and certain court
documents, and obtain more information on how to exercise your
rights and options under the settlement by visiting
www.UniversalHVSettlement.com or calling 1-877-319-9141.

         PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
         44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Phone: (415) 433-9000
         Fax: (415) 433-9008
         http://www.pswlaw.com/


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Sued in E.D. Va. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen AG, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01228-LO-MSN (E.D. Va.,
September 25, 2015) asserts that the Defendants engaged in a
scheme to defraud and made numerous materially false and
misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding the
Company's operations and its business and financial condition and
outlook. Specifically, the Defendants misled investors by failing
to disclose that the Company had utilized a "defeat device" in
certain of its diesel cars that allowed such cars to temporarily
reduce emissions during testing, while achieving higher
performance and fuel economy, as well as discharging dramatically
higher emissions, when testing was not being conducted.

Headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany, Volkswagen Ag is one of the
world's leading automobile manufacturers and the largest carmaker
in Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig C. Reilly, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG C. REILLY
      111 Oronoco Street
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 549-5354
      Facsimile: (703) 549-5355
      E-mail: Craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com

         - and -

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2203
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
      VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
      79 Alfred Street
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 578-1200
      Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
      E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McLaughlin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McLaughlin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00392 (D.N.H., September 24, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of the so-called
defeat devices on the diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in
New Hampshire 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:

      Paul M. De Carolis, Esq.
      GOTTESMAN AND HOLLIS, P.A.
      39 East Pearl Street
      Nashua, NH 03060
      Telephone: (603) 889-5959
      E-mail: pdecarolis@nh-lawyers.com

         - and -

      David M. Gottesman, Esq.
      GOTTESMAN AND HOLLIS, P.A.
      39 East Pearl Street
      Nashua, NH 03060
      Telephone: (603) 889-5959
      E-mail: dgottesman@nh-lawyers.com

         - and -

      Barney L. Brannen, Esq.
      BRANNEN & LOFTUS, PLLC
      One Maple Street
      Hanover, NH 03755
      Telephone: (603) 277-2971


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Sargent" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Hilary Sargent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
13452 (D. Mass., September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices", which are
software that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency emissions
standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
      David J. McMorris, Esq.
      Leah M. Carlsen, Esq.
      THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
      100 Summer Street, 30th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 720-1333
      Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
      E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
              dmcmorris@tenlaw.com
              lcarlsen@tenlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Blake" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Blake and Abdurrahman Allawala, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-
04425 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
marketed and sold vehicles, since 2009, with defeat device
designed to pass federal emissions tests, but which release
higher-than-acceptable levels in everyday driving situations.

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:

      Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
      Reed W.L. Marcy, Esq.
      Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
      Carey A. James, Esq.
      AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
      7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1150
      Oakland, CA 94621
      Telephone: (510) 562-6800
      Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
      E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com
              rwlm@asmlawyers.com
              hvr@asmlawyers.com
              caj@asmlawyers.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Covell" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Covell v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02132 (D. Colo., September 25, 2015) alleged that Volkswagen
has deliberately installed illegal "defeat devices" in several
models of Volkswagen and Audi vehicles powered by the 2.0 Liter
"Clean Diesel" engine.

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:

      Jake C. Eisenstein, Esq.
      Paul N. Fisher, Esq.
      Benjamin T. Norton, Esq.
      FISHER & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      3900 E. Mexico Ave., Ste. 950
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (303) 779-5300
      Facsimile: (303) 779-5305
      E-mail: jeisenstein@yourcoloradolawyers.com
              pfisher@yourcoloradolawyers.com
              bnorton@yourcoloradolawyers.com

         - and -

      Chris Hoffman, Esq.
      HOFFMAN, SHEFFIELD, SAUSEDA & HOFFMAN PLLC
      600 Grant Street, Ste. 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (303) 333-2200
      E-mail: choffman@hsshlaw.com

         - and -

      Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
      228 W. 137th St.
      New York, NY 10030
      Telephone: (212) 234-5953
      E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Darovsky" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kolomeets-Darovsky, Lioudmila Kolomeets, Boris Darovsky,
Jennifer K. Green, Stephanie R. Heinatz and Rudolph B. Heinatz,
III, individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01229-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices", which
are software that circumvent EPA emissions standards for certain
air pollutants, in 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:

      William W.C. Harty, Esq.
      Duncan Gamett, Esq.
      Hugh B. McCormick III, Esq.
      PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.
      12350 Jefferson Avenue - Suite 300
      Newport News, VA 23602
      Telephone: (757) 223-4500
      Facsimile: (757) 249-3242
      E-mail: wharty@pwhd.com
              dgamett@pwhd.com
              hmccormick@pwhd.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM PLLC
      800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 838-3333
      E-mail: info@lockslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Deehl" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee Deehl individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23605-KMW (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2015) arises
out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat
devices", which are software that circumvent EPA emissions
standards for certain air pollutants, in 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.

Volkswagen AG is one of the world's largest car manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lewis S. Eidson, Esq.
      Curtis B. Miner, Esq.
      COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
      255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL33134
      Telephone: (305) 476-7400
      Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
      E-mail: mike@colson.com
              curt@colson.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "De Romero" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Sanchez De Romero, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00253 (E.D. Tenn., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices", which
are software that circumvent EPA emissions standards for certain
air pollutants, in 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:

      Gordon Ball, Esq.
      GORDON BALL PLLC
      Bank of America Center
      550 Main Street, Suite 600
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 525-7028
      Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
      E-mail: gball@gordonball.com

         - and -

      Sidney Gilreath, Esq.
      Cary L. Bauer, Esq.
      Matthew B. Long, Esq.
      GILREATH & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      550 Main Street, Suite 600
      P.O. Box 1270
      Knoxville, TN 37901
      Telephone: (865) 637-2442
      Facsimile: (865) 971-4416
      E-mail: gilknox@sidgilreath.com
              clbauer@sidgilreath.com
              mlong@sidgilreath.com

         - and -

      Thomas C. Jessee, Esq.
      412 East Unaka Avenue, P.O. Box 997
      Johnson City, TN 37605-0997
      Telephone: (423) 928-7176

         - and -

      John Mark Griffin, Esq.
      C. Mark Warren, Esq.
      GRIFFIN & WARREN, P.C.
      The Dome Building
      736 Georgia Avenue, 6th Floor
      Chattanooga, TN 37402
      Telephone: (423) 265-4878
      E-mail: johnmark@warrenandgriffin.com
              cmark@warrenandgriffin.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Erickson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason M. Erickson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00741-GAF (W.D. Mo., September 25, 2015) arises
out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-
called "defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
      Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
      Lauren E. McClain MO #65016
      HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C.
      221 West Lexington, Suite 400
      Independence, MO 64050
      Telephone: (816) 836-5050
      Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
      E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
              kds@hfmlegal.com
              lem@hfmlegal.com

         - and -

      L. Benjamin Mook, Esq.
      DAVIS GEORGE MOOK, LLC
      1600 Genessee, Suite 328
      Kansas City, MO 64102
      Telephone: (816) 896-2629
      E-mail: ben@dgmlawyers.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Firman" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Firman, Larry Buchan, Judy Buchan, Laura Firman, and Kiyo
Toma, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-07106-FLW-DEA
(D.N.J., September 25, 2015), arises out of Volkswagen's alleged
intentional installation of sophisticated software, known in the
automobile industry as a "defeat device," in approximately 500,000
vehicles in the United States and over eleven million vehicles
worldwide.

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:

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      Monica McNulty, Esq.
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              rs@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              mmnculty@kttlaw.com

         - and -

      Chip Merlin, Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      125 Half Mile Road, Suite 200
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 933-2700
      E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Mary Fortson, Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
      Tampa, FL
      Telephone: 813-229-1000
      E-mail: mfortson@merlinlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Phillip Sanov, Esq.
      MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Three Riverway, Suite 701
      Houston, TX
      Telephone: 713-626-8880
      E-mail: PSanov@merlinlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher B. Healy, Esq.
      Michael M. DiCicco, Esq.
      Lawrence E. Bathgate II, Esq.
      BATHGATE, WEGENER & WOLF, P.C.
      One Airport Road
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Telephone: (732) 363-0666 ext. 240
      Facsimile: (732) 363-6116
      E-mail: chealy@bathweg.com
              mdicicco@bathweg.com
              lbathgate@bathweg.com

         - and -

      Jack Scarola, Esq.
      Mary E. Pirotta, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com
              mep@Searcylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gurevich" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hava Gurevich, Scott and Robyn Zelenetz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-13389-LJM-MJH
(E.D. Mich., September 25, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel 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: tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew 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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hart" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles M. Hart, Jeanette Talese and Daniel R. Volkema,
individually on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
07121-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices",
which are software that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency
emissions standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Franklin P. Solomon, Esq.
      SOLOMON LAW FIRM, LLC
      801 Kings Highway North
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 910-4311
      Facsimile: (856) 823-1551
      E-mail: fsolomon@franklinsolomonlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
      James A. Barry, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
      801 N. Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 663-8200
      Facsimile: (856) 661-8400
      E-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com
              abell@lockslaw.com
              jbarry@lockslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hess" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason A. Hess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00254 (E.D. Tenn., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices",
which are software that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency
emissions standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1650
      Nashville, TN 37219-2423
      Telephone: (615) 313-9000
      Facsimile: (615) 313-9965
      E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
      Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
      Phong-Chau Nguyen, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com
              twalburg@lchb.com
              kbudner@lchb.com
              pgnguyen@lchb.com

         - and -

      Steven E. Fineman, Esq.
      David S. Stellings, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com
              dstellings@lchb.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hildebrant" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hildebrant, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05568 (E.D.N.Y., September 25, 2015) arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of defeat
device in at least the following diesel models of its vehicles:
Model Year 2009-15 VW Jettas, Beetles and Golfs, Model Year 2014-
15 VW Passats and Model Year 2009-15 Audi A3.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, sell, lease, and warrant
vehicles under the VW and Audi brand names throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Miles Greaves, Esq.
      Kevin S. Landau, Esq.
      Brett Cebulash, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 931-0704
      Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
      E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com
              klandau@tcllaw.com
              bcebulash@tcllaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Holton" Suit in Ark. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Holton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
00601-BSM (E.D. Ark., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices",
which are software that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency
emissions standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Austin H. Easley, Esq.
      B. Michael Basley, Esq.
      John I. Housel III, Esq.
      EASLEY AND HOUSEAL, PLLC
      510 East Cross St.
      Forrest City, AR 72235
      Telephone: (870) 330-0015
      E-mail: Austin@ehtraillawyers.com
              mike@ehtraillawyers.com
              John@ehtraillawyers.com

         - and -

      Timothy R. Holton, Esq.
      HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
      296 Washington Avenue
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901) 523-2222
      E-mail: tholton@holtonlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ivanoski" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Ivanoski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of American, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 5:15-cv-01063-HE (W.D. Okla., September
25, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional
installation of "defeat devices", which are software that
circumvent Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards for
certain air pollutants, in 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:

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

         - and -

      Daniel M. Delluomo, Esq.
      DELLUOMO & CROW
      2816 N.W. 57th Street, Suite 103
      Oklahoma City, OK 73112
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: Monty@Delluomo.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jeanice" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Byron Jeanice v. Volkswagen Group of American, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-04784 (E.D. La., September 25, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices",
which are software that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency
emissions standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Scott R. Bickford, T.A., Esq.
      Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
      Neil F. Nazareth, Esq.
      Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
      MARTZELL & BICKFORD, A.P.C.
      338 Lafayette Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 581-9065
      Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
      E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com
              ljc@mbfirm.com
              nfn@mbfirm.com
              jzl@mbfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jelkmann" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Jelkmann, Zoran Baisch, Mark Slaughter, and Samuel R. Gates,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07566 (C.D.
Cal., September 25, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged
intentional installation of "defeat devices", which are software
that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency emissions
standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Martis Ann Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: malex@labaton.com
              dleathers@labaton.com
              bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Thomas D. Haklar, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS D. HAKLAR
      2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 617
      San Diego, CA 92103


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McCann" Suit in D. Tenn. Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-00255 (E.D. Tenn., September 25,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional
installation of "defeat device" in several Audi and Volkswagen
models sold in the 2009 through 2015 model years and equipped with
the 2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel engine.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
      Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      The Freedom Center
      223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
      E-mail: jims@BSJFirm.com
              joeyl@BSJFirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Malig" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Malig, 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 100, inclusive,
and each of them, Case No. 8:15-cv-01554 (C.D. Cal., September 25,
2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional
installation of "defeat devices", which are software that
circumvent Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards for
certain air pollutants, in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John H. Donboli, Esq.
      Alex M. Outwater, Esq.
      JASON MALIGDEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
      12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-6244
      Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
      E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com
              aoutwater@delmarlawgroup.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Peterson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Peterson, Alex Puetz, Steven Owens, and Hana von Oiste, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
2:15-cv-07110-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 25, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      Mayra V. Tarantino, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenerberg@litedepalma.com
              mtarantino@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Chicago Office
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312)750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
              janderson@heinsmills.com
              imcfarland@heinsmills.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Proudlove" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Snow Proudlove, Richard Evans, Benjamin Luckett, Bradley Gregory,
Stephanie Nafus, Elizabeth Fisher, Gerry Nemet, and Donald Varley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
1:15-cv-01239-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 25, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blair G. Brown, Esq.
      Paul B. Hynes, Jr., Esq.
      Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036-5807
      Telephone: (202) 778-1800
      Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
      E-mail: bbrown@zuckerman.com
              phynes@zuckerkman.com
              ckravitz@zuckerman.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Shalov" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Shalov and Amanda Heidel v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01241-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 25, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' 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:

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Andrew N. Freidman, Esq.
      Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave. NW
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: stoll@cohemiiilstein.com
              afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
              dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561)515-1400
      Facsimile: (561)515-1401
      E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
      MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
      260 Madison Ave
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (646) 278-4298
      Facsimile: (212)448-0066
      E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstem.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Sims" Suit in Wash. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
April Sims, individually and as the representative of all persons
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Audi of
America, Inc., Audi AG, and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 3:15-cv-05692
(W.D. Wash., September 25, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Debra Brewer Hayes, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM, P.C.
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Scott P. Nealey, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT P. NEALEY
      71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400
      San Francisco, CA 94015
      Telephone: (415) 231-5311
      Facsimile: (415) 231-5313
      E-mail: snealey@nealeylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Smith" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew W. Smith and Bernadette Mayler, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Audi AG, and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 5:15-cv-04403
(N.D. Cal., September 25, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
      Nancy L. Fineman, Esq.
      Allison E. Cordova, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 692-3606
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              fpitre@cpmlegal.com
              nfineman@cpmlegal.com
              acordova@cpmlegal.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stolz" Suit in R.I. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary M. Stolz, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00407 (D.R.I., September 25, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices", which are
software that circumvent Environmental Protection Agency emissions
standards for certain air pollutants, in 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:

      Robert McConnell, Esq.
      Vincent L. Greene, IV, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Orent, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      321 South Main Street, 2nd Floor
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 457-7700
      Facsimile: (401) 457-7708
      E-mail: bmcconnell@motleyrice.com
              vgreene@motleyrice.com
              jorent@motleyrice.com

         - and -

      Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
      Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
      Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
      MOTLEY RICE LLC
      28 Bridgeside Boulevard
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 216-9000
      Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
      E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
              jflowers@motleyrice.com
              kdean@motleyrice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Studer" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Studer, Albert Kerelis, Donita Thompson, Paul Warme,
Charissa Warme, Julija Gelazis, Brian Moench, Shauna Moench, Dylan
Moench, Carol Kim, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07560-BRO-RAO (C.D. Cal., September 25, 2015) arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat
devices", which are software that circumvent Environmental
Protection Agency emissions standards for certain air pollutants,
in 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:

      Ronald W. Makarem, Esq.
      Jean-Paul Le Clerq, Esq.
      Ivan Moe, Esq.
      Randi Thompson, Esq.
      MAKAREM & ASSOCIATES, APLC
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2440
      Los Angeles, CA 90025-1760
      Telephone: (310) 312-0299
      Facsimile: (310) 312-0296
      E-mail: makarem@law-rm.com
              leclercq@law-rm.com
              moe@law-rm.com
              thompson@law-rm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Toebben" Suit in Mo. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grace Toebben and Donald Toebben, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04206-MJW (W.D. Mo., September 25, 2015)
arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of
"defeat devices", which are software that circumvent Environmental
Protection Agency emissions standards for certain air pollutants,
in 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:

      Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Esq.
      Matthew A. Clement, Esq.
      Kari A. Schulte, Esq.
      Joshua D. Moore, Esq.
      COOK VETTER DOERHOFF & LANDWER, PC
      231 Madison
      Jefferson City, MO 65101
      Telephone: (573) 635-7977
      Facsimile: (573) 635-7414
      E-mail: mclement@cvdl.net
              tvanronzelen@cvdl.net
              kschulte@cvdl.net
              jmoore@cvdl.net

         - and -

      Edward D. Robertson Jr., Esq.
      Mary D. Winter, Esq.
      BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GOZA
      715 Swifts Highway
      Jefferson City, MO 65109
      Telephone: (573) 659-4454
      Facsimile: (573) 659-4460
      E-mail: chiprob@earthlink.net
              marywinter@earthlink.net

         - and -

      Robert A. Horn, Esq.
      Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
      HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
      2600 Grand Blvd, Suite 1100
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 421-0700
      E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com
              jkronawitter@hab-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Yeoman" Suit in Utah Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Yeoman and Sean Myles, individually and on behalf of all
other individuals similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., Volkswagen Of America, Inc., and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00692-DBP (D. Utah, September 25,
2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional
installation of "defeat devices" in approximately 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles manufactured and sold and or leased
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:

      Mark S. Schwarz, Esq.
      PINPOINT LAW, PLLC
      75 E. 400 S., Ste. 201
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 413-3442
      Facsimile: (801) 610-2121
      E-mail: mark@pinpointlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Yousef" Suit in Ark. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Yousef and Geneva Yousey, on behalf of themselves and for all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 5:15-cv-05236-TLB (W.D. Ark., September
25, 2015) seeks to redress the pervasive pattern of fraudulent,
deceptive and otherwise improper advertising, sales and marketing
practices that the Defendants engaged in a scheme of deception by
use of defeat device that senses when air quality testing may be
in progress and by virtue of the computer coding the emission
equipment mask the actual emissions by turning off the actual the
actual harmful gases that result from the engine combustion.

The Defendants manufacture, distribute, sell, lease, and warrant
vehicles under the VW and Audi brand names throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marshall Dale Evans, Esq.
      THE EVANS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1986
      Fayetteville, AR 72702-1986
      E-mail: dale@evans-law-firm.com

         - and -

      E. Kent Hirsch, Esq.
      HIRSCH LAW FIRM, P.A
      107 W. Emma Avenue
      Springdale, AR 72764
      E-mail: kent@hirschlaw.com


WASTEWATER SPECIALTIES: Faces "Simon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jarvis Simon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wastewater Specialties, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00372-
MAC (E.D. Tex., September 25, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Wastewater Specialties, Inc. operates an industrial cleaning
services company located at 707 W. Front Avenue, Orange, Texas
77630.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YAPSTONE INC: Faces "Koles" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Koles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yapstone, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04429-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
September 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information
and bank account information  that the Defendant collected and
maintained, and for failure to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class members that their information had
been stolen and precisely what types of information were stolen.

Yapstone, Inc. is an American web-based and mobile platform
payment processing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
      Bradley K. King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
              bking@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
      James A. Barry, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
      801 North Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 663-8200
      Facsimile: (856) 661-8400
      E-mail: info@lockslaw.com


* Time Bar for Class Opt-Outs Continues to Divide Trial Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that it has has been
just about a year since the U.S. Supreme Court abruptly tossed In
re IndyMac, a case in which the justices were poised to resolve a
split between the 2nd and 10th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal on
time limits for securities fraud plaintiffs. The 10th Circuit had
said in Joseph v. Wiles in 2000 that under the U.S. Supreme
Court's 1974 holding in American Pipe v. Utah, the filing of a
class action stops the clock on both the statute of limitations
and the statute of repose for plaintiffs who later decide to sue
on their own. The 2nd Circuit disagreed in its 2013 IndyMac
ruling, which concluded that because the statute of repose gives
defendants a substantive right to be free from prospective
liability after the specified time period, it cannot be tolled.

IndyMac was supposed to be one of the first cases the Supreme
Court heard last term, but last September, most of the bank
defendants in the underlying mortgage-backed securities class
action reached a $340 million proposed settlement with investors.
Both sides subsequently assured the justices that the statute of
repose controversy remained alive in their litigation because not
every potential defendant had settled. The court nevertheless
dismissed the case.

It has become clear in the year since then, most recently in a
ruling in which U.S. District Judge Laura Swain of Manhattan
dismissed some opt-out securities fraud claims against AIG, that
lower courts are still divided about whether the filing of a class
action tolls the statute of repose. I don't know which case will
next present that question to the Supreme Court -- perhaps Judge
Swain's AIG decision or trial judges' contrary holdings in
securities litigation against BP and Merck -- but arguments for
certiorari have only grown stronger since the justices agreed to
hear IndyMac.

In the AIG opt-out litigation in New York, Judge Swain said the
2nd Circuit decided IndyMac properly so investors suing AIG on
their own can't evade the statute of repose by pointing to a
previously filed class action. Meanwhile, Santa Ana, California,
federal district judge David Carter ruled in June that another AIG
opt-out, Pimco, can return to state court in Orange County with
its securities fraud case against the company. AIG had removed the
Pimco suit to federal court and asked that it be transferred to
Judge Swain. Pimco countered with a remand motion. Judge Carter's
opinion suggested that if the case went to New York, it would be
dismissed under IndyMac precedent, a hypothesis borne out by Judge
Swain's ruling on Thursday. Carter's decision to send the case
back to state court instead should be clear evidence for some
future cert petition writer that nearly identical claims were
handled differently because of the federal jurisdictions in which
they were filed.

More evidence comes from a September 2014 ruling by U.S. District
Judge Keith Ellison of Houston in consolidated opt-out litigation
against BP and an August 2015 opinion from U.S. District Judge
Freda Wolfson of Trenton, New Jersey, in an opt-out case against
Merck. Neither the 5th nor 3rd Circuit has issued an opinion on
whether the filing of a class action stops the clock on the
statute of repose, so, without guidance from their own courts of
appeals or the Supreme Court, Ellison and Wolfson were left to
choose between the reasoning of the 2nd Circuit or the 10th.

Both rejected the 2nd Circuit's IndyMac analysis and refused to
dismiss the opt-out suits -- cases that would have died had they
been brought in New York, Connecticut or Vermont. "Viewing the
filing of a class action as a 'prefiling' of all unnamed class
members' claims means that the concern identified by the 2nd
Circuit in IndyMac-that applying American Pipe tolling somehow
abridges a defendant's substantive right to be free from suit
after a specific period of time-is illusory," wrote Judge Ellison,
in language quoted by Judge Wolfson. "So long as the defendant has
fair notice of the type and number of claims that could be
asserted against it, which should be required for American Pipe
tolling in the first instance, then there is no unfair surprise
when a class member assumes responsibility for its own individual
claim."

It will be a while before the Supreme Court has another chance to
take up the IndyMac question, since there hasn't been a federal
appellate decision on the issue since the 2nd Circuit's. But it's
a good bet you haven't heard the last word about class actions and
tolling of the statute of repose.


                            *********

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  * * *