CAR_Public/151008.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 201


                            Headlines


A10 NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Filed Consolidated Class Action
ADVANCED MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Product Information
AISAN INDUSTRY: Sued Over Fuel Injection Systems-Price Fixing
ALLERGAN PLC: Actos(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: AndroGel(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Class Action by Asacol(R) Purchasers Filed
ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Botox(R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending in State Courts
ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Doryx (R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Litigation

ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend v. Loestrin (R) 24 Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Direct Purchasers Dismissed Namenda(R) Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Answer to Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Class Action
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Celexa/Lexapro Case Granted in Part
ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Forest Labs Securities Suit Approved

ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Furiex Securities Litigation Approved
ALLERGAN PLC: Anda and Forest Defending TCPA Litigation
ALLIANCE BANCORP: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Boston Suit Over Air Ticker-Price Fixing
ASCENA RETAIL: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit

ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Been Set
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Appraisers Overtime
BARRAJA INC: "Mou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
BAYER CORPORATION: Faces Pill Box Pines Suit Over TCPA Violations
BLUE CROSS: Faces Graceland Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation

BLUE CROSS: Faces Wynnestone Suit Over Assets Misappropriation
BLYTH INC: Faces "Holyszko" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover
BLYTH INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover
BOUCHON BEVERLY HILLS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Alidad" Suit Over Inflated Prices

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Gould" Suit Challenges Altice Transaction
CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Nevada Case Extended
CAL-TEX PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CALABEES INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages

CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages
CHATHAM LODGING: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Class Action
CHICKEN AND BURGERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
EVENT INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Noriega" Suit Claims

EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES: "Normand" Suit Seeks Payment of OT
EXTRA SUPERMARKET: "Stevenson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Yet on Final Settlement Approval Motion
GARDA CL: Removed "Figuero" Class Suit to S.D. California
GEM FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dalton" Suit Claims

HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces "Dana" Action Over Alleged Child Labor
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
HYATT HOTELS: "Livi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settlement in S.D. Tex. Suit Has Final Okay
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Discovery in W.D.N.Y. Case in Initial Stages

IMAGE FIRST: "Campanelli" Suit Seeks Payment of OT and Wages
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Slated for December 5
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing
IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Shurnicki" Suit Over Recall Acquisition
JOHNSON'S LANDSCAPING: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

KFC CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Premium Wages
KIRBY RENTALS: "Echevarria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LMK BATON ROUGE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Unpaid Wage
MARS INC: "Hodsdon" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Rudd" Suit Over Data Breach

MOBILEIRON INC: Defending Against "Panjwani" Stockholder Action
MOHELA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abdolrasoul" Suit Claims
MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $63.3MM Other Current Liabilities
MYLAN N.V.: Trial Date Not Scheduled in Modafinil Antitrust Suit
MYLAN N.V.: Two Actos and Actoplus Met Cases Held in Abeyance

MYLAN N.V.: Defending Shareholder Class Actions
MYLAN N.V.: Product Liability Lawsuits Still Pending
NASHVILLE HOSPITAL: "Peavy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NESTLE USA: Faces "McCoy" Suit in Cal. Over Child and Slave Labor
QLOGIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

QUINN'S RENTAL: "Lindsey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Class Action
RUSTIC TABLE LLC: "Azar" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wages
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Inflates Securities Prices, "Thomas" Suit Says
SIENTRA INC: Inflates Price of Securities, "Flynn" Suit Says

SLING MEDIA: Faces "Mann" Suit Over Alleged "Bait and Switch"
STONE BRAZIL: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STUDENT AID CENTER: Faces "Tarkoff" Action Over TCPA Violations
TELEXELECTRIC LLP: Faces "Dos Santos" Suit Over Pyramid Schemes
TEREX CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Konecranes Merger

TOWNE PROPERTIES: Faces "Duggan" Suit Over ERISA Violations
TURTLE BEACH: Class Action Remains Stayed
UNITED PARCEL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Sims" Suit Over Data Theft
UNITED STATES: DOS Sued Over Unlawful Revised Visa Bulletin

VEREIT INC: Plaintiffs Filed Response to Motions to Dismiss
VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Wunsch" Complaint
VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend ARCT III Litigation
VEREIT INC: No Subsequent Activity in "Tarver" Action
VEREIT INC: Plaintiff in "Poling" Action Filed Notice of Appeal

VEREIT INC: Appeal Pending in Maryland Cole Merger Action
VEREIT INC: Suit by Realistic Partners Remains Pending
VISTA CLINICAL: Faces "Gear" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Emission Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dumont" Suit Over Emission Scandal

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Butler" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Heppard" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McMillen" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Montano" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Device
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Paoli" Suit in Mon. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pergament" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WAYNE L. HUDGENS: Sued Over Failure to Repair Defective Units
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Deferred Compensation
WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Advertises Meat Products, PETA Suit Says

WPX ENERGY: New Class Action Stayed Pending First Lawsuit
WPX ENERGY: Lawsuit by Royalty Interest Owners Remains Pending
YOUSSEF HACHEM: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Says


                            *********


A10 NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Filed Consolidated Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the In re A10 Networks,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2015, the Company, the members
of our Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 21, 2014 initial public offering were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System
v. A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-276207.  Several
substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. A10 Networks,
Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-278575 (filed March 25, 2015) and Kaveny v.
A10 Networks, Inc., et al., 1-15-CV-279006 (filed April 6, 2015).
On May 29, 2015, the aforementioned putative class actions were
consolidated under the caption In re A10 Networks, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, 1-15-CV-276207."

"On June 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint seeks to allege violations
of the federal Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative
class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the
initial public offering, and seek unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits."


ADVANCED MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Product Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Ha, derivatively and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:15-cv-04485-KAW (N.D. Cal., September 29, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to implement necessary policies
and protocols to ensure the accurate dissemination of material
information to its shareholders and the broader investment
community, concerning a Company product called Llano.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is a corporation that designs and
distributes technology for high-tech appliances such as personal
computers, tablets and game consoles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Kara M. Wolke, 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
              kwolke@glancylaw.com


AISAN INDUSTRY: Sued Over Fuel Injection Systems-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc., individually and
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aisan Industry Co.,
Ltd., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-13423-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
September 29, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged
conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices of Fuel Injection Systems sold in the United States and
elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

Aisan Industry Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation that
manufactures and sells automotive parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave, Ste. 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center
      P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112-9546
      Telephone: (207) 791-3000
      E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
              rweill@preti.com
              jmermin@preti.com
              msmith@preti.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.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
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jjagher@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      Carl E. Person, Esq.
      225 E. 36th Street - Suite 3A
      New York, N.Y. 10016-3664
      Telephone: (212) 307- 4444
      E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com

         - and -

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (877) 515-7955
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market St., Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Actos(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that class
actions are pending filed by purchasers of Actos(R).

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions, on behalf of
putative classes of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, were filed in
the federal court for the Southern District of New York against
Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010
patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd.
related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin
"Actos(R)") is unlawful.

Several additional complaints have also been filed. Plaintiffs
then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20, 2014. The
amended complaint generally alleges an overall scheme that
included Watson improperly delaying the launch of its generic
version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial payments from
Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer
protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief and unspecified damages. Defendants have moved to dismiss
the amended complaint.

In May 2015, two additional putative class action complaints, each
of which makes similar allegations against the Company and Takeda,
were filed by plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of direct
purchasers.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: AndroGel(R) Purchasers Class Actions Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that class
actions are pending filed by purchasers of AndroGel(R).

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in federal district court in
California alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit
settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of AndroGel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote AndroGel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties.

On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging
similar claims were filed in federal district court in California
by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain
classes of similarly situated claimants.

On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private
cases to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The FTC and the private plaintiffs filed
amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended
their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), conduct in
connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange
Book," and sham litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of AndroGel(R). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") transferred all federal court actions then
pending outside of Georgia to that district. The district court
then granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims except the
private plaintiffs' sham litigation claims. After the dismissal
was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the FTC
petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding
that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies
which include a payment from the brand company to the generic
competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of
review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court AndroGel
Decision"). The case in now back in the district court in Georgia
August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which the Company answered on September 15, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Class Action by Asacol(R) Purchasers Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two
class action complaints were filed on June 22, 2015, in federal
court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect
purchasers.  In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid
higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and Delzicol(R)
products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged actions
preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for
Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Botox(R) Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on
February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal
court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market
allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright Act,
Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and
violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200
et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on May 29, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these
actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending in State Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Cipro(R) Litigation remain pending in various state courts,
including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group,
Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws. The actions generally allege that the defendants
engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with
alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of
Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

While many of these actions have been dismissed, actions remain
pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas,
Tennessee, and Florida.

There has been activity in Tennessee and Florida since 2003.

In the action pending in Kansas, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification has been fully briefed.

In the action pending in the California state court, following the
decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade
Commission v. Actavis matter involving AndroGel(R), Plaintiffs and
Bayer announced that they reached an agreement to settle the
claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from
the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the
generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby. The remaining
parties submitted letter briefs to the court regarding the impact
of the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision and on May 7, 2015, the
California Supreme Court issued a ruling, consistent with the
Supreme Court AndroGel Decision, that the settlements between
brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the
brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a
"rule of reason" standard of review.


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Doryx (R) Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend the Doryx (R) Litigation.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that
Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic
competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's
prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law.
In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against
by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers
filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their
individual capacities against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding
Doryx(R).

In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege
that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R)
products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without
prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott
and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual
retailer plaintiffs.

Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on
March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order
granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment,
denying Mylan's summary judgment motion and entering judgment in
favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is
appealing the district court's decision to the Third Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar
suits will be filed.


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend against Lidoderm(R) Litigation.

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement
with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine
transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint,
asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser
plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for
substantial payments from Endo in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations have followed
on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchasers and suits
have been filed on behalf of putative classes of end-payer
plaintiffs. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits
based on the same or similar allegations may be filed.

On April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in federal
district court in California. Defendants filed motions to dismiss
each of the plaintiff classes' claims. On November 17, 2014, the
court issued an order granting the motion in part but denying it
with respect to the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on
December 19, 2014. Defendants have responded to the amended
consolidated complaint.

On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers filed a civil
antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding
Lidoderm(R) in the same court where it was consolidated with the
direct and indirect purchaser class complaints. The retailer
complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims
for relief to those asserted in the related cases.  The five
retailers amended their complaint on July 27, 2015.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Continues to Defend v. Loestrin (R) 24 Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend against Loestrin (R) 24 Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In
addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of a class of direct payors.

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations.

After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order
transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court
for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
plaintiffs are appealing the district court's decision to the
First Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Direct Purchasers Dismissed Namenda(R) Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
putative class of direct purchasers voluntarily has dismissed its
complaint related to Namenda(R).

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise
limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until
the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November
2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion.

On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting
the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December
15, 2014. On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015,
Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en
banc. Forest's petition remains pending.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers.  The class action complaints make claims similar to
those asserted by the New York Attorney General and also include
claims that Namenda(R) XR patent litigation settlements between
Forest and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

On June 12, 2015, the putative class of direct purchasers
voluntarily dismissed its compliant without prejudice.  The
Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities
vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Filed Answer to Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Allergan has filed an answer to the class action complaint related
to Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R).

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%
and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related
patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  The court dismissed
Allergan's motion on May 2, 2015.  Thereafter, Allergan filed an
answer to the complaint on June 1, 2015.


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Celexa/Lexapro Case Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
court has issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in
part and denying it in part, in a class action lawsuit related to
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R).

Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three
federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in
the federal district court Massachusetts (the
"Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were
originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of
which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that
Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label
pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce
prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert
various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer
protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the
various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri,
Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the
Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an
agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class
claims, including claims by both individuals and third party
payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor
from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential
to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs
meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted
final approval for the settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed
in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who
purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that our
promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been
deceptive.

On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this
complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20,
2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint,
ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November
13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota
seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor
entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric
use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest
engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December
12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims
under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in
Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a
nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state
common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court
granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December
12, 2014 ruling.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in
off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.
On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in
two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court.
These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in
the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One
action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The other action, filed
on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf
of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached
agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to
resolve each matter for payments that are not material to the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.


ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Forest Labs Securities Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
court has approved the settlement agreement in the Forest
Laboratories Securities Litigation.

In February and March 2014, several putative stockholder class
actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis
plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in New York State Supreme
Court. The amended complaints in these actions seek, among other
remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or
damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints
generally allege, among other things, that the members of the
Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails
to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction.
The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its
affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches.

On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs to settle both actions. The parties entered into a
definitive stipulation of settlement on February 6, 2015 and on
June 25, 2015, the court approved the settlement agreement.


ALLERGAN PLC: Settlement in Furiex Securities Litigation Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
court has approved the settlement agreement in the Furiex
Securities Litigation.

In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought
against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and
Furiex's board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery and
in North Carolina state court. These actions alleged, among other
things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. These actions
also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these alleged breaches.
These actions sought class certification, to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Furiex, and an award of unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs. Two of the
actions also sought rescission of the acquisition and unspecified
rescissory damages if the acquisition was completed.

On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs regarding a settlement of all actions, and on
January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement which is subject to court approval. On July 1, 2015,
the court approved the settlement agreement.


ALLERGAN PLC: Anda and Forest Defending TCPA Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Anda
and Forest are defending a Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Litigation.

A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, in Missouri state court alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated
the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action
claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated
third parties.

On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification
hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed.

On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in
Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax
numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes
advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent."
On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted.

In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal
court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another
defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed
class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the
filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability of any property,
goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not
display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation
promulgated by the FCC.

On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to
stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by
the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed.

In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with
the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its
regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express
permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012,
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed
the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for
review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission,
requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief
sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the
application for review.

On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at
issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the
FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC
regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA.

On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking
comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to
the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a
final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several
other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice
requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The
litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014
Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the
appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order
addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent
portion of the regulation.

Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses
to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend
to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ALLIANCE BANCORP: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
defendants in a class action lawsuit have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs.

On March 2, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement") with WSFS Financial
Corporation ("WSFS") providing for, among other things, the merger
of the Company with and into WSFS (the "Merger") and the merger of
the Bank with and into Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, a
federal savings bank and wholly owned subsidiary of WSFS. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, each stockholder of the Company
will be able to elect to receive, for each share of common stock
of the Company, either 0.28955 shares of WSFS common stock or
$22.00 in cash, subject to adjustment on a pro rata basis so that
approximately 30% of the aggregate consideration paid to
shareholders of the Company will be paid in cash and the remaining
70% will be paid in WSFS stock. The Merger is subject to customary
closing conditions, including regulatory approvals and approval
from the shareholders of the Company

Three purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints
relating to the Merger have been filed. The actions were filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The
complaints name as defendants the Company, its directors and
certain of its officers, and WSFS (the "defendants").

The complaints in the Merger litigation allege that the members of
the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's shareholders by approving the Merger for
inadequate consideration, approving the transaction in order to
obtain benefits for Company's directors and officers that are not
equally shared by other Company's shareholders, entering into the
Merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices,
and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the
Company's shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against
WSFS for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The plaintiffs in this action seeks, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages in
the event the Merger is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other and further relief.

On June 11, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Alliance Bancorp, WSFS and
the other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(the "MOU") with the plaintiffs ( the "Plaintiffs") regarding the
settlement of the lawsuits. Pursuant to the MOU, Alliance Bancorp
and WSFS have agreed to file with the SEC and make publicly
available to shareholders of Alliance Bancorp the supplemental
disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K, and the Plaintiffs
have agreed to release Alliance Bancorp, WSFS and the other
defendants from all claims related to the Merger Agreement and the
proposed Merger, subject to approval of the Court.

If the Court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOU, the
lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that
were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the
proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith will be released and barred. Under the terms
of the MOU, counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed
to negotiate in good faith in an effort to agree upon the award of
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Alliance
Bancorp, its successor in interest and/or its insurer. In the
event no agreement is reached among Plaintiffs and Defendants with
respect to the award of attorneys' fees and expenses, then
Plaintiffs have reserved the right to apply to the court for
payment of their attorneys' fees and expenses. The amount of any
fees and expense awarded will ultimately be determined and
approved by the Court, and will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid by WSFS.

In the MOU, the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to
prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court and
other documentation as may be required to effectuate the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately
will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the Court does not approve the settlement.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Boston Suit Over Air Ticker-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Amateur Basketball Club, III, Ltd, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc.,
American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04459 (N.D. Cal., September 28,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Whitney E. Street, Esq.
      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      520 Third Street, Suite 108
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (415) 968-8999
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
              lweaver@blockes.com

         - and -

      Erica G. Langsen, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: elangsen@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      Facsimile: (212) 564-1656
      E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
              RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
              DMinerva@Forthepeople.com


ASCENA RETAIL: Defendants Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. filed on August 6, 2015, a Current
Report on Form 8-K pursuant to a memorandum of understanding
regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of
May 17, 2015, by and among ANN INC., a Delaware corporation
("ANN"), Ascena Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Ascena"), and Avian Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ascena ("Merger Sub"). The Merger
Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge with and into
ANN, with ANN continuing as the surviving corporation (the
"Merger").

As previously disclosed on page 75 of the Definitive Proxy
Statement/Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") by Ascena on July 20, 2015 (the "Definitive
Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), ANN, its board of directors, Ascena
and Merger Sub are named as defendants in a putative class action
in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the Merger. The suit
was filed on May 27, 2015 and is captioned Vladimir Gusinsky
Living Trust v. ANN, Inc., C.A. No. 11067-CB (the "Action"). The
complaint alleges, among other things, that ANN's board of
directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell ANN
through an unfair process and by failing to maximize the value of
ANN. The complaint also alleges that ANN, Merger Sub and Ascena
have aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. On July
2, 2015, the plaintiff amended its complaint to include
allegations that ANN's preliminary proxy statement, filed as part
of Ascena's registration statement, was materially misleading and
incomplete.

On August 6, 2015, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiff providing for the
settlement of the Action. While ANN and Ascena believe that no
supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in
order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, ANN
and Ascena have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which are set forth below. The MOU contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to ANN's stockholders.
In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Delaware
Court of Chancery will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved
by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by
stockholders of ANN challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger,
the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection
therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with
the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel
will file a petition in the Delaware Court of Chancery for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by ANN or its
successor. The settlement is also contingent upon, among other
things, the Merger becoming effective under Delaware law. There
can be no assurance that the Delaware Court of Chancery will
approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. In the event that
the settlement is not approved and such conditions are not
satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend
against the allegations in the Action.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Been Set
-----------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing for the
appeal in a class action lawsuit has not been set.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of our directors and officers and the underwriters of our
November 2012 initial public offering. The complaint alleges that
all defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2), and that we and
certain of our directors and officers violated Section 15, of the
Securities Act by making material false and misleading statements
and omissions in the offering's registration statement, and that
we and certain of our directors and officers violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
in the registration statement and in certain of our subsequent
press releases and SEC filings with respect to our NAF specimen
collection process, our ForeCYTE Aspirator Breast Health Test and
our MASCT device. This action seeks, on behalf of persons who
purchased our common stock between November 8, 2012 and October 4,
2013, inclusive, damages of an unspecific amount."

"On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6,
2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims
against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the
Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their opening appellate brief. Defendants filed an answering brief
on April 13, 2015. On May 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a reply brief
in support of their appeal. A hearing for the appeal has not been
set."


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Appraisers Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard W. Harris, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America Corp., Landsafe, Inc.,
Landsafe Appraisal Services, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07683 (S.D.N.Y., September 29, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants to pay overtime wages to their Staff
Appraisers in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a financial company that does business
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com

         - and -

      Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
      Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 277-7235
      Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
      E-mail: helland@nka.com
              dbrome@nka.com


BARRAJA INC: "Mou" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Ching Lam Mou, Zenon Xochmitl, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Barraja Inc.
Thalia Restaurant, Avi Camchi, Helan Kehati, Sam Erlich, John Doe
and Jane Doe # 1-10 Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07567 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 24, 2015), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wage Payment Act.

This action arises from the Defendants' various willful and
unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or practices of failing
to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs, overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Defendant, Barraja Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Manhattan located at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

Defendant Avi Camchi is an owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Barraja Inc. at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New
York 10019 and participated in the day-to-day operations of Thalia
Restaurant.

Defendant Helan Kehati is an owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Barraja Inc. at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New
York 10019 and participated in the day-to-day operations of Thalia
Restaurant.

Defendant Sam Erlich is an owner, officer, director and/or
managing agent of Barraja Inc. at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New
York 10019 and participated in the day-to-day operations of Thalia
Restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Jian Hang, Esq.
136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Tel: 718-353-8588
Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


BAYER CORPORATION: Faces Pill Box Pines Suit Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pill Box Pines West, LLC, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Bayer
Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-
62042 (S.D. Fla., September 25, 2015), seeks to recover damages
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the Complaint, Defendants allegedly sent fax
advertisements to Plaintiff in an attempt to market and sell its
diabetic blood glucose monitoring equipment without the latter's
consent.  These wrongful acts have caused the Plaintiff to lose
valuable time and material resources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Faces Graceland Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Graceland Fruit, Inc. and Graceland Fruit, Inc. Welfare Benefit
Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-
13438-NGE-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 29, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged misappropriation of self-insured employee
benefit Plan assets in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Faces Wynnestone Suit Over Assets Misappropriation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wynnestone Communities Corporation f/k/a Amurcon Corporation and
Amurcon Corporation Benefit Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-13405-RHC-RSW (E.D. Mich., September
28, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged misappropriation
of self-insured employee benefit Plan assets in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLYTH INC: Faces "Holyszko" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Holyszko and Russell Wittkopp, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Blyth, Inc., Case No. 11553 (Del.
Ch., September 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Blyth, Inc. against Blyth's Board of Directors, to
enjoin a proposed transaction announced on August 31, 2015,
pursuant to which Blyth will be acquired by The Carlyle Group LP
and its affiliates for grossly inadequate consideration.

Blyth, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that markets and
manufactures candles, home fragrances, and home decor products.

The Carlyle Group LP is a global alternative asset manager that
provides investment advice to funds and other vehicles across a
range of industries, geographies, asset classes, and investment
strategies.

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 -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      E-mail: fqian@wolfpopper.com
              cstine@wolfpopper.com
              szaroogian@wolfpopper.com

         - and -

      Ann D. White, Esq.
      ANN D. WHITE LAW OFFICES, PC
      101 Greenwood Ave, Fifth Floor
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Telephone: (215) 690-3858
      E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com


BLYTH INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Proposed Carlyle Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blyth, Inc., et al., Case No. 11547 (Del. Ch.,
September 25, 2015) is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Blyth, Inc. against Blyth's Board of Directors, to
enjoin a proposed transaction announced on August 31, 2015,
pursuant to which Blyth will be acquired by The Carlyle Group LP
and its affiliates for grossly inadequate consideration.

Blyth, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that markets and
manufactures candles, home fragrances, and home decor products.

The Carlyle Group LP is a global alternative asset manager that
provides investment advice to funds and other vehicles across a
range of industries, geographies, asset classes, and investment
strategies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


BOUCHON BEVERLY HILLS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Gonzalez, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bouchon Beverly Hills, LLC, Bouchon
Beverly Hills, LP, Bouchon, LLC, Bouchon, LP, and DOES 1 through
SO, Defendants, Case No. 595877 (Cal., September, 23, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Orders.

This action arises out of the Defendants' alleged failures to
provide all rest periods or pay premium wages for workdays with
proper rest periods, provide all meal periods or pay premium wages
for workdays with one or more unprovided meal periods, provide
accurate written wage statements, timely pay final wages upon
termination of employment, and fairly compete.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David Spivak, Esq.
Patrick White HI, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Ste 303
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone (310) 499-4730
Facsimile (310)499-4739
Email: david@spivaklaw.com
       patrick@spivaklaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Alidad" Suit Over Inflated Prices
----------------------------------------------------
Nay Alidad, Galyna Andrusyshyn, Robert Benjamin, Barbara Buenning,
Danielle Greenberg, Sheryl Haley, Lisa Hall, Tya Hughes, Marissa
Jacobus, Gabrielle Kurdt, Erica Pruess, Seth Salenger, And Harold
Stafford, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Starkist Company,
Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, And King Oscar, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-02173-WQH-BLM (S.D. Cal., September 29, 2015), seeks to
secure equitable and injunctive relief under the Sherman Antitrust
Act and the Clayton Act.

This antitrust action arises out of an alleged conspiracy among
the Defendants who are the three largest producers of packaged
seafood products in the United States to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices for packaged seafood products within the
United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia.

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

Defendant StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its
headquarters at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania 15212. StarKist produces and sells packaged seafood
products throughout the United States (including this District),
its territories, and the District of Columbia. StarKist is
privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, based in South Korea.

Defendant Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with
its principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road,
Suite 500, San Diego, California 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC
produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United
States, its territories, and the District of Columbia, and markets
these products under the brand name Chicken of the Sea.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: "Gould" Suit Challenges Altice Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
James R. Gould, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, Charles
F. Dolan, James L. Dolan, Brian G. Sweeney, Kristin A. Dolan,
Patrick F. Dolan, Thomas C. Dolan, Deborah Dolansweeney, Marianne
Dolan Weber, Paul J. Dolan, Rand V. Araskog, Edward C. Atwood,
Frank J. Biondi, Joseph J. Lhota, Thomas V. Reifenheiser, John R.
Ryan, Steven J. Simmons, Vincent Tese, Leonard Tow, Neptune Merger
Sub Corp., and Altice N.V., Defendants, Case No. 11541 (Del. Ch.,
September 24, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from consummating
a proposed merger transaction between Cablevision and Altice.  The
Complaint argues that the deal is a product of a flawed process
that is designed to ensure the sale of Cablevision to Altice on
terms preferential to Altice, but detrimental to Plaintiff and to
other public stockholders of Cablevision.

A Wall Street Journal report said Altice confirmed it would buy
Cablevision for about $10 billion.  The report said Altice will
pay $34.90 a share for Cablevision. Including Cablevision's debt
the deal has an enterprise value of $17.7 billion.  The deal will
create the number four cable operator in the U.S. market, that
report noted.

Bloomberg News said the Altice's offer is a 22% premium over
Cablevision's closing price of $28.54 on Sept. 16.

Defendant Altice is a public company with limited liability under
Dutch law. Altice, through its subsidiaries, operates as a cable,
fiber, telecommunications, contents, and media company primarily
in Western Europe, Israel, and internationally.

Defendant Charles F. Dolan has served as a director of the Company
since 1985, and as Chairman of the Board since 1985.

Defendant J. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since
1991 and as CEO of the Company since October 1995.

Defendant B. Sweeney has served as a director of the Company since
2005, and as President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") of the
Company since March 2015.

Defendant K. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since
2010, and as Chief Operating Officer of the Company since April
2014.

Defendant P. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since
1991 and President of News 12 Networks of the Company since
February 2002.

Defendant T. Dolan has served as a director of the Company since
2007 and as Executive Vice President-Strategy and Development,
Office of the Chairman since September 2008.

Defendant Dolan-Sweeney has served as a director of the Company
since 2008, director of Dolan Family Foundation since 1986, and
director of Dolan Children's Foundation since 1997.

Defendant Weber has served as a director of the Company since
2005.

Defendant Paul Dolan has served as director of the Company since
2015.

Defendant Rand V. Araskog has served as a director of the Company
since 2005.

Defendant Atwood has served as a director of the Company since May
2011.

Defendant Frank J. Biondi has served as a director of the Company
since 2005.

Defendant Joseph J. Lhota has served as a director of the Company
since 2014.

Defendant Thomas V. Reifenheiser has served as a director of the
Company since 2002.

Defendant Vice Admiral John R. Ryan USN (Ret.) has served as a
director of the Company since 2002, and as President and CEO of
the Center for Creative Leadership in Greensboro, North Carolina
since June 2007.

Defendant Steven J. Simmons has served as a director of the
Company since 2014, and as Chairman and CEO of Simmons Patriot
Media & Communications, LLC, a management firm specializing in
media and communications, since 2002.

Defendant Vincent Tese has served as a director of the Company
since 1996.

Defendant Dr. Leonard Tow has served as a director of the Company
since 2005, and CEO of New Century Holdings LLC, an outdoor
advertising company, since January 2005.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-5310


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Deadline to Respond to Nevada Case Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the deadline to
respond to the Nevada class action lawsuit related to the so-
called CAC-CEC Proposed Merger has been indefinitely extended by
agreement of the parties.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing
their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties
proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts
exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their
fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed
Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and
(c) act independently to protect the interests of the
shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all
damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the
putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to
award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It is
unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is
without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline
to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by
agreement of the parties.


CAL-TEX PROTECTIVE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenifer Anderson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Cal-Tex Protective Coatings Inc. and Robert Pruitt,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00846 (W.D. Tex., September 28, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Cal-Tex Protective Coatings Inc. develops, manufactures, and
distributes chemical products for the automotive aftermarket
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      GLENN D. LEVY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      906 West Basse Road, Suite 100
      San Antonio, Texas 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650


CALABEES INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Rodriguez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Ysabel Rodriguez II, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Calabees, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC596053 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages
and overtime compensation in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Calabees, Inc. owns and operates a bar and restaurant in the
County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Dalia R. Khalili, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cardinal Logistics Management
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 4:15-cv-04424 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code and
the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all drivers who were assigned to
a Cardinal operating terminal in California and were residents of
the State of California.

Defendant, Barraja Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Manhattan located at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

Defendant Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a North
Carolina corporation that runs several California terminals
including terminals in Stockton, Ontario, Lathrop and Sacramento.

DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in
this Complaint were, licensed to do business and/or actually doing
business in the State of California. Does 1 to 10 are sued under
fictitious names for Plaintiffs are not certain of the true names
and capacities of the same. However, DOES 1 to 5 are believed to
be business entities who were also co-employers of Plaintiff and
the members of the putative class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
       chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
       ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com

     - and -

James A. Clark, Esq., Esq.
TOWER LEGAL GROUP, PC
1510 J Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 361-6009
Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: "Silva" Suit Seeks to Claim Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cardinal Logistics Management
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 4:15-cv-04424 (N.D. Cal., September 25, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages under the California Labor Code and
the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all drivers who were assigned to
a Cardinal operating terminal in California and were residents of
the State of California.

Defendant, Barraja Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Manhattan located at 828 8th Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

Defendant Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation is a North
Carolina corporation that runs several California terminals
including terminals in Stockton, Ontario, Lathrop and Sacramento.

DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in
this Complaint were, licensed to do business and/or actually doing
business in the State of California. Does 1 to 10 are sued under
fictitious names for Plaintiffs are not certain of the true names
and capacities of the same. However, DOES 1 to 5 are believed to
be business entities who were also co-employers of Plaintiff and
the members of the putative class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Telephone: (818) 991-8080
Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
       chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
       ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com

     - and -

James A. Clark, Esq., Esq.
TOWER LEGAL GROUP, PC
1510 J Street, Suite 125
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 361-6009
Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com


CHATHAM LODGING: Affiliate Defending "Martinez" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that an affiliate of the
Company is currently a defendant, along with Island Hospitality
Management Inc. ("IHM"), in a class action lawsuit pending in the
San Diego County Superior Court.  The class actions were filed on
April 25, 2012 and February 27, 2013, and were subsequently
consolidated on November 8, 2013 under the title Martinez et al v.
Island Hospitality Management, Inc., et al. Case No. 37-2012-
00096221-CU-OE-CTL.

The class action relates to fifteen hotels operated by IHM in the
state of CA and owned by affiliates of the Company, NewINK JV,
Innkeepers JV, and/or certain third parties.  Both complaints in
the now consolidated lawsuit allege various wage and hour law
violations including unpaid off-the-clock work, failure to provide
meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks.  The plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and interest.

"We are defending the case vigorously. As of June 30, 2015, we
have included $642,000 in accounts payable and other expenses,
which represents an estimate of our exposure to the litigation and
is also estimated as the maximum possible loss that the Company
may incur," the Company said.


CHICKEN AND BURGERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Gonzalez v. Chicken and Burgers Los Angeles, LLC, Demetrios
Pantazis, d/b/a Dino's Chicken and Burgers, Dino's #2, and Does 1-
50, inclusive, Case No. BC595750 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 25,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate Dino's Chicken and Burgers
restaurant located at 2575 Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, California
90006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ricardo Y. Merluza, Esq.
      BERMEO & MERLUZA, LLP
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2745
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 380-9888
      Facsimile: (213) 380-5397
      E-mail: ricardo@bermeomerluza.com


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------
Araceli Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. 115-cv-286201 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2015) seeks to
recover penalties for failing to properly itemize wage statements.

Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that operates
retail discount stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Kimberly D. Neilson, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com
              kneilson@ckslaw.com

         - and -

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


EVENT INC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Noriega" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deyanira Noriega and Paola Enriquez Hermosillo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Event, Inc. and Does
1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG15783377 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
August 26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Event, Inc. offers catering, event planning and design, and food
services throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael H. Kim, Esq.
      Melanie Massey, Esq.
      MICHAEL H. KIM, P.C.
      475 El Camino Real, Suite 30
      Millbrae, CA 94030
      Telephone: (650) 697-8899
      Facsimile: (650) 697-8896
      E-mail: michaelkimapc@gmail.com


EXPRESS ENERGY SERVICES: "Normand" Suit Seeks Payment of OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Normand on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Express Energy Services GP,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-62042 (D.N.M., September 24, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime pays under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and under the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

According to the Complaint, Defendant Express Energy Services GP,
LLC required Plaintiff Brandon Normand to work more than 40 hours
in a workweek without overtime compensation. Defendant
misclassified Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers
throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the corresponding laws of the other
states where Defendant operates. Defendant has misclassified
hundreds of other workers as exempt from overtime.

Defendant Express Energy Services GP, LLC is a foreign limited
liability company organized under the laws of Texas. Further, it
is a well construction and well testing company active in all
major hydrocarbon basins in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
4620C Jefferson Lane NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Tel: (505) 830-0405
Email: dan@danielfaber.com

     - and -

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


EXTRA SUPERMARKET: "Stevenson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Stevenson v. Extra Supermarket Group, Inc., Carlos J.
Ekmeiro, Jorge Negrin, and Paul R. Melean, Case No. 32518264 (11th
Ct. Fla., September 25, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keri Lynda Horvat, Esq.
      TRUJILLO VARGAS ORTIZ & GONZALEZ,LLLP
      815 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 3rd Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 631-2528
      Facsimile: (305) 631-2741
      E-mail: LHorvat@tmjillovargas.com


FTD COMPANIES: No Hearing Yet on Final Settlement Approval Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the district court has
not yet set the hearing date for the pending final settlement
approval motion in the consumer class action lawsuits.

Commencing on August 19, 2009, the first of a series of consumer
class action lawsuits was brought against Provide Commerce, Inc.
and co-defendant Regent Group, Inc. d/b/a Encore Marketing
International ("EMI"). These cases were ultimately consolidated
during the next three years into Case No. 09 CV 2094 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
under the title In re EasySaver Rewards Litigation. Plaintiffs'
claims arise from their online enrollment in subscription based
membership programs known as EasySaver Rewards, RedEnvelope
Rewards, and Preferred Buyers Pass (collectively the "Membership
Programs"). Plaintiffs claim that after they ordered items from
certain of Provide Commerce's websites, they were presented with
an offer to enroll in one of the Membership Programs, each of
which is offered and administered by EMI. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a putative nationwide class of consumers allegedly
damaged by Provide Commerce's purported unauthorized or otherwise
allegedly improper transferring of the putative class members'
billing information to EMI, who then posted allegedly unauthorized
charges to their credit or debit card accounts for membership fees
for the Membership Programs.

On February 22, 2010, Provide Commerce and EMI respectively filed
motions to dismiss. On August 13, 2010, the court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the motions. Between August
13, 2010, and December 2011, plaintiffs filed various amended
complaints and added or dismissed certain named plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed the fourth amended complaint on December 14,
2011. The fourth amended complaint is the operative complaint.
Plaintiffs assert ten claims against Provide Commerce and EMI in
the fourth amended complaint: (1) breach of contract (against
Provide Commerce only); (2) breach of contract (against EMI only);
(3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)
fraud; (5) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act; (6) unjust enrichment; (7) violation of the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act (against EMI only); (8) invasion of privacy; (9)
negligence; and (10) violations of the Unfair Competition Law.
Plaintiffs assert their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs sought damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

Provide Commerce and EMI filed motions to dismiss the claims of
plaintiffs Lawler, Walters, Cox, and Dickey on January 24, 2012.
The motions to dismiss were fully briefed as of February 23, 2012,
but the court had not yet conducted a hearing or ruled on the
motions.

The parties participated in numerous settlement conferences and
mediations throughout the case in an effort to resolve this
matter. On April 9, 2012, the parties reached an agreement on the
high level terms of a settlement, conditioned on the parties
negotiating and executing a complete written agreement. In the
weeks following April 9, 2012, the parties negotiated a formal
written settlement agreement ("Settlement"). Upon reaching the
Settlement, the hearing on the motions to dismiss was vacated, and
Provide Commerce and EMI have not answered the fourth amended
complaint in light of the Settlement. The court granted the
plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the
Settlement on June 13, 2012. After notice to the class and
briefing by the parties, the court conducted a final approval
hearing (also known as a fairness hearing) on January 28, 2013,
and took the matter under submission at the conclusion of the
hearing.

On February 4, 2013, the court entered its final order approving
class action settlement, granting plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and incentive awards, and overruling
objections filed by a single objector to the Settlement. The court
entered judgment on the settlement on February 21, 2013. The
objector filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on March 4, 2013.

After the completion of briefing, the Ninth Circuit set oral
argument on the appeal for February 2, 2015. But on January 29,
2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order deferring argument and
resolution of the appeal pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a
matter captioned Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+. The Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion in Frank v. Netflix, No. 12 15705+ on
February 27, 2015, affirming the district court's approval of a
settlement between Walmart and a class of Netflix DVD subscribers.

On March 19, 2015, the Ninth Circuit entered an order vacating the
judgment in this matter and remanding it to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with Frank v. Netflix. The Ninth
Circuit's mandate issued on April 14, 2015, and the matter is now
pending before the district court to consider final approval of
the Settlement in light of Frank v. Netflix.

On April 23, 2015, the district court entered an order reopening
the case and ordering the parties to jointly submit a memorandum
summarizing the import of the Frank v. Netflix decision and
stating their intentions going forward. On May 4, 2015, such
memorandum was filed by the parties and the objector also filed
his own memorandum regarding these same topics on such date.

After receiving the parties and objector's memoranda, the district
court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of final
settlement approval on May 21, 2015. The parties filed their
respective opening supplemental briefs on June 18, 2015, the
objector filed his opposition supplemental brief on July 2, 2015,
and the parties filed their respective reply supplemental briefs
on July 16, 2015. The district court has not yet set the hearing
date for the pending final settlement approval motion.


GARDA CL: Removed "Figuero" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Robert Figuero v. Garda CL
Southeast, Inc., Case No. 1:13-CV-23173-DPG, was removed from the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, County Court of Martin
County, Small Claims Court to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-14337-RLR to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N. Orange Ave., Ste. 1600
      Orlando, Florida 32801
      Telephone- (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: BMazaheri@forthepeople.com
              CThomas@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jessica T. Travers, Esq.
      Scott Forman, Esq.
      Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
      333 S.E. 2nd Avenue
      Wells Fargo Center, Suite 2700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 400-7500
      Facsimile: (305) 603-2552
      E-mail: jtravers@littler.com
              sforman@littler.com
              nandrews@littler.com


GEM FINANCIAL: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Dalton" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Dalton, Yovani Broadus, and Diori Johnson, individually and
on behalf all others similarly situated v. Gem Financial Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05636-BMC (E.D.N.Y., October 1,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime premium compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a given workweek.

Gem Financial Services, Inc. is engaged in the retail sale of used
merchandise, antiques, and secondhand goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George Vallas, Esq.
      Robert Ottinger, Esq.
      Ariel Y. Graff, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      401 Park Avenue South
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 571-2000
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
      E-mail: george@ottingerlaw.com
              robert@ottingerlaw.com
              ari@ottingerlaw.com


HERSHEY COMPANY: Faces "Dana" Action Over Alleged Child Labor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Dana, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Hershey Company, and Hershey Chocolate
& Confectionery Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-04453-JCS (N.D.
Cal., September 28, 2015), seeks for restitution and injunctive
relief under the Unfair Competition Law and the California's
Business & Professions Code.

This class action suit arises from the alleged failure of
Defendants to disclose the use of child and slave labor in their
supply chains to consumers, thereby deceiving the latter into
buying products they would not have otherwise and thereby
unwittingly supporting child and slave labor themselves through
their product purchases.

Defendant The Hershey Company is a global chocolate food products
company. The Hershey Company is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business in Hershey, Pennsylvania.

Defendant Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation is a
subsidiary of The Hershey Company. The Hershey Chocolate &
Confectionary Corporation is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business in Robinson, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Ashley A. Bede, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
       ashleyb@hbsslaw.com

     - and -

Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com
       christopherp@hbsslaw.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
P. Brian Peletta v. Hewlett-Packard Company and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-284872 (Cal. Super. Ct., August
26, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Hewlett-Packard Company owns and operates an information
Technology Company with its principal place of business in the
County of Santa Clara, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Becht, Esq.
      Michael Sachs, Esq.
      Mythily Sivarajah, Esq.
      ADAMS NYE BECHT LLP
      222 Kearny Street, Seventh Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108-4521
      Telephone: (415) 982-8955
      Facsimile: (415) 982-2042
      E-mail: dbecht@adamsnyeemployment.com
              msachs@adamsnyeemployment.com
              msivarajah@adamsnyeemployment.com


HYATT HOTELS: "Livi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Livi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-05371-CDJ
(E.D. Penn., September 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hyatt Hotels Corporation is a global hospitality company that
develops, owns, operates, and manages a portfolio of properties
including, a national chain of full service hotels and resorts
under the trade names Park Hyatt, Andaz, Hyatt, Grand Hyatt, Hyatt
Place, Hyatt Place House, and Hyatt Regency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Goldich, Esq.
      SHELLER, P.C.
      1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 790-7300
      Facsimile: (215) 546-0942
      E-mail: mgoldrich@sheller.com

         - and -

      Noah Axler, Esq.
      Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
      DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
      1055 Westlakes, Drive, Suite 155
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 647-6067
      Facsimile: (610) 647-7215
      E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Settlement in S.D. Tex. Suit Has Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2015, that the court has
issued final approval of the settlement and termination of all
proceedings in a class action complaint.

The Company said, "On July 20, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against us following our announced intention to
restate our financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 28, 2009, January 3, 2011 and January 2, 2012 and the
related interim periods. The complaint lodged against us, certain
of our current directors and officers and the underwriters in the
initial public offering ("IPO") was based on allegations related
to the Company's disclosures in its registration statement and
prospectus for its IPO. On July 4, 2014, we reached a confidential
agreement in principle to settle all pending claims, subject to
submission and approval by the court. On January 30, 2015, the
court issued preliminary approval of the settlement in the amount
of $1.8 million of which $1.6 million is covered by insurance. On
June 5, 2015, the court issued final approval of the settlement
and termination of all proceedings in this matter."


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Discovery in W.D.N.Y. Case in Initial Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2015, that discovery as to all
issues is now in the preliminary stages in the case in the United
States District Court, Western District of New York.

The Company said, "On August 28, 2013, in the United States
District Court, Western District of New York, six former tipped
employees of various Joe's Crab Shack locations filed a complaint
against us and certain of our officers alleging that the employees
were not paid the minimum wage required by federal law as well as
the wage-hour laws of the respective states in which they worked.
These former employees purport to represent a nationwide class of
tipped employees on their federal claims and separate subclasses
of tipped employees regarding their state law claims."

"By order dated January 27, 2015, the court granted conditional
certification to the class. We are vigorously contesting this
matter and have answered and asserted affirmative defenses.
Discovery as to all issues is now in the preliminary stages. At
this early stage, we cannot predict with any certainty whether the
former employees will prevail or the amount of damages they might
recover were they to prevail."


IMAGE FIRST: "Campanelli" Suit Seeks Payment of OT and Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle L. Campanelli, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Image First Uniform Rental
Service, Inc.; Image First Healthcare Laundry Specialists, Inc.;
Image First Of California, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-
04456-DMR (N.D. Cal., September 28, 2015), seeks to recover
overtime pays and wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant-Employer, ImageFIRST, identified the following and
various entities as the "Employer" of Campanelli in an "Employment
Agreement," including, without limitation, "ImageFIRST Uniform
Rental Service, Inc.," "ImageFIRST Healthcare Laundry Specialists,
Inc.," "ImageFirst [sic] of North Carolina, LLC," "ImageFIRST
Atlanta, LLC," "ImageFirst [sic] of California, LLC," "ImageFirst
[sic] of Chicago, LLC," "ImageFIRST of Texas," "any franchisee of
ImageFirst [sic] Health Care Laundry Specialists, Inc.," or "any
company engaged in business activities which are the same as,
similar to, or in competition with the business of Employer, of
which at least 40% of the equity is owned by Joseph H. Berstein or
his descendants."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
354 Pine Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 989-1800
Facsimile: (415) 707-2024
Email: tjb@brandilaw.com

     - and -

David C. Feola, Esq.
HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC
34523 Upper Bear Creek Road
Evergreen, CO 80439
Phone: 303-674-7000, Ext. 2
Facsimile: 303-382-4685
Email: David@Feolalaw.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Hearing Slated for December 5
------------------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has scheduled a
settlement hearing for December 5, 2015, in the federal securities
litigation.

The Company said, "Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints
(captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-
01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of
our current officers. The complaints were brought as purported
class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In
general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding our business and operations,
therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief."

"On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint
lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court
issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as
lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs
complaint was filed on October 27, 2014. On December 11, 2014, we
moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.

"On March 19, 2015, the parties participated in a mediation and
the parties subsequently agreed in principle, on April 14, 2015,
to settle the action. On April 20, 2015, the parties filed a
Notice of Settlement with the Court. On April 29, 2015, the Court
ordered that the lawsuit be dismissed within 60 days, vacated all
pending hearings, and denied all pending motions as moot.

"On May 28, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement,
which provided the terms of a settlement agreement. On June 2,
2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement and the potential class members have been (or will be)
notified of the proposed settlement and the procedure by which
they can object to the settlement or request to be excluded from
the class. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the
Court and the Court has scheduled a settlement hearing for
December 5, 2015.

"Because we have met our retainage amount under the applicable
policy, we believe that any potential obligations that may arise
as result of the proposed settlement in this matter will be fully
covered under our Directors and Officers insurance policy.
Accordingly, we have not accrued for any contingencies in this
matter into our operating results."


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a U.S. court has set a
date of November 12, 2015 for the final approval hearing of the
settlement in a securities class action.

On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers
(the "Securities Class Action"). The initial complaint (the
"Wallace Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's business
prospects, financial condition and performance in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages for the purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
February 17, 2011 through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation
Period").

On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint,
which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to,
the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking
similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation
Period. On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff, and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated
action ("Consolidated Class Action").

On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
("Consolidated Class Action Complaint") that, in addition to the
original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters in IntraLinks' April 6, 2011 stock
offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in
connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material information required to be
stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on
July 31, 2012.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013,
defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion
certifying a class of all persons who purchased IntraLinks stock
between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a subclass of
persons who purchased IntraLinks stock pursuant or traceable to
the Company's April 6, 2011 offering. On October 14, 2014, the
defendants filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit for permission to appeal the September 30, 2014
opinion granting plaintiff's motion for class certification. On
December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit denied defendants' petition.

On March 12, 2015, the Court suspended the remaining deadlines in
the current scheduling order pending mediation. On July 30, 2015,
the Company and the other defendants entered into a stipulation
and agreement of settlement ("Settlement"), which was filed with
the Court on July 31, 2015.

The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending
claims in the Securities Class Action, without any admission or
concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other
defendants. The Company and the other defendants continue to
maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged
in the Securities Class Action. The Company and the other
defendants agreed to the Settlement to avoid further expense,
inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of
burdensome and protracted litigation. Pursuant to the Settlement,
the defendants will pay $14.0 million (the "Settlement Amount")
for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could
have been asserted against the Company or the other defendants in
the Securities Class Action.

As such, the Company recorded a liability of $14.0 million, which
was included within "Accrued expenses and other liabilities" on
the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30, 2015. The Company
currently anticipates that the full Settlement Amount will be paid
for and covered by the Company's insurers pursuant to the
applicable insurance policies and, as such, has also recorded a
receivable of $14.0 million, which was included within "Other
current assets" on the Consolidated Balance Sheet at June 30,
2015.

On July 31, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement and setting a date of November 12, 2015
for the final approval hearing. The Settlement is subject to final
approval by the Court and certain other conditions.


IRON MOUNTAIN: Faces "Shurnicki" Suit Over Recall Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roberta Shurnicki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Iron Mountain, Inc., et al., Case No. 11549
(Del. Ch., September 28, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
stockholders of Iron Mountain, Inc. to enjoin Iron Mountain's
proposed acquisition of Recall Holdings, Ltd. in a cash-and-stock
transaction.

Iron Mountain, Inc. is a records storage and information
management company that, according to its most recent Form 10-K,
"helps organizations around the world protect their information,
lower storage rental costs, comply with regulations, enable
corporate disaster recovery, and better use their information for
business advantages, regardless of its format, location or
lifecycle stage."

Recall Holdings, Ltd. is an Australian company that trades on the
Australian Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "REC."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON, LLP
      155 Federal St Suite 400
      Boston MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
              joel@blockesq.com
              jacob@blockesq.com


JOHNSON'S LANDSCAPING: "Sandoval" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerber Sandoval, Jose A. Mercado Lopez, Jesus J. Chavez,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
individuals, v. Johnson's Landscaping Service, Inc., Johnson's
Landscaping Service, Limited Liability Company, Johnson Family
Enterprises, LLC, James H. Johnson, III, James C. Johnson, Charles
L. Johnson, Matthew T. Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01561
(D.D.C., September 23, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pays under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Johnson's Landscaping Service, Inc. is a Maryland
Corporation registered to do home improvement contractor services
and/or home improvement sales in the District of Columbia.

Defendant Johnson's Landscaping Service is a Maryland limited
liability company previously registered to do business in the
District of Columbia.

Defendant Johnson Family Enterprises, LLC is a Maryland limited
liability company. Its principal place of business is 5011 Olney-
Laytonsville Road, Olney, MD 20832.

The Defendants, collectively known as "Johnson Companies", is a
Maryland-based corporation that provides masonry, maintenance,
landscaping, and carpentry services in the districts of Maryland
and Columbia.

Defendant James H. Johnson, III is an adult resident of Maryland
who founded the enterprise known as "Johnson's Landscaping
Service". Along with the other individual Defendants, he set,
controlled, and oversaw Defendants' pay practices.

Defendant James C. Johnson, son of Defendant James H. Johnson,
III, is the "General Manager" of the Johnson Companies. He, along
with the other individual Defendants, authorized and oversaw
Defendants' practice of paying its employees a daily rate.

Defendant Charles L. Johnson, son of Defendant James H. Johnson,
III, is the "Production Manager" of the Johnson Companies. He,
among the other Defendants, also controls the operations of the
Johnson Companies.

Defendant Matthew T. Johnson, son of Defendant James H. Johnson,
III, is the "Operations and Sales Manager" of the Johnson
Companies who also has control of the operations of the same.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
519 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 803-6081
Fax: (202) 683-6102
E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


KFC CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Premium Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Reyes, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. KFC Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
RG15787350 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay premium wages for un-
provided meal and rest periods.

KFC Corporation operates a fast food restaurant chain that
specializes in fried chicken.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, California 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com


KIRBY RENTALS: "Echevarria" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Echevarria, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Kirby Rentals, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01620-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.,
September 29, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Kirby Rentals, LLC is a Florida corporation that supplies tents
and tent equipment, linen, and catering supplies on rent for
various events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3342
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


LMK BATON ROUGE: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Unpaid Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Morales, Griselda Figueroa, Gloria Vazquez, Rosa
Maldonado, Eda Rauda, and Jaira Ruiz on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LMK Baton Rouge
Construction, LLC, Landmark Construction, LLC, and Crouch &
Western, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00639 (M.D. La.,
September 23, 2015), to recover overtime and minimum wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Wage Payment Act.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants provided services and
labor in furtherance of Defendants' construction business at The
Standard at Baton Rouge. During the class period, plaintiffs claim
that they were not paid overtime and minimum pays due them for an
approximate four-week period. Furthermore, Defendants willfully
misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors instead of
employees.

Defendant LMK Baton Rouge Construction, LLC is a limited liability
company organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, which
may be served through its registered agent for service of process
in 320 Somerulos Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-6129.

Defendant Landmark Construction, LLC is a foreign limited
liability company and may be served through its registered agent
for service of process in 3867 Plaza Towers Drive, 1st Floor,
Baton Rouge, LA 70816.

Defendant Crouch & Western, Inc. ("Crouch & Western"") is a
foreign limited liability company and may be served through its
registered agent for service of process in 5615 Corporate Blvd.,
Suite 400B, Baton Rouge, LA 70808.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
New Orleans, LA 70113
Tel: 504.308.1438
Fax: 504.308.1446
Email: chris@williamslitigation.com


MARS INC: "Hodsdon" Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hodsdon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mars, Inc., and Mars Chocolate North
America LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-04450 (N.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages and
injunctive relief under the Unfair Competition Law, Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law.

This action arises out of the Plaintiff's allegation that
Defendants are into unfair and deceptive marketing and sale of
their chocolate products by allowing child labor in the production
and supply of its cocoa beans used to make its goods.

Defendant Mars, Inc. is a global food and beverage company. Mars,
Inc. is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of
business located at 6885 Elm Street, McLean, Virginia 22101.

Defendant Mars Chocolate North America LLC is a subsidiary of
Mars, Inc. that produces and markets chocolate products. Mars
Chocolate North America LLC is incorporated in Delaware with its
principal place of business located at 800 High Street,
Hackettstown, New Jersey 07840.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Steve W. Berman
Ashley A. Bede
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
ashleyb@hbsslaw.com

     - and -

Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
Email: elaine@hbsslaw.com
       christopherp@hbsslaw.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Rudd" Suit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Mudd, and others similarly situated v. MEDICAL INFORMATICS
ENGINEERING, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00269 (N.D. Ind., September,
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure of
providing adequate data security of the personal financial and
protected health information of the plaintiff.

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is an Indiana software
developer that provides technical solutions targeted to the
healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Fax: (317) 636-2593
Email: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
       rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
       vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
       ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

     - and -

Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel: (602) 274-1100
Fax: (602) 274-1199


MOBILEIRON INC: Defending Against "Panjwani" Stockholder Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a purported stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed on May 1, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its officers, captioned
Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The action is purportedly
brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February
13, 2015, and April 22, 2015. It asserts claims for violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages
and attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The
Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

"An estimate of a reasonably possible loss (or a range of loss)
cannot be made in either the lawsuits that Good Technology has
brought against us or the stockholder class action lawsuit at this
time," the Company said.


MOHELA: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abdolrasoul" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Pouya Abdolrasoul, an individual, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated people v. MOHELA, a non-profit corporation; and
Does 1-100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02167-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal., September
29, 2015) seeks put an end on the Defendants' practice of placing
calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

MOHELA is generally engaged in the debt collection business and
conducts debt collection activities on a nationwide basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS D. RUTLEDGE
      3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 203
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 886-7224
      Facsimile: (619) 259-5455
      E-mail: thomasrutledge@gmail.com

         - and -

      Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
      MASHIRI LAW FIRM
      11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
      San Diego, CA 92150
      Telephone: (858) 348-4938
      Facsimile: (858) 348-4939


MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $63.3MM Other Current Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company at June 30, 2015, has
accrued approximately $63.3 million in other current liabilities,
which represents its estimate of the remaining amount of
anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA related to the
Pricing and Medicaid Litigation.

Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and herein as "Mylan
Specialty"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named
as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and
third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these
class actions, which was approved by the court and all claims have
been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by
a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against
Mylan Specialty in August 1997.

In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention
and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government
asserted that Mylan Specialty was jointly liable with a co-
defendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together
with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan
Specialty completed a settlement of this action in December 2010.

These cases all have generally alleged that Mylan Specialty
falsely reported certain price information concerning certain
drugs marketed by Mylan Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused
false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that
Mylan Specialty caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments
on those claims.

Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan
is fully indemnified for the claims in the preceding paragraph and
Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company
realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing
litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for all
settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements had no
impact on the Company's Consolidated Statements of Operations.

At June 30, 2015, the Company has accrued approximately $63.3
million in other current liabilities, which represents its
estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax
benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty's
known claims with respect to this pricing litigation have been
settled.


MYLAN N.V.: Trial Date Not Scheduled in Modafinil Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that additional motions remain pending
and a trial date has not been scheduled in the Modafinil Antitrust
Litigation.

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery
has closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. On January 28,
2015, the District Court denied the defendants' summary judgment
motions based on factors identified in the Supreme Court's Actavis
decision.

On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct
purchasers' motion for class certification. Additional motions
remain pending and a trial date has not been scheduled.

On March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in principle with
the putative indirect purchaser class. The settlement will be
submitted to the District Court for review and approval. At June
30, 2015, the Company has accrued approximately $16.0 million
related to this settlement.

On June 29, 2015, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed suit
against the same parties named as defendants in litigation pending
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, including Mylan,
asserting state law claims based on the same underlying
allegations. On July 10, 2015, the Louisiana Attorney General
filed a complaint against Mylan and three other drug manufacturers
asserting state law claims based on the same underlying
allegations as those made in litigation pending in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.


MYLAN N.V.: Two Actos and Actoplus Met Cases Held in Abeyance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that two complaints filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of direct purchasers of
branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R) have been held in
abeyance.

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan
and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 10, 2014 and a decision remains pending.

Two additional complaints have subsequently been filed by
plaintiffs purporting to represent a class of direct purchasers of
branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R). These complaints
have been held in abeyance pending the District Court's ruling on
the fully briefed Motion to Dismiss.


MYLAN N.V.: Defending Shareholder Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is defending tow
shareholder class actions.

On June 11, 2015, City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System and Doris Arnold (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
filed a class action complaint against Mylan and Directors of
Mylan Inc. (the "Directors") in the Washington County,
Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas (the "Pennsylvania Court"), on
behalf of certain former shareholders of Mylan Inc. The complaint
alleges both breach of fiduciary duty on the part of the Directors
and breach of contract by Mylan and the Directors relating to
certain public disclosures made in connection with the EPD
Transaction and the creation of, and Call Option Agreement with,
the Foundation. Plaintiffs asked the Pennsylvania Court to: find
that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Mylan
and the Directors breached the purported contract, rescind the
vote of Mylan Inc.'s former shareholders approving the EPD
Transaction, award compensatory damages and award Plaintiffs their
costs relating to the lawsuit.

On June 22, 2015, Mylan and the Directors removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court"). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
District Court on July 10, 2015, that includes the same basic
causes of action and requested relief, drops allegations against
some of the Directors named in the original complaint and asserts
the breach of contract claim not on behalf of a purported class of
former shareholders of Mylan Inc. but on behalf of a purported
subclass of such shareholders who held shares of Mylan
continuously for a specified period following consummation of the
EPD Transaction. The response is due on August 31, 2015.

On July 21, 2015, a second class action complaint against the same
defendants, asserting the same basic claims and requesting the
same basic relief on behalf of the same purported class and
subclass, was filed by a different plaintiff in the District
Court. The response to this second complaint was due on September
21, 2015.

"We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.


MYLAN N.V.: Product Liability Lawsuits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is involved in a
number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged
personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured
and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to
its Fentanyl Transdermal System, Phenytoin, Propoxyphene and
Alendronate. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself
with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has
agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims
on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the
Company.

The Company had accrued approximately $14.6 million at June 30,
2015 and $13.4 million at December 31, 2014.

"It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses
above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such
reasonably possible at this time. There are no assurances,
however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments
received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued," the Company
said.


NASHVILLE HOSPITAL: "Peavy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Peavy, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. Hospital Authority of the
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
D/B/A Nashville General Hospital at Meharry, Defendant, Case No.
3:15-cv-01043 (M.D. Tenn., September 29, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and overtimes pays under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

Defendant Hospital Authority of the Metropolitan Government of
Nashville and Davidson County d/b/a Nashville General Hospital at
Meharry is a domestic corporation with its principal place of
business in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael L. Russell, Esq.
GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
Franklin, TN 37067
Telephone: (615) 354-1144
Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com


NESTLE USA: Faces "McCoy" Suit in Cal. Over Child and Slave Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine McCoy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04451 (N.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure
to uphold their responsibility for ensuring the absence of child
and slave labor in their supply chains.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a nationwide manufacturer and distributor of
food and beverage products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
      E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
              christopherp@hbsslaw.com


QLOGIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Hull, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. QLogic Corporation, Prasad L. Rampalli, and Jean Hu,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01560-AG-SS (C.D. Cal., September 28, 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.

QLogic Corporation designs and supplies server and storage
networking infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and
manage computer data communication.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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
              csandler@glancylaw.com


QUINN'S RENTAL: "Lindsey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Lindsey and Joshua Martinez, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Quinn's Rental Services (USA),
LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02839 (S.D. Tex., September 29, 2015) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Quinn's Rental Services (USA), LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that provides oilfield equipment rental services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that all
discovery has been stayed in a class action lawsuit pending the
court's ruling on the Company's forthcoming motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint.

On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier
Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and
Benson K. Woo. The case is a purported class action alleging
securities laws violations, primarily related to claims that the
Company failed to record adequate environmental reserves related
to disposed operations which, the plaintiffs allege led to a drop
in the Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and January 28,
2015. The allegations are couched as violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. All discovery has been stayed pending the court's
ruling on the Company's forthcoming motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

The Company strongly believes the complaint and its allegations to
be baseless and without merit, and will continue to vigorously
defend this action.


RUSTIC TABLE LLC: "Azar" Suit Seeks to Recover OT & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Pureco-Balt Azar, Alfonso Gironlopez, Alvaro Ramos,
Juvencio Bazan, Victor Alvarez, Wull Ton Escobar, Eliceo Suarez,
Cesar Rosales, Santos Sevilla, and Selvin Alvarenga, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Rustic
Table LLC d/b/a The Quarter, Mehmet Hakan Aktas, and Jason Avery,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07525 (S.D.N.Y., September 23, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime pays and minimum wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the Complaint, Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and New
York Labor Law by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to
pay its employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wages and
overtime compensation for all hours worked above 40 in a workweek.

The Quarter is a domestic restaurant organized under the laws of
the State of New York.

Defendants Mehmet Hakan Aktas and Jason Avery are joint owners,
shareholders, officers, directors, supervisors, and managing
agents of The Quarter who actively participate in the day-to-day
operations of the restaurant.

Jason Avery is also the executive chef of The Quarter restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Inflates Securities Prices, "Thomas" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Thomas, and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v.
Shiloh Industries, Inc., Ramzi Hermiz, and Thomas M. Dugan, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07449 (S.D.N.Y., September 21, 2015), to recover
damages and injunctive relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among the Defendants where they made false and/or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's financial report.

The Complaint points out that the Company filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission misleading financial
statements, which valued the Shiloh securities at artificially
high prices. The Plaintiffs allege they have incurred significant
losses and damages due to the misleading information.

Defendant Shiloh is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 880 Steel Drive, Valley City, Ohio
44280. It manufactures and distributes lightweighting, noise and
vibration solutions to automotive, commercial vehicle and other
industrial markets. The Company's products purportedly focus on
successfully balancing the need to reduce cost, weight and part
complexity with the need to enhance performance, safety and fuel
efficiency.

Defendant Ramzi Hermiz ("Hermiz") was, at all relevant times,
President and CEO of Shiloh.

Defendant Thomas M. Dugan ("Dugan") was at all relevant times Vice
President of Finance and Treasurer of Shiloh.

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

     - and -

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827


SIENTRA INC: Inflates Price of Securities, "Flynn" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SIENTRA, Inc., Hani Zeini, And Matthew
Pigeon, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07548 (C.D. Cal., September
25, 2015), seeks to recover monetary damages under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a federal securities class action arises out of the
allegations that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that Sientra's exclusive
reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing facilities carried
significant quality control risks; the manufacturing processes at
the Silimed Rio de Janeiro manufacturing plant were contaminated;
and as a result of the above, the Company's statements regarding
quality control and other financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. As a result of
defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities. Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class, relying on the materially
false and misleading statements described herein, which the
defendants made, issued or caused to be disseminated, or relying
upon the integrity of the market, purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Sientra securities at prices artificially inflated by
defendants' wrongful conduct.

Defendant Sientra, a Delaware medical aesthetics company that
develops and sells medical aesthetics products to plastic
surgeons. Sientra offers silicone gel breast implants for use in
breast augmentation and breast reconstruction procedures, as well
as breast tissue expanders. Sientra also provides body contouring
and other implants, including gluteal, pectoral, calf, facial, and
nasal implants.

Defendant Hani Zeini has served at all relevant times as the
Company's President, Director, and Chief Executive Officer.

Defendant Matthew Pigeon has served at all relevant times as the
Company's Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
468 North Camden Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (818) 532-6449
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

     - and -

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

     - and -

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


SLING MEDIA: Faces "Mann" Suit Over Alleged "Bait and Switch"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Mann, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sling Media, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-07603-UA (S.D.N.Y., September, 25, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages under the California Business & Professions and
the CA Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

This action arises out of the alleged failure of Sling Media to
disclose that the use of the product would be contingent upon and
subject the purchaser to unrequested advertising from Defendant.
As such, Slingbox has perpetuated a massive "bait and switch" upon
thousands of unsuspecting consumers who now need to watch the
Defendant's ads to use their devices as promised.

Defendant Sling Media, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with
principal offices in Foster City, California, and wholly owned by
EchoStar Corporation, a leading provider of satellite operations
and video delivery solutions. According to Sling Media's website,
it offers "products and solutions that empower you to watch your
home TV -- including 100% of the content you already pay for --
anywhere in the world, on any Internet-connected device." Sling
Media designs, imports, manufactures, and/or distributes consumer
electronics products, including the Slingboxes forming the subject
matter of this action, which it caused to be placed into the
stream of commerce in this District and throughout the United
States. Sling Media also markets and sells advertising content,
which it displays to class members during use of their Slingboxes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI
369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 983-9330
Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
Email: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

     - and -

Robert I. Lax, Esq.
LAX LLP
380 Lexington Avenue, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 818-9150
Facsimile: (212) 208-4309
Email: rlax@lax-law.com

     - and -

Steven S. Siegel, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN S. SIEGEL, P.L.L.C
401 Franklin Avenue, Suite 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: 516-665-2800
Facsimile: 516-279-6376
Email: stevenssiegel@yahoo.com


STONE BRAZIL: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yuriem Garcia v. Stone Brazil, Inc. and Ricardo H. Freire, Case
No. 32521288 (11th Ct. Fla., September 25, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Stone Brazil, Inc. is a stone supplier and does business in Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STUDENT AID CENTER: Faces "Tarkoff" Action Over TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Tarkoff, and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Student Aid Center, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-61983 (S.D.
Fla., September, 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Tarkoff brings this action for damages and other legal and
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Student
Aid Center, Inc.  The Plaintiff alleges that SAC negligently,
knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Tarkoff on his cellular
telephone without his prior express consent within the meaning of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227
("TCPA").

SAC is a self-described industry leader in the federal student
loan debt relief industry. It employs hundreds at its 26,000
square foot headquarters located at 2500 NW 79th Avenue, Suite
190, Doral, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David P. Milian, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Ernesto M. Rubi, Esq.
CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 372-7474
Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
        fhedin@careyrodriguez.com
        erubi@careyrodriguez.com


TELEXELECTRIC LLP: Faces "Dos Santos" Suit Over Pyramid Schemes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Dos Santos, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Telexelectric, LLP; Telex Mobile, Holdings, Inc.; James M.
Merrill; Carlos N. Wanzeler; Steven M. Labriola; Joseph H. Craft,
a/k/a Joe H. Craft; Craft Financial Solutions, LLC; Ann Genet;
Carlos Costa; Katia Wanzeler; Sanderley Rodrigues De Vasconcelos;
Santiago De La Rosa; Randy N. Crosby; Faith R. Sloan; Daniil
Shoyfer; Scott Miller; Gerald P. Nehra, individually and doing
business as Law Offices Of Nehra And Waak; Gerald P. Nehra
Attorney at Law, PLLC; Richard W. Waak, individually and doing
business as Law Offices Of Nerha And Waak; Richard W. Waak,
Attorney at Law, PLLC; OPT3 Solutions, Inc.; Jason A. Borromei;
Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP; Bank Of America, NA; TD Bank, NA; RSB
Citizens, N.A.; Fidelity Co-Operative Bank, doing business as
Fidelity Bank; John F. Merrill; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Synovus
Bank; Global Payroll Gateway Inc.; International Payout Systems,
Inc.; Propay, Inc., doing business as propay.com; Base Commerce,
LLC, doing business as Phoenix Payments; John Hughes; Vantage
Payments, LLC; Dustin Sparman; Allied Wallet, Ltd; Doe Top Level
Promoters; DOE Licensed Professionals; DOE Banks; DOE Payment
Processing Services, Paralegal DOE, and a Defendant Class of
Direct Victim Payment Recipients, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02084 (D. Colo., September 22, 2015), seeks to recover monetary
damages for unjust enrichment under the Massachusetts General Laws
which prohibits pyramid schemes committed by the Defendants.

This unjust enrichment action alleges that the Defendants and
their related entities and individuals operated an illegal scheme
whereby the Defendants sold "memberships" ostensibly paid
"promoters" for placing advertisements for a "voice over internet
protocol" ("VoIP") product, and in reality paid them to recruit
other investors whose new membership fees kept the scheme afloat
(the "TelexFree Program").

The Plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleges, were obligated to enter into
the Defendants' Pre-March 9 TelexFree Contract to earn membership
of the Defendant company, which contains numerous instances of
promising payment merely for recruitment of new Participants, not
requiring any meaningful sales or distributive activity by
participants, and using coercive measures to prevent participant
withdrawal from the scheme.

Defendant TelexElectric, LLLP is a limited liability limited
partnership organized and under the laws of the State of Nevada.
Its registered agent is BWFC Processing Center, LLC, 3960 Howard
Hughes Parkway, Suite 500, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.

Defendant Telex Mobile, Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and having its
registered agent as BWFC Processing Center, LLC, 3960 Howard
Hughes Parkway, Suite 500, Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.

James M. Merrill, Carlos N. Wanzeler, Carlos Roberto Costa are the
founders of TelexElectric, LLLP.

Steven M. Labriola is an individual with a last known usual place
of abode of 21 Kiwanis Beach Road, in Upton, County of Worcester,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01568. Labriola is a Principal and a
member of TelexFree's Executive Office.

Joseph H. Craft, also known as Joe H. Craft is an individual with
a last known usual place of abode at 825 E. Main Street in
Boonville, Indiana 47601-1885. Craft is a Principal and a member
of TelexFree's Executive Office.

Defendant Ann Genet served as TelexFree, LLC's Nevada agent,
servant or employee, was a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada who
served TelexFree's Executive Office and is an individual
associated with Craft and Bridgeway Financial Corporation.

Katia Wanzeler is an individual with a last known usual place of
abode of 373 Howard Street, in Northborough, County of Worcester,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01532. She served as an agent
servant or authorized representative of TelexFree's Executive
Office and is otherwise an individual associated with TelexFree's
Founders, Principals, Executive Office, and Top Promoters.

Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos has a last known usual place of
abode of 100 Stockton Street, Apt. 49, in Chelsea, County of
Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02150. Rodrigues is a
TelexFree Top Level Promoter.

Santiago de la Rosa is an individual with a last known usual place
of abode of 189 Beacon Hill Avenue, Unit 2, in Lynn, County of
Essex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01902. De La Rosa is a
TelexFree Top Level Promoter.

Randy N. Crosby has a last known usual place of abode of 30 Club
Court, in Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. Crosby is a TelexFree Top
Level Promoter.

Scott Miller has a last known usual place of adobe of 973
Thornwood Drive, Greenwood, IN 46143. Miller is a TelexFree Top
Level Promoter.

Faith R. Sloan has a last known usual place of abode of 515 E. End
Avenue, Unit 105, in Calumet City, Illinois 60409. Sloan is a
TelexFree Top Level Promoter.

Daniil Shoyfer has a last known usual place of abode of 123
Arbutus Avenue, in Staten Island, New York 10312. Shoyfer is a
TelexFree Top Level Promoter.

Defendant Gerald P. Nehra, Esq. is an individual who now resides
or formerly resided at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan,
49441 and also maintains a second residence at 2149 Tall Oak
Court, Sarasota, Florida 34232. Nehra is an attorney duly licensed
to practice law in the State of Michigan.

Defendant Gerald P. Nehra, Attorney at Law, PLLC is a professional
limited-liability company engaged in the practice of law and duly
organized and existing under the laws of Michigan, with offices
located at 1710 Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan, 49441. Nehra is
its sole member, manager, and registered agent.

Defendant Richard W. Waak is an individual who now resides or
formerly resided at 11300 East Shore Drive, Delton, Michigan,
49046. Waak is an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the
State of Michigan.

Defendant Richard W. Waak, Attorney at Law, PLLC is a professional
limited-liability company engaged in the practice of law and duly
organized and existing under the laws of Michigan, with offices
located at 11300 East Shore Drive, Delton, Michigan, 49046. Waak
is its sole member, manager, and registered agent.

Defendant Law Offices of Nehra and Waak is a general partnership
formed between Defendants Nehra, Waak, Nehra Law Firm, and Waak
Law Firm with primary offices located at 11300 East Shore Drive,
Delton, Michigan, 49046, and a secondary office is located at 1710
Beach Street, Muskegon, Michigan.

Defendant Opt3 Solutions, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, having its
principal place of business at 120 Vantis, Suite 300, Alison
Viejo, California.

Defendant Jason A. Borromei served as president and authorized
representative of Opt3.

Defendant Craft is a certified public accountant who privately
provided accounting services and financial advice to TelexFree and
others before he served as the chief financial officer of
TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree, LLC.

Defendant Craft Financial Solutions, LLC is a limited-liability
company duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Indiana with a principal place of business located at 825 E. Main
Street, Boonville, Indiana, 47601-1885. Craft Financial provided
accounting services and financial advice to TelexFree and others.
Craft is also the sole member and manager of Craft Financial.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP is a registered foreign limited
liability partnership, organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware, having a principal place of business in New
York, New York, and having a place of business at 125 High Street,
in Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02110.
PwC provided accounting services and other professional services
to TelexFree.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking institution in the United
States chartered and supervised by the federal Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC") with its principal place
of business at 15 Broad Street in Boston, County of Suffolk,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02109.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking institution in the
United States chartered and supervised by the OCC with a principal
place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America
conducts business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at, inter
alia, 100 Federal Street, in Boston, County of Suffolk,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02110.

RSB Citizens, N.A. conducts business in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at 725 Canton St., Norwood, County of Norfolk,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 02062 and has a branch at 290
Turnpike Road, Westborough, County of Worchester, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts 01581.  Citizens Bank provided banking services,
maintained accounts, and received and executed transfers of funds
from or for the benefit of TelexFree.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking institution in the
United States chartered and is supervised by the federal Office of
the Comptroller of the Currency, with an address at P.O. Box 6995,
Portland, Oregon 97228 and a branch at 800 North Magnolia Ave.,
Orlando, Florida. Wells Fargo conducts business in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts at, inter alia, 201 Washington
Street, in Boston, County of Suffolk, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.  Wells Fargo provided banking services, maintained
accounts, and received and executed transfers of funds from or for
the benefit of TelexFree.

Fidelity Co-operative Bank, doing business as Fidelity Bank, is a
Massachusetts Chartered Banking Institution, having its principal
offices at 675 Main Street, in Fitchburg, County of Worcester,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 01420.

John F. Merrill is an individual with a last known usual place of
abode of 7 Kinnicutt Road, in Worcester, Massachusetts 01602.

Synovus Bank is a Georgia Chartered Banking Institution, having
its principal offices at 1148 Broadway, in Columbus, County of
Muscogee, Georgia 31901.

Global Payroll Gateway, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, having its
principal offices at 18662 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, in
Irvine, California 92612.

International Payout Systems, Inc. also doing business as
i-Payout, is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida, having its principal offices at 2500
East Hallandale Beach Boulevard, Suite 800, Hallandale Beach,
Florida 33009.

Propay, Inc. is a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Utah with its principal offices at 3400
North Ashton Boulevard, Lehi, Utah 84043 and also does business as
PROPAY.COM.

Base Commerce, LLC formerly known as Phoenix Payment, LLC, is a
limited liability company duly organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Arizona with its principal offices at 7910 S.
Kyrene Road, Suite 106, Tempe, Arizona 85284, and also does
business as Phoenix Payments.

John Hughes is an individual with a last known usual place of
abode of 6455 E. Rustic Drive, Mesa, Arizona 85215.

Vantage Payments, LLC is a limited liability company duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona,
having its principal offices at 8300 N. Hayden Road #A207,
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251.

Dustin Sparman is an individual with a last known usual place of
abode of 8702 E. Plaza Avenue 85610, Scottsdale, Arizona 85250.

Allied Wallet, Ltd. is a limited company having its central office
in the United Kingdom, and having its United States office at 900
Sunset Boulevard, Suite 820, West Hollywood, California 90069.

Defendant Shoyfer is the proposed named representative for the
Defendant Class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Steven J. German, Esq.
ADELMAN GERMAN, PLC
8245 N. 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Telephone: 480-607-9166
Email: steve@adelmangerman.com


TEREX CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Konecranes Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Weinstock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al., Case No. 11435
(Del. Ch., August 26, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Terex Corporation to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Terex by Konecranes Plc through a flawed process
and inadequate consideration.

Terex Corporation manufactures a broad range of equipment serving
customers in various industries, including the construction,
infrastructure, manufacturing, shipping, transportation, refining,
energy, utility, quarrying and mining 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 -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500


TOWNE PROPERTIES: Faces "Duggan" Suit Over ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Connie J. Duggan, Plaintiff, v. Towne Properties Asset Management
Co., Inc., Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00623-MRB (S.D. Ohio, September 25, 2015), seeks for
equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

This action arises out of the alleged failure of Defendants to:

     1) furnish Plaintiff with a copy of the summary health
        care plan description,

     2) provide notification to an ERISA-governed plan
        participant of each adverse benefit determination,

     3) give an ERISA Compliant Notice to Plaintiff, then
        denied her attempt to appeal by declaring that the
        limitations period on appeals had expired.

Defendant Towne Properties Group Health Plan is a self-funded
employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA Sec.
3(1), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1002(1), and is therefore subject to ERISA's
requirements. The Plan's sponsor and its designated administrator
is Towne Properties.

Defendant Medical Benefits Administrators, Inc. ("MedBen") is an
Ohio corporation headquartered in Newark, Ohio. MedBen engages in
the business of managing and administering health care plans,
including those governed by ERISA. MedBen authors health care plan
documents, sells its services to customers, and sends the MedBen-
authored plan documents to its customers for signature. MedBen
serves a fiduciary, as defined by ERISA, with respect to the Plan
and the Plan's participants, because it exercises discretionary
authority and control respecting management or disposition of the
Plan's assets and has discretionary authority or responsibility
respecting management and disposition of the Plan's assets.

Defendant Towne Properties Asset Management Company, Inc. ("Towne
Properties") is an Ohio corporation, headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio. Towne Properties is the Plan's sponsor and is a fiduciary of
the Plan by reason of the Plan's designation of it as "plan
administrator." Although labeled in the Plan as "plan
administrator," that is a label in name only, as Towne Properties
does not carry out any administration of the Plan but rather has
allocated day-to-day claim adjudication, claim payment,
administration, and other fiduciary functions to MedBen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

William H. Blessing, Esq.
The Blessing Law Firm
119 East Court Street, Suite 500
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 621-9191
Telecopier: (513) 621-7086
Email: bill@blessing-attorneys.com


TURTLE BEACH: Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------
Turtle Beach Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
has been permanently stayed until the Nevada Supreme Court
completes its review.

On August 5, 2013, VTB Holdings, Inc. ("VTBH") and the Company
(f/k/a Parametric) announced that they had entered into the Merger
Agreement pursuant to which VTBH would acquire an approximately
80% ownership interest and existing shareholders would maintain an
approximately 20% ownership interest in the combined company.
Following the announcement, several shareholders filed class
action lawsuits in California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the
Merger. The plaintiffs in each case alleged that members of the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders by agreeing to a Merger that allegedly
undervalued the Company. VTBH and the Company were named as
defendants in these lawsuits under the theory that they had aided
and abetted the Company's Board of Directors in allegedly
violating their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in both cases
sought a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin closing of the
Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by the Nevada court with
the California plaintiffs invited to participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court and briefing
was completed on February 23, 2015. On May 20, 2015, the
litigation was permanently stayed until the Nevada Supreme Court
completes its review.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the
litigation. As of June 30, 2015 and the date of this report, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible
loss in regards to this matter; therefore, no litigation reserve
has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements.


UNITED PARCEL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Navarro, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC592098 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015)is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

United Parcel Service, Inc. owns and operates a package delivery
company in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Sims" Suit Over Data Theft
----------------------------------------------------
Derrick Sims, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United States Of America, Office Of
Personnel Management; and Keypoint Government Solutions,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-13426 (D. Mass., September, 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants to recover statutory
damages and injunctive relief under the Privacy Act of 1974.

This action alleges that the Defendants failed to adequately
safeguard and secure the financial and other personally
identifiable information including the names, addresses,
fingerprints, and social security numbers of the Plaintiffs, which
caused pecuniary losses, anxiety, and emotional distress of the
latter.

Defendant OPM is a United States agency with headquarters at 1900
E. Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20415.  OPM handles many aspects
of the federal employee recruitment process, including managing
federal job announcements, conducting background investigations
and security clearances, overseeing federal merit systems,
managing personal retirement and health benefits, providing
training and development programs, and developing government
personnel policies. As part of the recruitment and hiring process,
OPM collects and maintains federal applicants' and related non-
applicants' records including PII, background investigations, and
security clearance forms. OPM conducts more than two million
background investigations annually, provides critical human
resources services to other agencies, and audits agency personnel
practices.

Defendant KeyPoint describes itself as a "leading provider of
investigative and risk mitigation services to government
organizations, including the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland
Security."  KeyPoint provides OPM fieldwork services for
background investigations. KeyPoint employs investigators in every
state, and, as of December 2014, is reported to be the largest
private clearance firm working for federal agencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David Pastor, Esq.
LEONARD LAW OFFICE, PC
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 617-742-9700
Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com

     - and -

Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
63 Atlantic Avenue, 3d Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: 617-329-1295
Email: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


UNITED STATES: DOS Sued Over Unlawful Revised Visa Bulletin
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chintan Mehta, Soury Hazra, Venkata Shiva Ayyagari, Qi Wang,
Quan Yuan, Ranjit Jain, Satyavan Panda, Ravi Gusain, Akshay
Kawalae, Subnash Makkena, Haifeng Xiao, Aparna Mithal, Vanshaj
Bindal, Ravi Vishnuvardhan, and Venkata Surapaneni, on behalf of
themselves and a class of all individuals similarly situated v.
U.S. Department of State, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01543 (W.D.
Wash., September 28, 2015) seek declaratory and injunctive relief
preventing the Defendants from enforcing the unlawfully issued
Revised Visa Bulletin.

U.S. Department of State is an executive agency of the United
States with responsibility for oversight, management, and
distribution of immigrant visas as well as the monthly publication
of the Visa Bulletin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Gibbs, Esq.
      Robert Pauw, Esq.
      GIBBS HOUSTON PAUW
      1000 Second Ave., Suite 1600
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 682-1080
      Facsimile: (206) 689-2270
      E-mail: rgibbs@ghp-law.net

         - and -

      Gregory S. Siskind, Esq.
      SISKIND SUSSER, PC
      1028 Oakhaven Road
      Memphis, TN 38119
      Telephone: (901) 682-6455
      Facsimile: (901) 339-9604
      E-mail: GSiskind@visalaw.com

         - and -

      R. Andrew Free, Esq.
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 244-4345
      E-mail: Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com


VEREIT INC: Plaintiffs Filed Response to Motions to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that plaintiffs have filed their response to the motions to
dismiss certain claims in the consolidated securities class action
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and
certain of its former officers and current and former directors
(in addition to the Company's underwriters for certain of the
Company's securities offerings, among other individuals and
entities) were named as defendants in ten putative securities
class action complaints filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY Actions"):
Ciraulu v. American Realty Capital, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8659
(AKH); Priever v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et
al., No. 14-cv-8668 (AKH); Rubinstein v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8669 (AKH); Patton v. American
Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8671 (AKH);
Edwards v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No.
14-cv-8721 (AKH); Harris v. American Realty Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8740 (AKH); Abadi v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-9006 (AKH); City of
Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-10134 (AKH); Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Association of America v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0421 (AKH); and New
York City Employees Retirement System v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0422 (AKH).

The Court subsequently consolidated the SDNY Actions under the
caption In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation,
No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY Consolidated Securities Class
Action") and appointed a lead plaintiff.

Following the Company's issuance of its restated financials in
March, 2015, on April 17, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed an amended
class action complaint, which asserted claims for violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising out
of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with
the purchase or sale of the Company's securities.

On May 29, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss certain
claims in the SDNY Consolidated Securities Class Action and the
plaintiffs filed their response on July 17, 2015.


VEREIT INC: Not Yet Required to Respond to "Wunsch" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that the Company is not yet required to respond to the complaint
in the Wunsch class action.

On November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its former
officers and current and former directors were named as defendants
in a putative securities class action complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-
012816 (the "Wunsch Action"). On December 23, 2014, the Company
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (Northern Division), under the caption Wunsch
v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
4007 (ELH). On April 15, 2015, the Maryland court transferred the
Wunsch Action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-2934. The Wunsch
Action asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made in connection with the Company's
securities issued in connection with the Cole Merger. The Company
is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Wunsch
Action.


VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend ARCT III Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend the so-called ARCT III
Litigation.

After the announcement of the merger agreement with American
Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. ("ARCT III") in December 2012 (the
"ARCT III Merger Agreement"), a putative class action lawsuit was
filed in January 2013 against the Company, the OP, ARCT III, ARCT
III's operating partnership, members of the board of directors of
ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the Company in Supreme Court
in the State of New York, captioned Quall v. American Realty
Capital Properties, et al., No. 650329/2013. The plaintiff
alleged, among other things, that the ARCT III board breached its
fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions contemplated
under the ARCT III Merger Agreement.

In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. The proposed
settlement terms required certain additional disclosures related
to the merger, which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed by ARCT III with the SEC on February 21, 2013, but did not
include any monetary payment to plaintiff. The memorandum of
understanding also provided that the parties would enter into a
stipulation of settlement, which would be subject to customary
conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval
following notice to ARCT III's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not yet occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court
will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any settlement will
be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.

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


VEREIT INC: No Subsequent Activity in "Tarver" Action
-----------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that there has been no subsequent activity in the Tarver Action.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease
in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease
stockholders, the following of which remain pending:

On June 25, 2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of
directors, among others, captioned Tarver v. CapLease, Inc., et
al., No. 24-C-13-004176 (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the transaction purportedly did not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders and was not the result of
a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement allegedly
contained coercive deal protection measures and the merger was
purportedly approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleged that CapLease,the
Company, the OP and others aided and abetted the CapLease
directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

In August 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action filed a motion for a
stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the court that the
plaintiff had agreed to join and participate in the prosecution of
other actions concerning the CapLease transaction then pending in
a New York court (which were subsequently dismissed). The stay was
granted by the Baltimore Court and there has been no subsequent
activity in the Tarver Action.

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


VEREIT INC: Plaintiff in "Poling" Action Filed Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that Plaintiff in the Poling Action have filed a notice of appeal.

Following the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease
in May 2013, a number of lawsuits were filed by CapLease
stockholders, the following of which remain pending:

In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the Company, the OP,
CapLease, and members of the CapLease board of directors, among
others, captioned Poling v. CapLease, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-
006178 (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleged that the
merger agreement breached the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and was in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
complaint alleged claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors, and that the Company, the OP and Safari
Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and the CapLease
directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of fiduciary
duty.

In December 2013, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Poling Action, which was granted by the court in May 2015.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 4, 2015.

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


VEREIT INC: Appeal Pending in Maryland Cole Merger Action
---------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that an appeal is pending in the Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger
Action.

Two actions filed in March and April 2013 in United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, assert shareholder
class action claims under the Securities Act of 1933, along with
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate
waste, and unjust enrichment, among others, relating to the merger
between a wholly owned subsidiary of Cole and Cole Holdings
Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became a self-managed REIT;
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00712; and Carter
v. Cole Holdings Corp., et al., 13-cv-00629. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss both complaints in January 2014. Both of those
lawsuits have been stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request
made by all parties pending final approval of the Consolidated
Maryland Cole Merger Action.

To date, a number of lawsuits have been filed in connection with
the Cole Merger, the following of which remain pending. Between
October and November 2013, eight putative stockholder class action
or derivative lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned as: (i) Operman v. Cole, et
al. ("Operman"); (ii) Branham v. Cole, et al. ("Branham"); (iii)
Wilfong v. Cole, et al. ("Wilfong"); (iv) Polage v. Cole, et al.
("Polage"); (v) Corwin v. Cole, et al. ("Corwin"); (vi) Green v.
Cole, et al. ("Green"); (vii) Flynn v. Cole, et al. ("Flynn") and
(viii) Morgan v. Cole, et al. ("Morgan"). All of these lawsuits
named the Company, Cole and Cole's board of directors as
defendants, and certain of the actions also named CREInvestments,
LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Cole, as a defendant. Each complaint generally
alleged that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties
owed to stockholders of Cole in connection with the Cole Merger,
and that certain entity defendants aided and abetted those
breaches. The breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted included
claims that the Cole Merger did not provide for full and fair
value for the Cole shareholders and was the product of an
"inadequate sale process," that the Cole Merger Agreement
contained coercive deal protection measures and that the Cole
Merger Agreement and the Cole Merger were approved as a result of,
or in a manner which facilitated, improper self-dealing by certain
defendants. In addition, certain of the lawsuits claimed that the
individual defendants breached their duty of candor to
shareholders and/or asserted claims derivatively against the
individual defendants for their alleged breach of fiduciary duties
owed to Cole, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.
Among other remedies, the complaints sought unspecified money
damages, costs and attorneys' fees. In December 2013, the eight
lawsuits were consolidated under the caption Polage v. Cole Real
Estate Investments, Inc., et al., 24-c-13-006665 (the
"Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action").

In January 2014, the parties to the Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding
settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged class
of Cole stockholders. The proposed settlement terms required Cole
to make certain additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger,
which were included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Cole
with the SEC on January 14, 2014. The memorandum of understanding
also contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation
of settlement, subject to customary conditions, including
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to
Cole's stockholders. In August 2014, the parties in the
Consolidated Maryland Cole Merger Action executed a Stipulation
and Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the
"Stipulation") and the Baltimore Circuit Court entered an Order on
Preliminary Approval of Derivative and Class Action Settlement and
Class Action Certification and scheduled a final settlement
hearing.

In December 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Maryland Cole
Merger Action executed an Amended Stipulation and Release and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended Stipulation")
modifying the Stipulation. In January 2015, the Baltimore Circuit
Court issued an order approving the settlement pursuant to the
terms of the Amended Stipulation. Under the terms of the approved
settlement, defendants paid a settlement amount of $14.0 million,
half of which was to be used for attorney's fees. Two objectors
have since filed a notice of appeal of the settlement order. That
appeal is pending.


VEREIT INC: Suit by Realistic Partners Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating Partnership, L.P. said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that the case, Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital
Partners, et al., remains pending.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York,
captioned Realistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners,
et al., No. 654468/2013. Cole was later added as a defendant. The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of the
Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement and that
Cole aided and abetted those breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The
proposed settlement terms required the Company to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with
the SEC on January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also
contemplated that the parties would enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which would be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to the Company's stockholders, and provided that the
defendants would not object to a payment of up to $625,000 for
attorneys' fees.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, which has
not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the court
will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding.


VISTA CLINICAL: Faces "Gear" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenni M. Gear, Candese A. Hawkins, Shamika L. Pollard,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Vista Clinical Diagnostic, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00495-CEM-PRL
(M.D. Fla., September 28, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Vista Clinical Diagnostic, LLC maintains and operates independent
medical diagnostic and testing facilities at 44 different
locations throughout thirteen Florida Counties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 East Concord Street
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Telephone: (407) 835-8968
      Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
      E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
              rlabar@labaradams.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Emission Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Lucas, and Shaun Brandewie, Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Defendants, Case No.
1:15-cv-01988 (N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages under the Clean Air Act and other applicable
state and federal vehicle emission laws.

According to the Complaint, The Volkswagen Defendants installed
"defeat devices" in the defective vehicles in order to pass the
EPA required emission testing, when in fact the Defective Vehicles
emitted up to 40 times the pollution allowed by law. Worse still
is that the Volkswagen Defendants heavily marketed the Defective
Vehicles to consumers such as the Plaintiff and other Class
Members as being "clean diesel" vehicles.

The proposed class is defined as: "All persons or entities in the
United States who purchased or leased one or more Defective
Vehicles in the United States."

The proposed subclass is defined as: "All persons or entities who
purchased or leased one or more Defective Vehicles in the State of
Ohio."

Defendant Volkswagen AG is a foreign for-profit corporation with
its principal place of business at 38436 Wolfsburg, Germany.
Volkswagen AG, one of the world's largest car manufacturers, owns
and controls the brand names Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce, Bentley,
Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat. Volkswagen AG delivers its
products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that
they will be purchased by consumers in every state in the United
States.  From January through June 2015, Volkswagen AG delivered
294,992 passenger vehicles to the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Daniel J. Myers, Esq.
MYERS LAW, LLC
610 Skylight Office Tower
1660 West Second Street
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 236-8202
Fax: (216) 674-1696
E-mail: DMyers@MyersLawLLC.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dumont" Suit Over Emission Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Dumont, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00394 (D.N.H., September 28, 2015),
seeks to recover monetary damages under the Clean Air Act
regulations and other applicable state and federal vehicle
emission laws.

According to the Complaint, by manufacturing and selling cars with
defeat devices that allowed for higher levels of emissions than
were certified to EPA, Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act,
defrauded its customers, breached its contracts, violated
warranties, and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices under
state and federal law.

The proposed class is defined as: "All persons or entities in New
Hampshire who are current or former owners or lessees of an
"Affected Vehicle." Affected Vehicles include, without limitation:
MY 2009-2015 VW Jetta; MY 2009-2015 VW Beetle; MY 2009-2015 VW
Golf; MY 2014-2015 VW Passat; and MY 2009-2015 Audi A3."

Defendant Volkswagen AG is a foreign for-profit corporation with
its principal place of business at 38436 Wolfsburg, Germany.
Volkswagen AG, one of the world's largest car manufacturers, owns
and controls the brand names Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce, Bentley,
Audi, Lamborghini, Skoda and Seat. Volkswagen AG delivers its
products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that
they will be purchased by consumers in every state in the United
States. From January through June, 2015, Volkswagen AG delivered
294,992 passenger vehicles to the United States.

Excluded from the Class are individuals who have personal injury
claims resulting from the "defeat device" in the Clean Diesel
system. Also excluded from the Class are Volkswagen and its
subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely
election to be excluded from the Class; governmental entities; and
the judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate
family.

Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based
upon information learned through discovery.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing
business in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the
State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171.
Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the affected vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Edward K. O'Brien, Esq.
One Sundial Avenue, 5th Floor
Manchester, NH 03103
Tel: (603) 672-3800
E-mail: eobrien@ekoblaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Butler" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanine Butler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01245-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 28, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged use of defeat devices in its 2009-2015
Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles to evade clean air standards.

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:

      E. Kyle McNew, Esq.
      Gary W. Kendall, Esq.
      M. Bryan Slaughter, Esq.
      J. Gregory Webb, Esq.
      MICHIE HAMLET PLLC
      500 Court Square, Suite 300
      PO Box 298
      Charlottesville, VA  22902-0298
      Telephone: (434) 951-7200
      Facsimile: (434) 951-7257
      E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com
              gkendall@michiehamlett.com
              bslaughter@michiehamlett.com
              gwebb@michiehamlett.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 "Heppard" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey P. Heppard, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen, AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07140-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September
28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of
sophisticated software, known as a "defeat device," in Volkswagen
and Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United States that was
designed to circumvent and artificially suppress the results of
official vehicle emissions testing.

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

Volkswagen AG is a German multinational automotive manufacturing
company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlo Scaramella, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLO SCARAMELLA, LLC
      10000 Lincoln Dr. East, Suite 201
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 914-0114
      Facsimile: (856) 914-0117
      E-mail: cs@lawofcs.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McMillen" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon McMillen, Christina McMillen, Mark McMillen, Ralph McMillen,
Wahab Khan, Marc Gustafson and Peter Levitt, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07615 (C.D. Cal.,
September 28, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
installation of defective diesel engine systems containing a
"defeat device" in approximately 500,000 vehicles that were sold
in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
              rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      Alex Kruzyk, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
              akruzyk@rgrdlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Montano" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Device
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Montano, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07142-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 28, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged installation of defective
diesel engine systems containing a "defeat device" in
approximately 500,000 vehicles that were sold in the United
States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700

         - and -

      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Marc L. Godino, Esq.
      Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
              mgodino@glancylaw.com
              mgreenstone@glancylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Paoli" Suit in Mon. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Conrad Paoli, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
9:15-cv-00127-DLC-JCL (D. Mon., September 28, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged installation of defective diesel engine
systems containing a "defeat device" in approximately 500,000
vehicles that were sold in the United States.

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 A. Rossbach, Esq.
      ROSSBACH LAW, P.C.
      401 North Washington Street
      P. O. Box 8988, Hellgate Station
      Missoula, MT 59807-8988
      Telephone: (406) 543-5156
      Facsimile: (406) 728-8878
      E-mail: bill@rossbachlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Pergament" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle K. Pergament, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-05594-ARR-JO (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's alleged installation of "defeat device" in at
least the following diesel models of its vehicles: Model Year
("MY")2009-2015 VW Jetta; MY 2009-2014 Jetta Sportwagen; MY 2012-
2015 VW Beetle; MY 2012-2015 VW Beetle Convertible; MY 2010-2015
VW Golf; MY 2015 Golf Sportwagen; MY 2012-2015 VW Passat; and MY
2010-2015 Audi A3.

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 E. Elsner, Esq.
      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: melsner@motleyrice.com
              jrice@motleyrice.com
              jflowers@motleyrice.com
              kdean@motleyrice.com


WAYNE L. HUDGENS: Sued Over Failure to Repair Defective Units
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery Martinez v. Wayne L. Hudgens, Janice I. Hudgens and Does
1-30, Case No. RG15783401 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) is
brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress,
physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses
as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs
of the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Failure to Pay Deferred Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roger Connell and Richard Ashcroft, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells
Fargo Advisors, LLC, and Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network,
LLC, and Does 1 thru 50, Case No. 4:15-cv-02841 (S.D. Tex.,
September 29, 2015) is brought on behalf of all of the Defendants'
former and current Texas employees who did not receive money owed
to them as deferred compensation, resulting from the Defendants'
seizure of that money in reliance on contract terms that did not
comport with Texas Business & Commerce Code.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, the Defendants operate
a banking and financial service company throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
      David Siegel, Esq.
      AJAMIE LLP
      Pennzoil Place - South Tower
      711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 860-1600
      Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
      E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com
              dsiegel@ajamie.com

         - and -

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Martin Shellist, Esq.
      SHELLIST | LAZARZ | SLOBIN
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
              mshellist@eeoc.net


WESTERN FEDERAL: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josefa Gomez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Western Federal Credit Union
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC595925 (Cal. Super.
Ct., September 25, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Western Federal Credit Union is a California limited liability
company that operates banks throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WHOLE FOODS: Falsely Advertises Meat Products, PETA Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals, Inc., and Leah
Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a Texas Corporation;
Whole Foods Market California, Inc., a California Corporation;
Mrs. Gooch's Natural Food Markets, Inc., a California corporation,
Defendants, Case No 5:15-cv-04301 (N.D. Cal., September 21, 2015),
to recover monies paid to Defendants as a result of unfair and
deceptive business practices, under the California Consumer
Protection Laws.

Plaintiffs suffered injury, including the loss of money, as a
result of Defendants' deceptive and misleading advertisement with
their meat products. Plaintiff consumers alleged that they were
deceived into paying a higher price for meat products of the
Defendants that fail to offer the benefit they seek.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

     - and -

Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
        christopherp@hbsslaw.com


WPX ENERGY: New Class Action Stayed Pending First Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a royalty
litigation have agreed to stay this new lawsuit pending resolution
of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "In September 2006, royalty-interest owners in
Garfield County, Colorado, filed a class action suit in District
Court, Garfield County, Colorado, alleging we improperly
calculated oil and gas royalty payments, failed to account for
proceeds received from the sale of natural gas and extracted
products, improperly charged certain expenses and failed to refund
amounts withheld in excess of ad valorem tax obligations.
Plaintiffs sought to certify a class of royalty interest owners,
recover underpayment of royalties and obtain corrected payments
related to calculation errors."

"We entered into a final partial settlement agreement. The partial
settlement agreement defined the class for certification, resolved
claims relating to past calculation of royalty and overriding
royalty payments, established certain rules to govern future
royalty and overriding royalty payments, resolved claims related
to past withholding for ad valorem tax payments, established a
procedure for refunds of any such excess withholding in the
future, and reserved two claims for court resolution.

"We have prevailed at the trial court and all levels of appeal on
the first reserved claim regarding whether we are allowed to
deduct mainline pipeline transportation costs pursuant to certain
lease agreements. The remaining claim related to the issue of
whether we are required to have proportionately increased the
value of natural gas by transporting that gas on mainline
transmission lines and, if required, whether we did so and are
entitled to deduct a proportionate share of transportation costs
in calculating royalty payments. Plaintiffs had claimed damages of
approximately $20 million plus interest for the period from July
2000 to July 2008. The court issued pretrial orders finding that
we do bear the burden of demonstrating enhancement of the value of
gas in order to deduct transportation costs and that the
enhancement test must be applied on a monthly basis in order to
determine the reasonableness of post-production transportation
costs.

"Trial occurred in December 2013 on the issue of whether we have
met that burden. Following that trial, the court issued its order
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed standard and accepting our position
as to the methodology to use in determining the standard by which
our activity should be judged. We have completed the accounting
process under the standard and have obtained the court's approval.

"However, as we continue to believe our royalty calculations have
been properly determined in accordance with the appropriate
contractual arrangements and Colorado law, we have appealed this
matter to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs have now filed
a second class action lawsuit in the District Court, Garfield
County containing similar allegations but related to subsequent
time periods. The parties have agreed to stay this new lawsuit
pending resolution of the first lawsuit in the Colorado Court of
Appeals."


WPX ENERGY: Lawsuit by Royalty Interest Owners Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a lawsuit by royalty
interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado remains pending.

The Company said, "In October 2011, a potential class of royalty
interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado filed a complaint
against us in the County of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. The complaint
presently alleges failure to pay royalty on hydrocarbons including
drip condensate, breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing, fraudulent concealment, conversion, misstatement of the
value of gas and affiliated sales, breach of duty to market
hydrocarbons in Colorado, violation of the New Mexico Oil and Gas
Proceeds Payment Act, and bad faith breach of contract. Plaintiffs
sought monetary damages and a declaratory judgment enjoining
activities relating to production, payments and future reporting.
This matter was removed to the United States District Court for
New Mexico."

"In March 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs have not timely filed an appeal of this
denial. They have filed both a pending motion for reconsideration
of the denial of class certification with the trial court which we
oppose and a motion seeking to conduct additional discovery in
order to attempt to redefine their proposed class, which has been
denied.

"In August 2012, a second potential class action was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico by mineral interest owners in New Mexico and Colorado.
Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied duty to market both
in Colorado and New Mexico and violation of the New Mexico Oil and
Gas Proceeds Payment Act, and seek declaratory judgment,
accounting and injunction.

"At this time, we believe that our royalty calculations have been
properly determined in accordance with the appropriate contractual
arrangements and applicable laws. We do not have sufficient
information to calculate an estimated range of exposure related to
these claims."


YOUSSEF HACHEM: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Medina" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elvira Medina and other similarly situated individuals v. Youssef
Hachem Consulting Engineering Inc., Youssef Hachem, and Salam S.
Hachem, Case No. 32525236 (11th Ct. Fla., September 25, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an engineering company in Miami
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *