CAR_Public/151019.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 208


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Defending Against Bristol Pension Fund & Romano Cases
AMARIN CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
AMTECH SYSTEMS: Class Action Stipulation Awaits Court Approval
ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans
BIOGEN INC: Faces "Lake" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

CADIZ INC: "Van Wingerden" Class Action in C.D. Cal. Ongoing
CLEVELAND AVE: Faces "Hogan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage
CVS HEALTH: "Podgorny" Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct.
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Lagarde" Suit Over Solvay Merger Plans
DENSO CORP: Sued Over Vehicle Wire Harness System Price-Fixing

DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Yates" Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Six FLSA Lawsuits in N.D. Cal.
ELECTROLUX HOME: Testimony Excluded, Summary Judgment Bid Okayed
ENSIGN GROUP: Faces "Madrigal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ESTE TUX: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Simmonette" Suit Says

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Data Breach
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Ryan" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Amador" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GCP EAST: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages

GO DADDY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pandol" Action Claims
GOOSE CREEK, SC: "McCray" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HABITAT COMPANY: Sued in Ill. for Not Providing RLTO Summary
HIGHLAND COMMERCIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Sui Claims
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Customer Action v. Unit Ongoing in Iowa

HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HSBC BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ahmed" Suit Claims
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Materials Filed in Tenn. Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Homebuilders' Antitrust Case Ongoing

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Deal Reached to Settle Canadian Cases
TRUSTMARK CORP: Bids to Dismiss Stanford-Related Suit Still Open
JIM FALK: Faces "Vuong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JM HOLLISTER: Faces "Wat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Erami" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

KARINA GARCIA: Challenges Final Judgment Entered in Case
LEVEL 3: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Litigation
LIFETIME HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MAC PROS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Holley" Suit Claims
MERCK & CO: Defendant in 20 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits

MERCK & CO: Vioxx Claims Review Process Recently Completed
MERCK & CO: January 2017 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Alaska
MERCK & CO: Sept. 2016 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Montana
MERCK & CO: Vioxx Suit in Utah Remanded to State Court
MERCK & CO: Trial Begins in Vioxx Securities Lawsuits

MERCK & CO: Direct Action Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaints
MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Six Individual Securities Suits
MERCK & CO: 5,230 Fosamax Product Liability Cases Pending
MERCK & CO: 1,040 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL
MERCK & CO: 3,095 Cases Alleging Femur Fractures Pending in NJ

MERCK & CO: 510 Cases Over Femur Fractures Ongoing in California
MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Femur Fracture MDL
MERCK & CO: 915 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending
MERCK & CO: 14 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement
MERCK & CO: 1,390 Suits Filed Related to Propecia and Proscar

NOVANT HEALTH: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Kruger" Action
OILS UNKUT: "Terry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PASCHALL TRUCK: Court Rejects Settlement in Grok Lines Suit
PELICAN, ALASKA: Judgment in "Tagaban" Case Upheld
PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss End-Payers' Remaining Claims Ongoing

PFIZER INC: Lipitor Marketing Lawsuits Still Pending
PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Class Actions in Canada Ongoing
PFIZER INC: Celebrex Class Actions in E.D. Va. Still Pending
PFIZER INC: Settlement in Off-Label Promotion Action Okayed
PHILLIPS 66: Must Defend Against "Stubbs" Labor Suit

RENTECH NITROGEN: Faces "Sloan" Suit Over Proposed CVR Merger
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Case in Early Stages
STAR DIE: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Gender Discrimination
SURVEY SAMPLING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bell" Suit Claims
THOMSON REUTERS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Furey" Suit Says

TOTAL SYSTEM: Briefing on ProPay's Motion to Dismiss Ongoing
TRANSCOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Ceniceros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TRUSTMARK CORP: 2nd Stanford-Related Suit in Preliminary Stages
UNITED STATES: No Extra Pay to Lead Plaintiff in "Cobell" Case

UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Wins Summary Judgment
USHEALTH GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Action Claims
VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fiorelli" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hensgens" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bauer" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bobko" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bourn" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brier" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clyman" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ets-Hokin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farquar" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fong" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Halper" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stempien" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Judy" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Knisley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Scolnick" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Swiger" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Tamez" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Texas
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Troffer" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weber" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shaw" Class Suit Removed to W. Dist. Texas
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WALTER ENERGY: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Deal Sought
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Energy Merger
WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Faces "Mohamed" Suit Over Loan Transfer


                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Defending Against Bristol Pension Fund & Romano Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and certain
of its executive officers have been named as defendants in two
putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June
12, 2015 and June 23, 2015.  The lawsuits are styled City of
Bristol Pension Fund v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL (D.S.C.) and Joshua Romano v. 3D Systems
Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02518-MGL (D.S.C.).  The
complaints are substantially identical and allege that defendants
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
false and misleading statements and omissions and that the
officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.   The complaints are filed on behalf of stockholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29,
2013, and October 22, 2014 and seek monetary damages on behalf of
the purported class.


AMARIN CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc 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 plaintiffs have filed
an amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

On June 29, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the putative
consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re Amarin
Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J.
Nov. 1, 2013). The class action was dismissed without prejudice
with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs alleging that Amarin and certain of its current and
former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions
regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR
indication and related contributing factors and the potential
relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that
potential approval.

On July 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
facts similar to those in the original complaint. Like the first
complaint, the amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously
defend against this lawsuit, but cannot predict the outcome. The
Company is not able to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if
any, associated with the claims. The Company has insurance
coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss
exposure that may arise from this action after payment of the
associated deductible obligation under such insurance coverage.


AMTECH SYSTEMS: Class Action Stipulation Awaits Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, 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 Stipulation of
Settlement in a class action lawsuit is subject to court approval.

Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with
BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was filed on
November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, purportedly
on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, members of
the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. The Stockholder Actions were
consolidated on December 4, 2014. The complaints generally alleged
that, in connection with entering into the Merger Agreement, the
BTU board of directors breached certain fiduciary duties owed to
BTU's stockholders. The complaints sought various forms of
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory
damages.

On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions.
Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed
to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to
make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger.

On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement (the "Stipulation of Settlement") with
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware to memorialize the
MOU. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a release of all
claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain
securities law claims. In addition, Stipulation of Settlement
provides that BTU will be responsible for the payment of certain
amounts in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses in connection
with the settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to
court approval. The Company and BTU entered into the Stipulation
of Settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the Stipulation of Settlement. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the Stipulation of Settlement may be
terminated.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Atmel Corporation, et al., Case No. 11576 (Del. Ch.,
October 5, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Atmel Corporation to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Atmel by Dialog
Semiconductor PLC, through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Atmel Corporation designs and manufactures microcontrollers,
capacitive touch solutions, advanced logic, mixed-signal,
nonvolatile memory and radio frequency components.

Dialog Semiconductor PLC creates and markets integrated, mixed
signal integrated circuits, optimized for personal portable, low
energy short-range wireless, LED solid-state lighting and
automotive applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      James R. Banko, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
              jbanko@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com
              jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


BIOGEN INC: Faces "Lake" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Lake, derivatively on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Biogen, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13516
(D. Mass., October 6, 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.

Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Biogen, Inc. is a
global biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering,
developing, manufacturing, and delivering therapies for
neurological, autoimmune, and hematologic disorders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN & ROBINSON, LLP
      110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Telephone: (781) 431-2231
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

         - and -

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      Campbell Centre II
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Patrick Powers, Esq.
      Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq.
      POWERS TAYLOR LLP
      Campbell Centre II
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-8900
      Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
      E-mail: Patrick@powerstaylor.com
              Meredith@powerstaylor.com

         - and -

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


CADIZ INC: "Van Wingerden" Class Action in C.D. Cal. Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Cadiz 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 putative class action lawsuit,
entitled Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03080-
JAK-JEM, was filed on April 24, 2015, against Cadiz and certain of
its directors and officers ("Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California purporting
to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf
of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Company's public
disclosures were inadequate in relation to the Cadiz Valley Water
Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the "Water Project").
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported
class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit and Cadiz will
vigorously defend against the action.

While the Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit, pursuant to applicable accounting requirements,
the Company will evaluate this matter on an ongoing basis and
record accruals for contingencies if the Company concludes that it
is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount
of the loss can be reasonably estimated.  In many situations,
including the purported class action, in which such matters are
being contested, the outcome is not predictable and any potential
loss is not estimable.


CLEVELAND AVE: Faces "Hogan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hogan, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Cleveland Ave Restaurant, Inc. (d/b/a Sirens), Francis Sharrak,
Michael Sharrak, Chad Sullivan, Dominick Alkammo, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 6, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages as required by the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in
Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      Easton Town Center
      4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
      Columbus, OH 43219
      Telephone: (614) 604-8759
      Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
      E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com


CVS HEALTH: "Podgorny" Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Robert Podgorny et al., v. CVS
Health Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-08177, was transferred from
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United
States District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2675 to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims from an allegedly common fraudulent
pricing policy by CVS with respect to certain generic prescription
drugs sold to individuals who maintain prescription drug benefits
pursuant to third-party health insurance plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      Christopher M. Hack, Esq.
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300
      20 North Wacker Drive
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 606-0500
      Facsimile: (312) 739-1098
      E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
              chris@krislovlaw.com


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Lagarde" Suit Over Solvay Merger Plans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith M. Lagarde on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cytec Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00891-
UNA (D. Del., October 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of Cytec Industries Inc. to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Cytec by Solvay SA through a flawed
process and inadequate consideration.

Cytec Industries Inc. is a specialty chemicals and materials
company located at Five Garret Mountain Plaza, Woodland Park, NJ
07424.

Solvay SA is a Belgian chemical company headquartered in Neder-
Over-Heembeek, Brussels, Belgium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington Street
      Madisonville, LA 70447
      Telephone: (504) 455-1400
      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      James M. Wilson Jr., Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              jwilson@faruqilaw.com


DENSO CORP: Sued Over Vehicle Wire Harness System Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc., et al. v. Denso Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00107-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., November 11,
2014) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy fix and artificially raise
the prices of Vehicle Wire Harness Systems.

Denso Corp. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of
business in Kariya, Japan. Denso Corp. through its subsidiaries,
manufactured, marketed and sold Vehicle Wire Harness Systems that
were purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Mack, Esq.
      J. Manly Parks, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      30 S. 17th Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 979-1000
      Facsimile: (215) 979-1020
      E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com
              jmparks@duanemorris.com


DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Yates" Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Yates and Erica White, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03549-ODE (N.D. Ga., October 6, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Discrete Wireless, Inc. provides fleet operators with an internet
based system that enhances workforce productivity through real
time vehicles tracking, route optimization, job dispatch, and fuel
usage monitoring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1201 Peachtree Street
      Colony Square
      Suite 200
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: MFeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Six FLSA Lawsuits in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the company is a defendant in six
pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law.

Of these six suits, two have been certified for class action
status. Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court -
Northern District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an
action under California state law, has been certified for class
treatment of California Institutional employees.

In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of
California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination Service
Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also seeks a
purported California sub-class for alleged California wage hour
law violations and certifications of classes for state law
violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and North Carolina. The Cancilla lawsuit has been
settled, and a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a class-
action settlement of employment claims against Ecolab that
includes a $7.5 million settlement fund and over $2 million in
attorney fees and costs (Class Action Reporter, August 27, 2015).

A third pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court-
Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks
nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for
alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in
New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging
violations of state wage hour laws.

A fourth pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, case no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a
class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of
Illinois wage and hour laws.

A fifth pending suit, Martino v. Ecolab, Santa Clara County
California Superior Court, seeks certification of a California
state class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of
California wage and hour laws. The Martino case has been removed
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A sixth pending suit, LaValley v. Ecolab, United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, seeks certification of a
class of Territory Representatives for alleged violations of the
FLSA and New York state wage and hour laws. The LaValley lawsuit
has also been settled pending court approval.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Testimony Excluded, Summary Judgment Bid Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James G. Carr, Sr. of the United States District
Court for Northern District of Ohio granted motions to exclude the
testimony of the plaintiff's expert, Richard J. Hallowell, and for
summary judgment in the case captioned, Maureen Huffman,
Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:12CV2681.

Huffman bought a front-loading washer that the defendant,
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., designed and manufactured. After
using the machine for two-and-a-half years, Huffman noticed a
nasty, mildew-like odor emanating from the washer. The odor
permeated Huffman's home, and the washer stained or otherwise
ruined $300 worth of clothes. Huffman, who brought this suit on
behalf of herself and all Ohio residents who purchased an
Electrolux front-loading washer, claims the machine is defective
because it is not self-cleaning, thus permitting mold to grow
inside the machine. She brought common-law claims for breach of
warranty, negligent design, and failure to warn. She also brought
claims under the Ohio Products Liability Act (OPLA), for defective
design, inadequate warnings, and failure to conform to a
representation. Finally, she brought claims under Ohio's version
of the Uniform Commercial Code for breach of express and implied
warranties.

Huffman has retained Richard J. Hallowell, a mechanical engineer,
to opine on the alleged defects in her washing machine and
testified that he has no training in how to identify mold or
fungus, and he agreed that mold sampling is "very, very
sophisticated" and "way beyond his area of expertise. In his
opinion, he stated to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty
Huffman's front-loading washer was defective and that Electrolux
should have warned consumers "about the inherent problems that can
develop in" its front-loading washers if interior components of
the washer are not periodically disassembled and cleaned by a
service technician and should have eliminated the mold issue by
modifying the washer in three ways.

Electrolux argued that Hallowell is not qualified to testify under
Fed. R. Evid. 702 and that Huffman's statutory and common-law
claims for defective design may not proceed. Electrolux also
contends the failure-to-warn claims fail because any additional
warning would not have affected Huffman's decision to purchase the
Frigidaire machine, given her testimony she did not read any
user's manual, advertising, or warnings before purchasing the
Frigidaire.

In his Order dated September 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/SPjXvYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Carr, Sr. found that
Hallowell is unqualified to testify because Electrolux's moving
papers show the record is devoid of any alleged misrepresentation
regarding the washer's performance, and Huffman's response did not
address that claim let alone identify evidence in the record
showing there is disputed factual issue on that question.

Maureen Huffman is represented by:

John T. Murray, Esq.
Leslie O. Murray, Esq.
Michael J. Stewart, Esq.
MURRAY & MURRAY
111 East Shoreline Drive
Sandusky, OH 44870-2517
Tel: (419)624-3000

     - and -

Philip L. Dombey, Esq. -- pdombey@perrysburgattorney.com -- DOMBEY
& HART

Electrolux North America, Inc. is represented by Geoffrey M.
Wyatt, Esq. -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com, Jessica D. Miller, Esq.
-- jessica.miller@skadden.com, John H. Beisner, Esq. --
john.beisner@skadden.com -- Nina Ramos Rose, Esq. --
nina.rose@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM &
Philip M. Oliss, Esq. -- philip.oliss@squirepb.com & Bruce A.
Khula, Esq. -- bruce.khula@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS


ENSIGN GROUP: Faces "Madrigal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gricelda Madrigal v. The Ensign Group, Inc., Southland Management
LLC, Giordana Record, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No.
BC596862 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing and rehabilitative care
services company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julia A. Mercado, Esq.
      APARICIO-MERCADO LAW, L.C.
      3320 West Victory Boulevard
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (818) 260-9904
      Facsimile: (818)450-0964


ESTE TUX: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Simmonette" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances Simmonette, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees v. Este Tux, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01943-UN2 (M.D.
Penn., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours per week.

Este Tux, Inc. owns and operates a warehouse and distribution
facility located at or near 401 South Washington Avenue, Scranton,
PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Fabio Acosta, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated
v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-62099-KMW (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2015) arises
from the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the
sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied
for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which primarily
provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the
credit applications of customers and potential customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Yanchunis, Esq.
      Marcio Valladares, Esq.
      Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
              mvalladares@forthepeople.com
              pbarthle@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Mark R. Miller, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              mrm@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      Benjamin Branda, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0090
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Luna, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and T-Mobile USA,
Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01603 (C.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) arises
out of the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the
sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied
for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which primarily
provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the
credit applications of customers and potential customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      David M. Berger, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com
              ehg@girardgibbs.com
              dmb@classlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
      Benjamin Branda, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              enafisi@wbmllp.com
              bbranda@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0090
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Ryan" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Ryan and Caitlan Lange, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01595 (C.D. Cal., October
6, 2015) arises out of the massive hack on Experian's servers that
compromised the sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and
individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which primarily
provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the
credit applications of customers and potential customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq.
      Kevin Calcagnie, Esq.
      Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
      ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC.
      19 Corporate Plaza Dr.
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 720-1288
      Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
      E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com
              kcalcagnie@rcrsd.com
              drobinson@rcrsd.com

         - and -

      Sherrie Savett, Esq.
      Shanon Carson, Esq.
      Jon Lambiras, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              jlambiras@bm.net

         - and -

      Stuart R. Fraenkel, Esq.
      Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq.
      NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
      707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 622-6469
      Facsimile: (213) 622-6019
      E-mail: sfraenkel@nflawfirm.com
              gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com


GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Amador" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Amador, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly
situated v. Gaona Landscaping, Inc. and Jose L. Gaona, Case No.
1:15-cv-08871 (N.D. Ill., October 6, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping business located in
McHenry, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marty Denis, Esq.
      Bethany Hilbert, Esq.
      BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP
      525 West Monroe, Suite 2360
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 648-5570


GCP EAST: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Venkatesh Sanegarapu, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GCP East Realty Corp., and Theodoros Zorbas,
Case No. 706028 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GO DADDY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pandol" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
John Pandol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07794 (C.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls to the wireless telephones of
Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class without prior
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC operates a financial software
services company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com

         - and -

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


GOOSE CREEK, SC: "McCray" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank McCray, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. City of Goose Creek, Case No. 2:15-cv-04115-DCN (D.S.C.,
October 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

City of Goose Creek is a municipality corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
      Telephone: (843) 849-1692
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

         - and -

      Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq.
      210 Wingo Way #300
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 972-0004
      Facsimile: (843) 972-0006
      E-mail: jmunterstarklaw@gmail.com


HABITAT COMPANY: Sued in Ill. for Not Providing RLTO Summary
------------------------------------------------------------
Leann Gaines, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. The Habitat Company LLC & Asbury
Plaza Venture, LLLP, Case No.______ (Ill. Ch., October 5, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide Chicago
tenants with the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO)
Summary that is made for inspection and copying by the City of
Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental
agreements are initially offered and renewed.

The Defendants own and operate a residential apartment building
containing approximately 400 residential rental dwelling units
located at 7 50 Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Krolik, Esq.
      AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      225 W. Washington ST., Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 924-0278
      Facsimile: (312) 650-8241
      E-mail: aaron@securitydepositlaw.com

         - and -

      Mark Silverman, Esq.
      MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
      225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 775-1015
      Facsimile: (312) 256-2055


HIGHLAND COMMERCIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Sui Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Daniel Cedeno, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Highland Commercial Roofing, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, Case No. BC596809 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015)
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Highland Commercial Roofing, Inc. is a commercial roofing
contractor with a principal place of business in Baldwin Park,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
      KARASIK LAW FIRM
      11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 1275.
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310)312-6800
      Facsimile: (310)943-2582
      E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Customer Action v. Unit Ongoing in Iowa
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation 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 Bank continues to
defend a customer action in Iowa.

On April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa
District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the
fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection
of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act.
The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have
paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on
their consumer accounts.

The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court
denied. The Bank filed an application for interlocutory appeal to
the Iowa Supreme Court, which the Court denied. The parties and
District Court have put the case on hold pending a ruling by the
Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by West Bank on a similar
issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case. At this stage of the
proceedings, it is not possible for management of the Bank to
determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or
reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.


HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Loren Hillebrandt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Horizontal Wireline Services LLC and Allied
Wireline Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01307-JFC (W.D. Penn.,
October 7, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide services in the oil and gas industry and
operate throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste. 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08107
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com

         - and -

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Hwy N., Ste 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417


HSBC BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ahmed" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Saber Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Case No. 5:15-cv-
02057 (C.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members
on their cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing
system.

HSBC Bank USA, National Association is a company in the business
of lending money to consumers and collecting thereon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Materials Filed in Tenn. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 no class
certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee
class action lawsuit.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. International Paper Company (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The class is all
persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any
defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. In March 2015, the district court certified
a class of direct purchasers of containerboard products; in June
2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
granted the defendants' petition to appeal and the class
certification issue is now pending in that court.

In June 2015, International Paper and Temple-Inland were named as
defendants in a lawsuit captioned Del Monte Fresh Product N.A.,
Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (S.K. Fl.), in which the
plaintiff asserts substantially similar allegations to those
raised in the Kleen Products LLC action. Moreover, in January
2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that
International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit
the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to
the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek
certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of
containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys'
fees. No class certification materials have been filed to date in
the Tennessee action.

"The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending each action. However, because the Kleen Products LLC
action is in the discovery stage and the Florida action and the
Tennessee action are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to
predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss," the Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 a hearing on final
approval of the settlements was held in July 2015.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging
civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-
Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints
were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired
or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum
board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid
price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and
(3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order
fulfillment.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning on or before September 2011. The alleged classes are all
persons who purchased gypsum board directly or indirectly from any
defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble
actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
classes.

The Company said, "In February 2015, we executed a definitive
agreement to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, which
received preliminary court approval in March 2015. A hearing on
final approval of the settlements was held in July 2015."


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Homebuilders' Antitrust Case Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 several
homebuilders filed on March 17, 2015, an antitrust action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that they purchased gypsum board and making
similar allegations to those contained in the settled proceeding.
The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to
vigorously defend that lawsuit and any lawsuit brought by any
purported class member that elects to opt out of the settlement.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Deal Reached to Settle Canadian Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper 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 in September 2013,
similar purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec,
Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of
the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive
relief. In May 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle these Canadian cases for an immaterial amount. This
settlement in principle is subject to negotiation and execution of
a definitive settlement agreement, which would then be subject to
court approval.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Bids to Dismiss Stanford-Related Suit Still Open
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 court has not yet
ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss a second amended
complaint.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford
Financial Group.  The first is a purported class action complaint
that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine
Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan
C. Olano (collectively, "Class Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial
Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline of October 5, 2015 for the
parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.

In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and
the OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class
Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of
the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims.  The court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for aiding,
abetting, and participating in (i) violations of the Texas
Securities Act and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty.  On July 14,
2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
SAC.  The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to
dismiss the SAC.


JIM FALK: Faces "Vuong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Hue Vuong and George Chen v. Jim Falk Lexus of Beverly Hills and
Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-0081 3118-CU-Wf-
CJC (Cal., Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Jim Falk Lexus of Beverly Hills operates a Lexus dealership and
repair shop in Beverly Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alicen Burtness, Esq.
      Ronald E. Norman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FARNELL & NORMAN
      2020 Main Street, Suite 770
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 553-1300
      Facsimile: (866) 600-2067


JM HOLLISTER: Faces "Wat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Wat, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-
situated v. J.M. Hollister, LLC d/b/a Hollister Company and
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06590-FPG
(E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a nationwide retail clothing
company that operates hundreds of stores throughout the United
States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: mjp@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Erami" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitra Erami, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No.
2:15-CV-00727-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., May 19, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

JPMorgan Chase Bank owns and operates retail banks in the Northern
District of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
      J.E.B. Pickett, Esq.
      WYNNE LAW FIRM
      100 Drakes Landing Road, Suite 275
      Greenbrae, CA 94904
      Telephone (415) 461-6400
      Facsimile (415) 461-3900
      E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
              Jebpickett@wynnelawfirm.com


KARINA GARCIA: Challenges Final Judgment Entered in Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Karina Garcia, et al. on behalf of his or herself and as Class
Representative on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit from the final judgment entered on September 15,
2015, including all interlocutory orders and rulings in the case.

The appeals case is Karina Garcia, et al. v. Michael R. Bloomberg,
et al., Case No. 1 l-CV-6957 (JSR).


LEVEL 3: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
party to a number of purported class action lawsuits involving its
right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of-
ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land.

In general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its
networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed
its networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the
purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands
over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories.

The Company has defeated motions for class certification in a
number of these actions but expects that, absent settlement of
these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to
seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only
lawsuit in which a class was certified against the Company, absent
an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et al. v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et al., a purported two state class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a
settlement reached in November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and
former landowners, have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states, including payments of claims. The settlement has
also been presented to federal courts in additional states and
approval is pending.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
approved for all affected landowners.


LIFETIME HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Fisher and Kenneth Fisher, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lifetime Healthcare, Inc. and
Excellus Health Plan Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06598 (W.D.N.Y.,
October 6, 2015) arises out of the cyber attack of Excellus
information technology systems that compromised consumers'
sensitive and confidential data entrusted to the Defendants,
including full names, social security numbers/medical
identification numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers,
financial account information, claims information, dates of birth,
clinical information, and other personal information.

Lifetime Healthcare, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for-profit
corporation headquartered at 165 Court Street, Rochester, New York
14647.

Excellus Health Plan Inc. is non-profit health insurance plan,
currently serving some 1.6 million members in more than 30
counties in upstate New York and is a licensee of the BlueCross
and BlueShield Association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Preminger, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      770 Broadway, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (646) 495-6198
      Facsimile: (646) 495-6197
      E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohback.com

         - and -

      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com


MAC PROS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Holley" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynne Holley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Mac Pros Sales and Installation, Inc. d/b/a MacPro,
Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No.
2:15-cv-07852 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2015) seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class
members on their cellular telephone using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

Mac Pros Sales and Installation, Inc. operates apple service, a
sales center located at 12300 Washington Blvd., Suite R, Whittier,
California 90606.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com


MERCK & CO: Defendant in 20 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
approximately 20 active federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx
Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a result
of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.


MERCK & CO: Vioxx Claims Review Process Recently Completed
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
approximately 30 putative class action lawsuits alleging economic
injury as a result of the purchase of Vioxx. All but one of those
cases are in the Vioxx MDL. Merck has reached a resolution,
approved by Judge Fallon, of these class actions in the Vioxx MDL.
Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all
properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs
and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an
order approving the settlement in January 2014 and the claims
review process was recently completed.


MERCK & CO: January 2017 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Alaska
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states --
Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were previously pending in
the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order
remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These
actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and
seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded
health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for
alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations.

On February 6, 2015, the federal district judge in Anchorage
remanded the Alaska lawsuit to state court and a trial has been
scheduled for January 2017.


MERCK & CO: Sept. 2016 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Montana
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states --
Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were previously pending in
the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order
remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These
actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and
seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded
health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for
alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations.

On February 24, 2015, the federal district judge in Helena
remanded the Montana lawsuit to state court and a trial has been
scheduled for September 2016.


MERCK & CO: Vioxx Suit in Utah Remanded to State Court
------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in
lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states --
Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were previously pending in
the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order
remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These
actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and
seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded
health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for
alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations.

On July 28, 2015, the Utah lawsuit was remanded to Utah state
court.


MERCK & CO: Trial Begins in Vioxx Securities Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 trial in the Vioxx
securities lawsuits was scheduled to begin on October 6, 2015.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various
putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal
securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and
various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes.

In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the
claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary
withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In
October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action
Complaint.

In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their
complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period.
In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain
allegations within the existing class period.

In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action
Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended
Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now
closed.

On May 13, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions for summary judgment; the court granted
judgment in defendants' favor on five of the alleged
misstatements, including all statements prior to March 27, 2000,
but denied the motion with respect to the remaining statements.
The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin on
October 6, 2015. There was a conference scheduled for August 11,
2015 before Judge Chesler to discuss the trial date.


MERCK & CO: Direct Action Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 ordered
certain of the so-called Direct Action plaintiffs to amend their
complaints to properly allege their purchases of Merck securities.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.
Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC
Lawsuit," together with the prior individual actions, the "Direct
Actions") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several
foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.

In January 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the
individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions
to dismiss was completed in March 2012.

In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things,
certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed as
inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full.

In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all of
the Direct Actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day,
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on
statute of limitations grounds.

In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the
KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered the
complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery has been completed in the
Direct Actions and is now closed.

On June 19, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions for summary judgment; the court granted
judgment in defendants' favor with respect to the same statements
as in the class action and granted judgment in defendants' favor
on the claims of certain plaintiff funds that did not suffer any
losses, but otherwise denied the motion. The court has ordered
certain of the Direct Action plaintiffs to amend their complaints
to properly allege their purchases of Merck securities.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Six Individual Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 between March 2014 and
February 2015, six additional individual securities complaints
were filed by institutional investors that opted out of the class
action. The new complaints are substantially similar to the
complaints in the Direct Actions and are consolidated with the
Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. Discovery in those actions is ongoing.
The Company expects that the trial of these actions will be
consolidated with the class action.


MERCK & CO: 5,230 Fosamax Product Liability Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. remains a defendant in product liability
lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

As of June 30, 2015, approximately 5,230 cases had been filed and
were pending against Merck in either federal or state court,
including one case which seeks class action certification, as well
as damages and/or medical monitoring.

In approximately 580 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw
("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such
as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax; however, substantially all of
those actions are subject to a settlement. In addition, plaintiffs
in approximately 4,650 of these actions generally allege that they
sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur
Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax.

Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries

In August 2006, the JPML ordered that certain Fosamax product
liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be
transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
(the "Fosamax ONJ MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. As a condition to the
settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to
agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either
terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100%
participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for
the settlement fund.

On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the
participation level was approximately 95%. In addition, the judge
overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck and
has entered an order that requires the approximately 40 non-
participants whose cases will remain in the Fosamax ONJ MDL once
the settlement is complete to submit expert reports in order for
their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: 1,040 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,040 cases were pending in the
Femur Fracture MDL against Merck & Co., Inc., the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML
seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated
pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May
2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur
Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict
litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Femur Fracture
MDL").

Judge Pisano presided over the Femur Fracture MDL until March 10,
2015, at which time the Femur Fracture MDL was reassigned from
Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson following Judge Pisano's
retirement.

In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture
MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor.

In addition, on June 27, 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court
granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the
Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was
preempted by federal law.

In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order
requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why
those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took
place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based
on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to
the show cause order, on March 26, 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL
court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on
preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 500 of those cases
are appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. In June 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL court
dismissed without prejudice another approximately 520 cases
pending plaintiffs' appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third
Circuit.

As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,040 cases were pending in the
Femur Fracture MDL including the 500 cases dismissed with
prejudice on preemption grounds which are pending appeal and the
520 cases dismissed without prejudice.

On June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in
the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January
2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were
adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated
those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge
Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. In August 2014, Merck
filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano enter a further order
requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL who claim that
the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of
their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be
dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and its ruling
in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the court granted Merck's
motion and entered the requested show cause order.


MERCK & CO: 3,095 Cases Alleging Femur Fractures Pending in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, approximately 3,095 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court against Merck
& Co., Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.  The cases are pending
before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County.

The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed
through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to
be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013
and March 2014, respectively.


MERCK & CO: 510 Cases Over Femur Fractures Ongoing in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, approximately 510 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in California state court against Merck
& Co., Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture
cases filed in California state court before a single judge in
Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge
Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated
proceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10
discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and
subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs'
selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began on February
17, 2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April
3, 2015. There are presently no trial ready cases in California.


MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Femur Fracture MDL
---------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there are six Femur
Fracture cases pending in other state courts.  Discovery is
ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur
Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 915 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, approximately 915 product user claims were
served on, and are pending against, Merck & Co., Inc. related to
the use of Januvia and/or Janumet, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of June 30, 2015,
approximately 915 product user claims were served on, and are
pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia
and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer. These
complaints were filed in several different state and federal
courts. Most of the claims are pending in a consolidated
multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based
Therapies Products Liability Litigation." That proceeding includes
federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the
following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the
latter two of which are products manufactured by other
pharmaceutical companies. In addition, the Company has agreed, as
of June 30, 2015, to toll the statute of limitations for
approximately 20 additional claims. The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 14 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, there were 14 cases pending outside of the
settlement program related to NuvaRing, Merck & Co., 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.

Beginning in May 2007, a number of product liability complaints
were filed in various jurisdictions asserting claims against the
Company and its subsidiaries relating to NuvaRing, a combined
hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. The plaintiffs contend the
Company, among other things, failed to adequately design and
manufacture NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged
increased risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by
NuvaRing, and/or downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek
damages for injuries allegedly sustained from their product use,
including some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The
majority of the cases were pending in a federal multidistrict
litigation venued in Missouri.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement between Merck and negotiating
plaintiffs' counsel, which became effective as of June 4, 2014,
Merck paid a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more
than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of
February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs in approximately 3,700 cases joined
the settlement program. Each filed case is to be dismissed with
prejudice once the settlement administration process is completed.
Those dismissals began in the second quarter and will continue on
a rolling basis throughout 2015. The Company has certain insurance
coverage available to it, which is currently being used to
partially fund the Company's legal fees. This insurance coverage
was also used to fund the settlement.

As of June 30, 2015, there were 14 cases pending outside of the
settlement program, inclusive of cases filed after the settlement
program closed. Of these cases, 11 are pending in the MDL and are
subject to the case management orders requiring plaintiffs to meet
various discovery and evidentiary requirements. As of June 30,
2015, six plaintiffs have met those requirements and will be
permitted to continue to prosecute their cases.


MERCK & CO: 1,390 Suits Filed Related to Propecia and Proscar
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,390 lawsuits have been filed
related to Propecia/Proscar against Merck & Co., Inc., the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of June 30, 2015,
approximately 1,390 lawsuits involving a total of approximately
1,700 plaintiffs (in a few instances spouses are joined as
plaintiffs in the suits) who allege that they have experienced
persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment
with Propecia and/or Proscar have been filed against Merck.
Approximately 60 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or
Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer
or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various
federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal
lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern
District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New
Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in
Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in
state court in Massachusetts. The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits.


NOVANT HEALTH: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Kruger" Action
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Middle District of North Carolina denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, KAROLYN
KRUGER, M.D., CANDACE CULTON, FRANCES BAILLIE, EILEEN SCHNEIDER,
JUDY LEWIS, LINDA CHRISTENSEN, and TERESA POWELL, individually as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the Novant Health Retirement Plus Plan, Plaintiffs, v.
NOVANT HEALTH, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF NOVANT HEALTH,
INC., NOVANT HEALTH RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40,
Defendants, Case No. 1:14CV208.

Karolyn Kruger, Candace Culton, Frances Baillie, Eileen Schneider,
Judy Lewis, Linda Christensen, and Teresa Powell filed the class-
action lawsuit on March 12, 2014, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec.
1132(a)(2) and (3) on behalf of the Tax Deferred Savings Plan of
Novant Health, Inc., and the Savings and Supplemental Retirement
Plan of Novant Health, Inc.  Plaintiffs, all former or current
employees of Novant, are residents of North Carolina and are all
participants in the Plan. Novant is a North Carolina corporation
comprised of member hospitals, medical centers, and outpatient
surgery centers throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, and
parts of Virginia. Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendants
breached their duties by retaining the higher fee share class
investment options in the Plan when far lower cost funds with the
identical managers, investments styles, and stocks were available.
. . .  Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
consider those lower cost funds with the identical managers,
investments styles, and stocks where available.

Plaintiffs assert five causes of action alleging breach of
fiduciary duties by Defendants in their payment of excessive fees
stemming from (1) imprudent investments in unnecessarily expensive
funds and (2) overpayment to two service providers, Great-West and
Davis. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants breached
their fiduciary duty when the Plan offered only retail class
shares to participants when identical, less expensive,
institutional class shares of the same funds were available.
Plaintiffs allege that the Plan is comprised of a very large pool
of assets and that retirement plans of such size have the ability
to obtain institutional class shares of mutual funds.

In the motion, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have not alleged
facts regarding why the amount of the recordkeeping fees are
excessive, the services provided, or how the fees charged to the
Plan were excessive in light of those services.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order Order dated September 17, 2015
available at http://is.gd/YwxOABfrom Leagle.com, Judge Osteen,
Jr. found that the types of facts presented by the parties warrant
discovery and dismissal is not appropriate at the stage of the
case.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. --
jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Heather Lea, Esq. -- hlea@uselaws.com
-- Michael A. Wolff, Esq. -- nwolff@uselaws.com -- Sean E. Soyars,
Esq. -- ssoyars@uselaws.com -- Troy A. Doles, Esq. --
tdoles@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON & Robert M.
Elliot, Esq. -- rmelliot@emplawfirm.com -- ELLIOT MORGAN
PARSONAGE, P.A.

Defendants are represented by Alexandra S. Tuffuor, Esq. --
atuffuor@morganlewis.com -- Charles C. Jackson, Esq. --
charles.jackson@morganlewis.com -- Christopher J. Boran, Esq. --
cboran@morganlewis.com -- Emily A. Glunz, Esq. --
eglunz@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Jennifer K.
Van Zant, Esq. -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Justin Nathaniel
Outling, Esq. -- joutling@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE
MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP


OILS UNKUT: "Terry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeisha Terry, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Oils Unkut Corporation and Tillman Hughes, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03527-AT (N.D. Ga., October 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oils Unkut Corporation is a Georgia Corporation that sells a wide
variety of natural products such as butters, soaps, and hair
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


PASCHALL TRUCK: Court Rejects Settlement in Grok Lines Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff's motion
for approval of a settlement agreement in the case captioned, GROK
LINES, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 14 C 08033.

Plaintiff Grok Lines, Inc., through its attorneys Siprut PC, filed
a class-action lawsuit brought under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that freight-carrier Paschall sent
unsolicited junk-marketing faxes to Grok Lines and numerous other
unwilling recipients.  After the Court dismissed a state-law claim
for failure to state an adequate claim, and rejected Paschall's
argument that, on the pleadings, its faxes did not constitute
unlawful advertisement, the parties embarked on discovery.

Under the terms of the deal, Grok Lines would get $1,500 and Grok
Lines' attorneys, Siprut PC, would get $98,500. The class members
would get zero money.  The class would only get injunctive relief
in the form of promises from Paschall not to violate the TCPA and
to take steps to avoid future violations.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 18, 2015
available at http://is.gd/O1MlzGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chang
found that the proposed agreement's division of settlement funds
does not satisfy the requirements, as established by the Seventh
Circuit, for a reasonable ratio of attorney's fees to class-member
recovery because it is unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, and
it cannot be approved.

The Court was slated to hold a status hearing on the case for
October 14, 2015.  The parties were required to report on the
progress of settlement negotiations at the hearing.

Grok Lines, Inc. is represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq. --
isalam@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC

Paschall Truck Lines, Inc. is represented by Adam Carl Smedstad,
Esq. -- asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq.
-- ceckhart@scopelitis.com -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON &
FEARY, PC


PELICAN, ALASKA: Judgment in "Tagaban" Case Upheld
--------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Dana Fabe of the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed a
superior court's conclusion that the City of Pelican was not
required to issue redemption notice under AS 29.45.440 in the case
captioned, CLIFFORD W. TAGABAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF PELICAN,
Appellee, Case No. S-10514, S-15253, (CONSOLIDATED), No. 7049.
The Court also affirmed the award of Rule 68 attorney's fees and
vacated a fee award under Rule 82.

Plaintiff Clifford Tagaban served as a representative for a class
that filed suit against the Kake Tribal Corporation for alleged
foreclosure of parcels of land against which he had a judicial
lien without giving proper notice. In 1998 Tagaban was awarded a
judgment against the Kake Tribal Corporation, and the next year he
recorded this judgment as a ten-year lien against parcels of
property the Corporation owned. Tagaban requested and received
lien extensions from the superior court in 2008 and 2009, though
he did not record the second lien extension until 2012. The City
foreclosed upon the parcels in August 2010. Although the City's
counsel notified Tagaban's counsel of the foreclosure via email in
October 2010, eleven months before the redemption period ended,
Tagaban filed suit to challenge the City's lack of formal
foreclosure and redemption notice to him as well as the
constitutionality of Alaska's foreclosure and redemption notice
statutes.

In May 2012 Tagaban moved for summary judgment, and the City
opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in June. The
City challenged the validity of the lien extensions. Superior
Court Judge William B. Carey denied Tagaban's motion and granted
the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that courts do
not have the authority to extend judgment liens beyond the ten
years allowed by statute. The superior court awarded attorney's
fees to the City under both Rule 68 and Rule 82.

On appeal, Tagaban raises 14 claims, asserting the City's lack of
notice to him of the foreclosure and expiration of the redemption
period. He also challenges the constitutionality of Alaska's
foreclosure and redemption notice statutes. Tagaban contends that
the lien extensions were valid, asserting that he had an ongoing
interest in the property so that the City should have provided
foreclosure and redemption notice to him. Tagaban also challenges
the City's foreclosure and redemption dollar value calculations
and the superior court's award of attorney's fees and that he
superior court erred in making two awards of attorney's fees
against him.

In the Opinion dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/lcryE5from Leagle.com, Judge Fabe concluded that the
superior court's judgment is appropriate with respect to the
foreclosure and redemption notice issues because the City was not
constitutionally required to provide Tagaban with personal notice
of the foreclosure and because Tagaban did not timely record his
second purported lien extension sufficient to warrant redemption
notice and the Rule 68 attorney's fees because the City prevailed
against Tagaban in his individual capacity not in his capacity as
class representative on summary judgment. The Rule 82(b) fees
should not have been awarded for the time the City spent
litigating Tagaban's standing to sue as a class representative
because Rule 82 fees are only appropriate for fees incurred in
litigating the merits of the named plaintiff's own claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Fred W. Triem, Esq.
18 Fram St
Petersburg, AK 99833
Tel: (907)772-3911

Defendant is represented by:

Vance A. Sanders, Esq.
Margot Knuth, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF VANCE A. SANDERS, LLC
PO Box 240090
Douglas, AK 99824
Tel: (907)586-1648

     - and -

Aesha Pallesen, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Craig W. Richards, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL


PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss End-Payers' Remaining Claims Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 28, 2015, that motions to dismiss remain pending
as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the antitrust
actions.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into
a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the
end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Lipitor Marketing Lawsuits Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 28, 2015, that a number of individual and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against the Company in various
federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed
type 2 diabetes as a result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February
2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor
(Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products
Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.


PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Class Actions in Canada Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 28, 2015, that the Company continues to defend
class actions lawsuits in Canada related to Chantix/Champix.

Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto
Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary,
and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on
behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who
have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under
Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the
safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative
class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages.

In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who
ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31,
2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified
neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled
to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian
legislation as the result of their relationship with a class
member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert
claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The
Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against
Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer
should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are
common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action,
which is proceeding on a national basis.


PFIZER INC: Celebrex Class Actions in E.D. Va. Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 28, 2015, that the Company continues to defend
class actions related to Celebrex.

Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex.
The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state
classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased
from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed
patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or
generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege
delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal
antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining
and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham
litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through
settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of
the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class
for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014.

In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases,
and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October
2014 and March 2015, the Company filed motions to dismiss the
direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints,
respectively.


PFIZER INC: Settlement in Off-Label Promotion Action Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer 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 28, 2015, that the court has approved a
settlement related to the "Various Drugs: Off-Label Promotion
Action."

The Company said, "In May 2010, a purported class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Pfizer and several of our current and former officers. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false statements, and by
failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material
information concerning the alleged off-label promotion of certain
pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote
the sale of those products and government investigations related
thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount."

"In March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all
persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S.
stock exchanges between January 19, 2006 and January 23, 2009 and
were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer
common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. In
January 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve the matter for $400 million. In July 2015, the court
approved the settlement."


PHILLIPS 66: Must Defend Against "Stubbs" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted motion for leave to
amend in the case captioned, ANTHONY STUBBS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. COVENANT SECURITY SERVICES, LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:14-CV-1154-J-32MCR.

Plaintiff Anthony Stubbs, Jr. filed a putative wage and hour class
action against Covenant Security Services Ltd, Covenant Security
Systems LLC, and Covenant Security Worldwide LLC and Phillips 66
Company to recover wages, civil penalties and all other available
relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code
sections 2698, et seq. (PAGA). The action is brought on behalf of
Plaintiffs, the State of California, and all persons that are or
were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees,
and who suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set
forth in the complaint.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide required meal
and rest breaks or to pay required premiums for missed breaks, in
violation of California law.  They assert the following claims
against all defendants in the FAC: 1) Violation of California
Labor Code Sections 226.7 & 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums);
2) Violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226.7 (Unpaid Rest
Period Premiums); 3) Violation of California Labor Code; 4)
Violation of California Labor Code; 5) Violation of Labor Code
(PAGA); and 6) Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.

In the motion, Phillips 66 asserts that all of Plaintiffs' claims
fail because to prevail upon them, Plaintiffs must establish that
Phillips 66 is their employer and they have not adequately alleged
that under California law they have an employee-employer
relationship with Phillips 66. Plaintiffs contend their
allegations are sufficient to show that Phillips 66 was a common
law employer and/or a joint employer.

In his Order dated September 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/REuIl8from Leagle.com, Judge Spero concluded that it
is in the interests of justice to permit Plaintiffs to file their
Second Amended Complaint (SAC), it evaluates Plaintiffs'
allegations in the SAC with respect to the question of whether
Phillips 66 was their employer. The dismissal of the complaint is
unwarranted because Plaintiffs have alleged specific facts
indicating that they actually work at Phillips 66 facilities and
that Phillips 66 exercises significant day-to-day control over
their work.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Roxanne Allyson Davis, Esq.
Frank aka Farzin Hakim, Esq.
DAVIS GAVSIE HAKIM, LLP
1755 Ocean Ave #511,
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Tel: (310)899-2059

Defendants are represented by Jeremy T. Naftel, Esq. --
jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Nicole A. Legrottaglie, Esq. --
nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com -- CAROTHERS DISANTE FREUDENBERGER
LLP


RENTECH NITROGEN: Faces "Sloan" Suit Over Proposed CVR Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Sloan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rentech Nitrogen Partners, LP, et al., Case No. 2:15-
cv-07818 (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the public unit-holders of Rentech Nitrogen Partners to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Rentech by CVR Partners, LP by means of an
unfair process and for an unfair price.

Rentech Nitrogen Partners, LP is a nitrogen fertilizer company
formed by Rentech, Inc. as a publicly traded master limited
partnership.

CVR Partners, LP owns, operates, and grows a nitrogen fertilizer
business and produces, amongst other things, ammonia and urea
ammonium nitrate fertilizers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esquire
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Case in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend the Morning
Song Bird Food Litigation, which remains in the early stages, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 27, 2015.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory
and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild
bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously
pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on
behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who
purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert
hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual,
compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement,
restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred;
injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest; and costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to
vigorously defend the consolidated action. Given the early stages
of the action, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate
a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and,
accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to the action.
There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of
an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs,
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


STAR DIE: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Gender Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Luna v. Star Die Castings Manufacturing, Inc., Sam Deep, and
Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC596184 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful
employment practices on the basis of sex.

Star Die Castings Manufacturing, Inc. is a California corporation
that manufactures iron and steel products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcelo A. Dieguez, Esq.
      DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949)260-9131

         - and -

      Jerry D. Underwood, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JERRY D.UNDERWOOD, A.P.C.
      5241 E. Santa Ana CanyonRoad, Suite 135
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92807
      Telephone: (714) 998-9802


SURVEY SAMPLING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bell" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
April Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Survey Sampling International, LLC, and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-07851-RSWL-KLS (C.D.
Cal., October 7, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Survey Sampling International, LLC is a global provider of
sampling solutions for survey research with headquarters in
Shelton, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com

         - and -

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


THOMSON REUTERS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Furey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Furey, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Thomson Reuters America Corporation, Reuters
America LLC, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-04633-
KAW (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide Journalist with the basic wage-and-hour
rights and protections guaranteed to employees by the California
Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders.

The Defendants operate a news service organization throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq.
      Karl P. Evangelista, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR.
      500 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 980
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 291-0088
      Facsimile: (818) 240-9955

          - and -

      Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ LAW GROUP
      853 Camino Del Mar, #100
      Del Mar, CA 92014
      Telephone: (858) 552-0000
      Facsimile: (858) 552-8505


TOTAL SYSTEM: Briefing on ProPay's Motion to Dismiss Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, 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 briefing on
ProPay's motion to dismiss a second amended class action complaint
is not expected to be completed before October 2015.

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper
activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have
legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy
protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions"). A motion to
consolidate the Actions was filed by one of the plaintiffs. On
October 21, 2014, the Actions were transferred to and consolidated
before the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. After the consolidation motion was filed, an
additional class action complaint was filed on August 20, 2014, in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 14-04080). The Ferrari action was later transferred
to the District of Massachusetts. To date, ProPay has not been
served with the Ferrari complaint.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated Complaint supersedes
the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and
alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by
TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of
providing payment processing services to TelexFree.

On April 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends
and supersedes the Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated
Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree.

ProPay moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 2,
2015. Briefing on that motion is not expected to be completed
before October 2015. At present, pursuant to a court order, all
discovery in the action is stayed pending the resolution of
parallel criminal proceedings against certain former principals of
TelexFree, Inc.


TRANSCOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the United States District Court
for Middle District of Tennessee ruled on defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, RUBEN CEDILLO, et
al., Plaintiff, v. TRANSCOR AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:13-CV-00869.

On April 8, 2013, the named Plaintiffs filed a class action
Complaint in the Northern District of California. The court
granted TransCor's motion to transfer venue to the Middle District
of Tennessee, finding that while either venue was generally
proper, Tennessee was more convenient as the location of
TransCor's headquarters, non-party witnesses, and relevant
documents. The case was transferred on August 29, 2013.

Plaintiffs claim Defendant used excessive force against Plaintiffs
and deprived Plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, of "the
minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, including sleep,
exercise, hygiene and medical care" in violation of their rights
under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to be free
from unlawful conditions of confinement, the use of excessive
force, and cruel and unusual punishment.

In the motion, Plaintiffs rely on the Schilling class
representatives and have characterized the underlying facts in the
case as a "subset" of the Schilling facts.

In his Memorandum dated September 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/fxzpoWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sharp concluded that
Plaintiff Houston's individual claim is dismissed as time-barred
because res judicata bars relitigation of the class claims. The
individual claims of the other Named Plaintiffs are timely and the
Motion is denied insofar as it seeks to dismiss them.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Andrew Charles Schwartz, Esq.
CASPER MEADOWS SCHWARTZ & COOK
2121 N California Blvd #1020,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Tel: (925)-947-1147

     - and -

Karen Leigh Snell, Esq.
Mark E. Merin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
1010 F St #300
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 443-6911

Transcor America LLC is represented by:

Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
STRUCK WIENEKE & LOVE PLC
3100 W Ray Rd # 300,
Chandler, AZ 85226
Tel: (480)420-1600

     - and -

Jason W. Callen, Esq. -- jason.callen@butlersnow.com -- Erin
Palmer Polly, Esq. -- erin.polly@butlersnow.com -- Joseph F.
Welborn, III, Esq. -- joe.welborn@butlersnow.com -- Lauren Patten,
Esq. -- lauren.patten@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP


TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Ceniceros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Ceniceros, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Trinidad Drilling, LP, Case No. 5:15-cv-00859 (N.D.
Tex., October 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Trinidad Drilling, LP owns and operates an oil and gas services
company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331-1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


TRUSTMARK CORP: 2nd Stanford-Related Suit in Preliminary Stages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the second Stanford-
related lawsuit is in the preliminary stages.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009
in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually
by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine
Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as
Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not
affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The complaint seeks to
recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result
of the collapse of  the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to
other damages) under various theories and causes of action,
including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance,
conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary,
securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does not
quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.

In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.

TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February
28, 2012.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously disclosed by Trustmark.


UNITED STATES: No Extra Pay to Lead Plaintiff in "Cobell" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millett of the Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's denial
of additional compensation for expenses for the lead plaintiff,
Elouise Cobell and remanded the case to the district court in the
case captioned, ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ET AL., Appellants, v.
SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., Appellees, Case
No. 14-5119.

Five named plaintiffs (Class Representatives) initiated a class
action lawsuit in 1996 seeking to compel the United States
Department of the Interior to perform a historical accounting of
the hundreds of millions of dollars held by the Department in
trust for Native Americans. That accounting was required by the
American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994.

In January 2011, the plaintiffs filed both a Petition for Class
Counsel's Fees, Expenses and Costs Through Settlement, and a
Petition for Class Representatives' Incentive Awards and Expenses.
In the Attorneys' Fees Petition, the plaintiffs requested $99.9
million in attorneys' fees "in accordance with the literal
provisions" of the Fee Agreement, but argued "that a fee award of
$223 million, plus expenses and costs of $1,276,598, is in
accordance with controlling law and within this Court's
discretion."  The government argued that the total award should be
limited to $50 million. The court granted four of the Class
Representatives a total of $2.5 million in incentive awards. But
the court denied their separate request for reimbursement of
expenses and costs. With respect to the $390,000 that Ms. Cobell
said she had spent out of her personal funds, the district court
ruled that amount should be reimbursed "out of her sizeable" $2
million "incentive award."  The court then denied the additional
$10.5 million in requested expenses on the ground that the
expenses were not incurred by the Class Representatives, and the
court otherwise lacked authority to award expenses paid by third
parties. The court also awarded $99 million in "attorneys' fees,
expenses and costs.

Almost three years after the motion for reconsideration was
originally filed, the district court denied reconsideration and
declined to consider as untimely raised an argument that the
Settlement Agreement provided for payment of third party costs and
expenses wholly independent of, and in addition to, expenses and
costs of Class Counsel.

On the eleventh appeal, the class action representatives
challenged the district court's denial of compensation for
expenses incurred during the litigation and settlement process.
They argued both that (i) the Class Representatives were
personally liable for much of the expenses they sought to recover,
and (ii) even if the expenses were not attributable to the Class
Representatives, the Settlement Agreement permits the payment of
costs and expenses of third parties wholly independent of the
costs and expenses of Class Counsel.

In the Decision dated September 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/7d5Syqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Millett found that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
compensation to the Plaintiffs for expenses incurred during the
litigation and settlement process. The Court held that the
district court erred in categorically rejecting as procedurally
barred the class representatives' claim for the recovery of third-
party payments, and remand for the district court to apply its
accumulated expertise and discretion to the question of whether
third-party compensation can and should be paid under the
Settlement Agreement.

Plaintiffs are represented by David C. Smith, Esq. --
dsmith@stjlawfirm.com -- William E. Dorris, Esq. --
Bdorris@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Adam H. Charnes, Esq. --
Acharnes@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Elizabeth L. Winters, Esq. --
BWinters@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP

Defendants are represented by

Alisa B. Klein, Esq.
Ronald C. Machen, Jr., Esq.
Beth S. Brinkmann, Esq.
Mark B. Stern, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Wins Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District
for the District of Columbia granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's cross-motion in the case
captioned, LEON MARYLAND, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN
AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-1318(RMC).

Leon Maryland, proceeding pro se, brings suit against the U.S.
Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Center for Verification and
Evaluations (CVE) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. Sec. 552, seeking the release of records relating to the VA
website that serves as a federal government portal for veteran-
owned businesses, https://www.vip.vetbiz.gov/. Mr. Maryland has
repeatedly requested "information regarding businesses that have
applied, or have applications pending, for verification. This
includes those businesses that have been approved or denied, or
that have withdrawn from, or been cancelled from, the verification
program. Only two of Mr. Maryland's FOIA requests are the subject
of this action: a FOIA request dated August 13, 2013 with an
addendum dated August 22, 2013 (collectively, the August 2013
Request) which CVE assigned tracking number 13-06522-F, and a FOIA
request dated November 5, 2014 (November 2014 Request) which CVE
assigned tracking number 15-00846-F.

After the Court declined to approve a prior proposed settlement,
the parties negotiated a new proposed settlement which covers all
Plaintiffs still actively engaged in this litigation. The new
Settlement's essential terms are:

     -- Pulaski will pay $134,611.95 into a gross settlement fund.

     -- Plaintiffs' counsel will request 25% of the gross amount
of the fund ($33,652.99) as attorneys' fees, plus an additional
$6,176.01 for reimbursement of costs and expenses.

     -- Pulaski agrees not to oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's
application for these fees and expenses.

     -- Named Plaintiff Todd Branson will receive a modest $2,000
service award for his work prosecuting this case on behalf of the
class.

     -- The remaining $92,782.95 will be distributed to the 28
Plaintiffs on a pro rata basis by multiplying each employee's
number of weeks employed during the applicable period by the per-
week value of the employee's work. The amounts received by each
individual Plaintiff will vary, but the per capita average
recovery will be $3,314.

In her Opinion dated September 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Z2TwCyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Collyer found that Mr.
Maryland failed to include his allegations that CVE improperly
withheld the email addresses of submitters that reveal personal
names in the Second Amended Complaint, thereby waiving them. Mr.
Maryland also failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with
respect to it and the issue is therefore not subject to judicial
review when he failed to appeal CVE's determination on the issue
to OGC.


USHEALTH GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Stratton Bagg, Esq. and Cooper Law P.A, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHealth Group, Inc.
and USHealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01666-RBD-GJK (M.D.
Fla., October 5, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
sending a noncompliant facsimile advertisement to the telephone
facsimile machine of the Plaintiffs and other entities that do not
contain the requisite opt-out notice.

The Defendants are in the business of selling individual health
insurance plans and supplementary products for self-employed
individuals and small business owners in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Heller, Esq,
      Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
      SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
      P.O. Box 70327
      Telephone: (202) 709-5744
      E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
              josh@sjlawcollective.com

         - and -

      Peter Bennett, Esq.
      Richard Bennett, Esq.
      BENNETT & BENNETT
      1200 Anastasia Avenue, Ofc 360
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 444-5925
      E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com
              richardbennett27@gmail.com


VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Arteaga Ramirez on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Valleycrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC596738 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Valleycrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. is a California
corporation engaged in providing landscape services to
residential, commercial and industrial properties in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949)387-6676


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fiorelli" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Fiorelli, Steven C. Mendoza, Martin Schmidt, Paul Sacamano,
Deborah McCrohon and Wendy Branzburg, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07330-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 6, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' intentional and deceptive
installation of computer software and "defeat devices" that work
by switching on the full emissions control systems in the
Volkswagen Defendants' cars only when the car is undergoing
periodic emissions testing and only front wheels turning.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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:

      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

         - and -

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
      Michael Coren, Esq.
      COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
      127 Maple Ave.
      Red Bank, NJ, 07701
      Telephone: (732) 747-9003


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hensgens" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becky Hensgens and Douglas Pennebaker, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01261-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 30,
2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of
"defeat devices" in numerous vehicles for the model years 2009-
2015.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Haddad, Esq.
      Andrew M. Hendrick, Esq.
      SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK
      317 30th Street
      Virginia Beach, VA 23451
      Telephone: (757) 671-6000
      Facsimile: (757) 671-6004
      E-mail: rhaddad@.srgslaw.com

         - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      Stephen B. Murray Sr., Esq.
      Jessica W. Hayes, Esq.
      Robin Myers Primeau, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 525-8100
      Facsimile: (504) 584-5242
      E-mail: amun-av@murrav-lawfirm.com
              smuiTav@murrav-lavvfinn.com
              ihaves@murrav-lawfirm.com
              rmvers@murrav-lawfin'n.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bauer" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Bauer v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-23702-JLK (S.D. Fla., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
numerous vehicles for the model years 2009-2015.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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 F. Cash III, Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
      RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
      316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7059
      Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
      E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bobko" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerzy Bobko and Danuta Pelc, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-13501-MOB-MJH (E.D. Mich., October 6, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat
devices" in 2009-20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to
evade clean air standards.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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:

      Jason Thompson, Esq.
      Lance C. Young, Esq.
      Amy L. Marino, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              lyoung@sommerspc.com
              amarino@sommerspc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bourn" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Bourn, David Watson, Stephen Verner, and Mark Schumacher, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01295-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., October 6, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009-
20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission
test procedures established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board
("CARB").

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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:

      Bernard J, DiMuro, Esq.
      Harvey B. Cohen, Esq.
      DMUROGINSBERG, P.C.
      1101 King Street, Suite 610
      Alexandria, VA 23314
      Telephone: (703) 684-4333
      Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
      E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com
              hcohen@dimuro.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      Walter D. Kelley Jr., Esq.
      James Pizzirusso, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              wkellev@.hausfeld.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: mlehmann@.hausfeldllp.com
              bswecnev@hausfeldllp.com
              clebsock@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brier" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven E. Brier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07297-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009-
20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission
test procedures established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board
("CARB").

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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:

      Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
      WILENTZ, GOLDMAN, & SPITZER, P.A.
      90 Woodbridge, NJ 07095
      Telephone: (732) 636-8000
      Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
      E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com

         - and -

      Tracey Buck-Walsh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TRACE BUCK-WALSH
      175 Foss Creek Circle
      Healdsburg, CA 95448
      Telephone: (916) 761-9277
      E-mail: tracey@tbwlaw.com

         - and -

      C. Tab Turner, Esq.
      TURNER & ASSOCIATES, PA
      4705 Somers Avenue, Suite 100
      North Little Rock, AR 72116
      Telephone: (501) 791-2277
      E-mail: tab@ttrner.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clyman" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Clyman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23715-KMM (S.C. Fla., October 6, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
various Volkswagen and Audi models, including the
Jetta, the Jetta Sportswagen, the Golf, the Audi A3, the Beetle,
the Beetle convertible, the Passat, and the Golf Sportswagen.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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:

      Neil D. Overholtz, Esq.
      Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
      Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
      Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
      Stephen H. Echsner, Esq.
      E. Samuel Geisler, Esq
      AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
      17 E. Main Street., Suite 200
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 202-1010
      Facsimile: (850) 916-7449


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ets-Hokin" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua M. Ets-Hokin, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-04582-EDL (N.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009-
20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission
test procedures established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board
("CARB").

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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 F. Ram, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
      RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
      555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-4949
      Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
      E-mail: mram@ramolson.com
              jcereghino@ramolson.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farquar" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
George Farquar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-04595(N.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009-
20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission
test procedures established by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board
("CARB").

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:

      Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
      Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
      Leland H. Belew, Esq.
      ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
      155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 986-1400
      Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
      E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com
              jennie@andrusanderson.com
              leland.belew@andrusanderson.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fong" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Y. Fong, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04626 (N.D. Cal. October 6, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
2009-20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent
emission test procedures established by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air
Resources Board ("CARB").

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:

      Jack W. Lee, Esq.
      Aron K. Liang, Esq.
      Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      Lisa P. Mak, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
              aliang@minamitamaki.com
              seant@minamitamaki.com
              lmpk@minamitamaki.com

         - and -

      David M. McClain, Esq.
      Denise Abrams, Esq.
      Henry A. Steinberg, Esq.
      KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD
      A Professional Law Corporation
      Jack London Market
      55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 302-1000
      Facsimile: (510) 835-4913
      E-mail: dmcclain@kazanlaw.com
              dabrams@kazanlaw.com
              hsteinberg@kazanlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Halper" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Halper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07293-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 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:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

      Dan Drachler, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 223-2053
      E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

         - and -

      Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
      Sona R. Shah, Esq.
      ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
      41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 223-3900
      E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com
              sshah@zsz.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stempien" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer June Stempien, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00269 (E.D. Tenn., October  5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
approximately 500,000 Volkswagen and Audi Vehicles in the United
States and over eleven million vehicles worldwide.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
      One Nashville Place
      Suite 2000
      150 Fourth Avenue North
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-1713
      E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Lance A. Harke, P.A., Esq.
      Sarah Engel, Esq.
      Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
      HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
      9699 NE Second Avenue
      Miami Shores, FL 33138
      Telephone: (305) 536-8220
      E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
              sengel@harkeclasby.com
              hbushman@harkeclasby.com

         - and -

      Patrick Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW OFFICE, PLLC
      4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: (615) 463-4000
      E-mail: pbarrett@barrettlawofficetn.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Judy" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert M. Judy, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situation v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00074-JPB (N.D. W.Va., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
approximately 500,000 Volkswagen and Audi Vehicles in the United
States and over eleven million vehicles worldwide.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
      Johnny M. Knisely, Esq.
      GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
      300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
      P.O. Box 2107
      Charleston, WV 25328-2107
      Telephone: (304) 346-7000
      E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com
              jmk@goodwingoodwin.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Knisley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Knisley, Benjamin M. Sharpless, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02670-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., October 6, 2015)
arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat
devices" in Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles powered by four-
cylinder Type EA 189 diesel engines for model years 2009-2015.

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:

      R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq.
      Sidney W. Gilreath, Esq.
      GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 711
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Telephone: (901)527-0511
      E-mail: chrisgil@sidgilreath.com
              gilknox@sidgilreath.com

         - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
      Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
              flonger@lfsblaw.com
              dlevin@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq.
      Andrew J. Kubik, Esq.
      EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP
      12555 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 155
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 350-1500
      E-mail: stuarteppsteiner@eppsteiner.com
              andrewkubik@eppsteiner.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Lippes, Esq.
      RICHARD J. LIPPES & ASSOCIATES
      1109 Delaware Avenue
      Buffalo, NY 14209
      Telephone: (716) 884-4800

          - and -

      Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq.
      James F. Green, Esq.
      Sidney Schupak Esq.
      Stephen M Gensemer Esq.
      ASHCRAFT and GEREL LLP
      4900 Seminary Road, Ste. 650
      Alexandria, VA 2311
      Telephone: (703) 931-5500

         - and -

      Maury A. Herman, Esq.
      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL LLP
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
              ldavis@hhklawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Richards, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01575-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind., October 6, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles powered by four-cylinder Type
EA 189 diesel engines for model years 2009-2015.

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 N. Riley, Esq.
      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-5270
      Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
      Email: wriley@rwp-law.com
             jwilliams@rwp-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Scolnick" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Scolnick, Peter Tomassi, and Andrew Lemen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07292-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October
5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of
"defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of
high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low
emissions that complied with applicable environmental regulations.

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
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
      Telephone: (973) 994-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
              LTaylor@carellabyrne.com

         - and -

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-0000
      E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
              earonowitz@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Michael Kelly, Esq.
      Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
      WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER
      650 California Street, 26th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 906-3764


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Swiger" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Swiger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02059 (N.D. Ohio, October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to
create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance
with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable
environmental regulations.

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:

      Frank E. Piscitelli Jr., Esq.
      Eric W. Henry, Esq.
      PISCITELLI LAW FIRM
      6151 Wilson Mills Road
      Cleveland, OH 44143
      Telephone: (216) 931-7000
      Facsimile: (216) 931-9925
      E-mail: frank@feplaw.com
              eric@feplaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Tamez" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action entitled Daniel Tamez, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 2015CCV-62038-1 was removed from the County Court
at Law No. 1 in Nueces County, Texas to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00425 to the
proceeding.

The Petition alleges relevant allegedly wrongful and fraudulent
business practices that included, among other things, charging a
"Clean Diesel price premium" over the base Manufacturer's
Suggested Retail Price for Volkswagen and Audi vehicles with 2.0
liter "clean diesel" engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William A. Worthington, Esq.
      STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
      909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
      Houston, TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 951-5600
      Facsimile: (713) 951-5660
      E-mail: wiliam.worthington@strasburger.com

         - and -

     Kelly H. Leonard, Esq.
     STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
     909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
     Houston, TX 77010
     Telephone: (713) 951-5600
     Facsimile: (713) 951-5660
     E-mail: Kelly.leonard@strasburger.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Troffer" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Troffer, Shanice Boyette, Giancarlo Ceci, Isaac Hoover,
Forrest Tinsler, John Mazur, Jose Cavaliere, and Nicholas Allen,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13502-BAF-RSW
(E.D. Mich., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to
create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance
with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable
environmental regulations.

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:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P.
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P.
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
      Jason R. Lee, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P.
      1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 341-0400
      Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
      E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weber" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Weber and Elke Weber, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00827 (M.D.N.C., October 5, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency
and high performance with extremely low emissions that complied
with applicable environmental regulations.

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:

      J. Michael Malone, Esq.
      HENDREN & MALONE, PLLC
      4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150
      Raleigh, NC 27612
      Telephone: (919) 573-1423
      Facsimile: (919) 420-0475
      E-mail: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shaw" Class Suit Removed to W. Dist. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Thomas Shaw, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-15-004151, was removed from the Judicial
District Court in Travis County to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00884 to the
proceeding.

The Petition alleges five counts, including fraud, deceptive trade
practices, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and breach of
warranty.

The Defendant is represented by:

      C. Vernon Hartline Jr., Esq.
      John C. Dacus, Esq.
      HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
      8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 369-2100
      Facsimile: (2140 369-2118
      E-mail: hartline@flash.net
              jdacus@hdbdlaw.com

         - and -

      Burgain G. Hayes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BURGAIN G. HAYES
      P.O. Box 10447
      Austin, TX 78766
      Telephone: (5120 472-2193
      Facsimile: (512) 371-0989
      E-mail: bh@bhayes-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth James Valdez and Cheryl Ann Valdez, Patrick Griebel, Damon
Sean Toal-Rossi, David Jaye Tsosie, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00900-WPL-KBM (D.N.M., October 7, 2015) arises
out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat
devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel
efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions that
complied with applicable environmental regulations.

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:

      Sean Lyons, Esq.
      Scott Hendler, Esq.
      HENDLER LYONS FLORES
      1301 West 25th Street, Suite 400
      Austin, TX 78705
      Telephone: (512) 439-3200
      Facsimile: (512) 439-3201
      E-mail: slyons@henderlaw.com
              shendler@henderlaw.com

         - and -

      Ben Davis, Esq.
      THE DAVIS LAW FIRM, LLC
      111 Tulane Dr. SE
      Albuquerque, NM 87106
      Telephone: (505) 750-8742
      Facsimile: (505) 559-4808
      E-mail: bdavis@tdlf-law.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neal Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-04594 (N.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in the
2009-2015 model year 2.0L diesel Volkswagen Jetta, Golf, Beetle
and Passat, and Audi A3 vehicles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
      Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq.
      Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq.
      SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
      Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 788-4220
      Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
      E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com
              wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com
              mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com


WALTER ENERGY: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Deal Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter 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 plaintiffs filed a
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and
the settlement is subject to court approval in the securities
class action lawsuits.

On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter Energy's former CEO; Walter Scheller, Walter
Energy's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former
President of Walter Energy's Canadian and U.K. operations
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were
filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of
Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy
shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and
September 21, 2011.

These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The
complaints further allege that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934
Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
1934 Act.

On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re
Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also
appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public
Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C.
Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The
consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant
Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of
Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion
without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February
15, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on
August 15, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling and
rebriefing and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the
United States Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P.
John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014.
Defendants' filed their opposition on October 28, 2014, and
Plaintiffs' Reply was filed on January 30, 2015. On May 14, 2015,
the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification without prejudice. All other deadlines have been
stayed by the Court.

On June 12, 2015, the court issued a stipulated order dismissing,
without prejudice, all claims brought against Walter Energy.
On July 15, 2015, the remaining parties in the securities class
action executed a settlement agreement which resolves all claims
for $25.0 million. The settlement payment will be funded by the
Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance policy. On
July 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement agreement and the settlement is subject to court
approval.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Energy Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Greenwald and Joyce B. Greenwald, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. The Williams Companies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 11573 (Del. Ch., October 5, 2015) is brought on
behalf of all the public stockholders of The Williams Companies,
Inc., to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on September 28,
2015, pursuant to which Williams will be acquired by Energy
Transfer Equity, L.P. through a flawed process and deprives
Williams' public stockholders of the ability to participate in the
Company's long-term prospects.

The Williams Companies, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company
that focuses on the processing and transportation of natural gas.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. specializes
in the storage and transportation of natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Faces "Mohamed" Suit Over Loan Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Khalid Mohamed, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, et al.,
Case No. 15-007614 (Col. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to notify the
Named Plaintiff and the Class that the ownership of the loan had
been transferred to them.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society operates a financial services
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Khalid Mohamed
      PRO SE
      11221 Street, Northeast
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 810-5720
      E-mail: kmohamed2005@aol.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  * * *