CAR_Public/151021.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 210


                            Headlines


AMERICAN PURE: Recalls Whey Protein Products Due to Milk
APPLE AMERICAN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
BCB BANCORP: Fairness Hearing Held in NJ Class Suit
BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Seafood Products
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Dismissed Washington Action

BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Canterbury" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court to Tackle Contractor Immunity Issue
CHAMBERS STREET: Faces Two Class Suits in Maryland and N.Y.
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Minn. Court Dismissed Class Suits
COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters

CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Farber" Class Action in S.D. Texas
CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Aron" Class Action in S.D. Texas
CROCS INC: Parties Seek State Court Approval of Settlement
CVS PHARMACY: "Bhatt" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
CVS CAREMARK: "Brown" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations

DEL MONTE: Recalls Granny Smith Green Apples Due to Listeria
DEL MONTE: Recalls Parfait Yogurt Cups Due to Almonds
DOLE FRESH: Recalls Bagged Salad Due to Salmonella
ECOLA SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Salmon & Tuna Due to Clostridium
EHEALTH INC: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Machado" Action in D. Mass
ENERNOC INC: Del. Chancery Court Moved Settlement Hearing
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Shareholder Class Action
GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Supreme Tosses Class Certification
GARIBALDI CANNERY: Recalls Canned Products Due to Clostridium

GEORGE BEST: "Lumpkin" Suit Alleges Minimum Wage Law Violations
GOOD FOOD: Recalls Beef, Pork, & Poultry Products Due to Nitrite
HERSHEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of Child Slave Labor
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery
IXIA: Parties Failed to Reach Deal in Securities Class Action

KMART CORP: NY Court Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk FLSA Suit
LA COLONIAL: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Close Dec. 18
LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending
LSB INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Action Pending in N.D. Cal.
MAGNUM HUNTER: Appeals Court Affirmed Securities Case Dismissal
MARKET OF CHOICE: Recalls Baked Brie Products Due to Pecans
MEDICINES COMPANY: Dismiss Bid Under Consideration by Court
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Acetaminophen Tablets

MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Monetary Damages, Attorneys' Fees Granted
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Race Discrimination
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Holinko" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
NEIMAN MARCUS: Petition for Rehearing in Data Breach Suit Tossed
NESTLE INDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Maggi Class Action

NEW ENGLAND NATURAL: Recalls Trader Joe's Granola Products
NEW FRONTIER: Recalls Gluten Free Seaweed Chips Due to Wheat
NIJAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coriander Powder Due to Salmonella
PACIFIC OYSTER: Recalls Canned Seafood Products
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Investor Class Action

PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Court
REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Action in E.D. Va. at Early Stage
REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Action in E.D. Pa. at Early Stage
S MARTINELLI: Recalls Sparking Beverages Due to Glass Chips
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Class Action Filed

SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
SKIPANON BRAND: Recalls Seafood Canned Products
SPARK NETWORKS: Parties in "Werner" & "Wright" Suits Await Order
SPARK NETWORKS: Nov. 4 Hearing on Class Certification Motions
SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Faces Investor Class Action

TD AMERITRADE: Initial Approval of Reserve Yield Case Deal Sought
TD AMERITRADE: "Order Routing" Litigation Remains Pending
TEMPUR SEALY: Wins Favorable Ruling From Appeals Court
TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Bid in "Todd" Case
TEMPUR SEALY: Motion to Amend "Todd" Action Okayed

TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal Pending
TF SUPPLEMENTS: Recalls Rhino Capsules Due to Desmethyl
TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Dried Raisin Products Due to Sulfites
UNITED STATES: Mentally Ill Deportees Can Return Under Settlement
VOLKSWAGEN: Key Issues Arise Following Emissions Test Scandal

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Oxnard Test Site Focus of Emissions Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bagert" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Negligent Misrepresentation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit for Fraudulent Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Skye" Suit Seeks Actual and Punitive Damages

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Aprea" Suit Alleges Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Criminal Fraud Allegation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Brilla" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Covell" Seeks Actual and Treble Damages
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Fraud

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Barger" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Alleges Unlawful Trade Practices
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria

* Courts Issue Opinions on Class Certification Ascertainability
* New Class Action Procedures in UK May Spark More Suits
* UK Consumer Rights Act Introduces "Opt Out" in Class Actions
* UK Fund Managers Mull Suit as New Antitrust Rules Introduced
* UK Legistlation Establishes Procedure for Competition Claims

* US Supreme Court Set to Tackle Labor-Related Suits


                            *********


AMERICAN PURE: Recalls Whey Protein Products Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------
American Pure Whey, New Bern, NC is recalling its whey protein
products, because they contain undeclared milk allergen and soy
allergen. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
specific type of milk and soy run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The products were distributed to, AE, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, IL,
IN, KY, KS, MA, MD, MI, MO, NC, NE, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN,
UT, VT, WA, WI & WY and reached directly to customers through mail
order.

The whey products were manufactured under the following brand
names:

  Brand             Flavor      Lot      Exp.     UPC Code
  -----             ------      number   Date     --------
                                ------   ----
  American Pure     Chocolate   69205    9/2017   456456789004
  Whey Protein
  Matrix
  American Pure     Vanilla     69205    09/2017  783521095013
  Whey Protein
  Matrix
  American Pure     Chocolate   29026    09/2017  753182812809
  Whey Protein
  Isolate
  American Pure     Vanilla     29026    09/2017  78333109591
  Whey Protein
  Isolate
  Body Construct    Cinnamon    78124    09/2017  839893989858
  Meal Replacement  Roll
  Build Your        Chocolate   67134    09/2017  456789517480
  Own Body Protein
  Powder

These products are available in 2 lb. and 5 lb. containers or in
factory sealed food grade mylar bags.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing whey (from milk) and soy lecithin (from soy) was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of the
allergens on the label. Subsequent investigation indicates, the
problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's
production and packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased whey protein products are urged to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Own label
distributors are urged to return the product to us as soon as they
have received the returns. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-888-399-0580, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration have been notified of this
voluntary recall.


APPLE AMERICAN: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Ysabel Rodriguez II, and all others similarly situated v.
Apple American Group II, LLC, Apple American Group, LLC and Does 1
through 50, Case No. BC596098 (Cal. Super., September 28, 2015),
seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned and
due, pursuant to the California Labor Code and the IWC Wage
Orders.

The Defendant is Delaware corporation, authorized to conduct
business in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BCB BANCORP: Fairness Hearing Held in NJ Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
BCB Bancorp, Inc., as the successor to Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc., and
in its own corporate capacity, is a named defendant in a
shareholder class action lawsuit, Kube v. Pamrapo Bancorp, Inc.,
et al., filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County,
Chancery Division, General Equity (the "Action"). On May 9, 2012,
the Company and the other defendants obtained partial summary
judgment, dismissing three of the five Counts of the plaintiff's
Complaint. On May 9, 2012, plaintiff's counsel was awarded interim
legal fees of approximately $350,000. The obligation to pay that
amount has been stayed.

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking the dismissal of the remaining two Counts of the
plaintiff's Complaint. That motion was denied, without prejudice,
on February 19, 2014.

The terms of a proposed Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")
have been agreed to by the plaintiff class, the Company and the
remaining defendants. In consideration for the full settlement and
release of all Released Claims (as that term is defined in the
Stipulation) and the dismissal of the Action with prejudice as
against the Company and the remaining defendants, the Company, on
its own behalf and on behalf of the remaining defendants, will pay
$1,950,000.00 to the Class.

On January 9, 2015, the court entered an Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Class Settlement and
Authorizing the Dissemination of Notice to the Class. Pursuant to
the court rules, a "Fairness Hearing" to determine if the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate was scheduled for
September 21, 2015.

No further updates were provided in BCB Bancorp's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.


BORNSTEIN SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Seafood Products
---------------------------------------------------
Bornstein Seafoods, Inc. of Astoria, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling only canned salmon, sardines, sturgeon, and tuna with
any code starting with "OC" because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium that can
cause life-threatening illness or death.  Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

There have been no reported cases of illness to date.

Products were distributed to retail and to internet customers
nationwide from the website BORNSTEIN.COM.  The last date of
distribution of recalled products is September 2015.

Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC".
The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the can.
Products are packaged in metal cans with net weights ranging from
5.5 oz. to 6 oz.

  Product Name                  UPC              Brand
  ------------                  ---              ------
  Krooke's Shanghaied Salmon    No UPC
  Fancy Pink Salmon             6 14133 30506 4   Logger's Choice
  Pink Salmon                   6 14133 30507 1   Bornstein
                                                  Seafoods
  Smoked Pacific Sardines       6 14133 32155 2   Bornstein
                                                  Seafoods
  Spicy Tomato Pacific          6 14133 32114 9   Bornstein
  Sardines                                        Seafoods
  Sharyn's "Think Pink"         6 14133 30506 4   Bornstein
  Salmon                                          Seafoods
  Smoked Albacore Tuna Fillet   6 14133 30702 0   Bornstein
                                                  Seafoods
  Smoked Sturgeon               6 14133 30802 7   Bornstein
                                                  Seafoods

The Bornstein Seafoods, Inc products were made by Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were
notified that that our products were possibly under- processed.
The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Bornstein Seafoods has not received any canned products from
Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC after september 2015.

If you have any questions, call Bornstein Seafoods, Inc at (503)
325-6164 between the hours of 8:00am PST and 5:00pm PST, Monday-
Friday or send e-mail to BORNSTEIN@BORNSTEIN.COM

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XWw1tx


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Dismissed Washington Action
---------------------------------------------------
A court has approved the settlement and dismissed the so-called
Washington Action against Brookdale Senior Living Inc. with
prejudice, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On July 31, 2014, the Company completed the merger contemplated by
that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February
20, 2014, (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Emeritus
Corporation ("Emeritus"), the Company, and Broadway Merger Sub
Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger
Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Emeritus,
with Emeritus continuing as the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). Prior to
the Merger, Emeritus was a senior living service provider focused
on operating residential style communities throughout the United
States. As of July 31, 2014 Emeritus operated 493 communities,
including assisted living and dementia care communities. Many of
these communities offer independent living alternatives and, to a
lesser extent, skilled nursing care. As of July 31, 2014, Emeritus
owned 182 communities and leased 311 communities. Prior to the
Merger, Emeritus also offered a range of outpatient therapy and
home health services in Florida, Arizona and Texas.

In connection with the acquisition of Emeritus, three purported
class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement, by and
among the Company, Emeritus and Merger Sub, were filed on behalf
of Emeritus shareholders in the Superior Court of King County,
Washington against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board of
directors, the Company and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-2-
06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action").

On June 26, 2014, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to
a proposed settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which
the parties agreed, among other things, that the Company and
Emeritus would make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which supplemental disclosures were made by
the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014 and
incorporated by reference into the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 and the joint proxy statement/prospectus of
the Company and Emeritus included therein. The parties agreed to
use their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the
settlement and the dismissal of the Washington Action with
prejudice.  Following the provision of notice of the settlement to
Emeritus' shareholders, on May 1, 2015, the court approved the
settlement and dismissed the Washington Action with prejudice.


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Canterbury" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jade Canterbury, and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble Bee
Foods, LLC, Starkist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King
Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02169 (S.D. Calif., September 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to
raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices as well as allocate
customers, and restrict capacity within the market for the sale of
packaged seafood products (PSPs) in violation of the Sherman Act,
the Clayton Act, and the antitrust and unfair competition laws of
the State of West Virginia.

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

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic limited liability company with
its principal place of business located at 9655 Granite Ridge
Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. Bumble Bee produces and
sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia. Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion
Capital LLP, based in the United Kingdom.

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

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, dba Chicken of the Sea International, is a
domestic limited liability company with its principal place of
business located at 9330 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Unless
otherwise indicated, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC will be referred to
herein as "CoS." CoS is owned by Thai Union Frozen Products
("TUF"), a company based in Thailand.

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

CoS and King Oscar are wholly owned by Thai Union Frozen Products,
a public company headquartered in Thailand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 239-4599
      Fax: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: rickert@whafh.com

          - and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Alyson Oliver, Esq.
      THE OLIVER LAW GROUP PC
      363 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 200
      Troy, MI 48084
      Tel: 248/327-6556
      Fax: 248/436-3385
      E-mail: aoliver@oliverlg.com


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Court to Tackle Contractor Immunity Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mann, writing for ScoutBlog.com, reports that Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez is one of those cases in which the Court
confronts an issue of great significance, but well might avoid the
issue in the course of decision.  The issue is so simple it is
surprising there is no answer: if a defendant offers to pay the
plaintiff everything the plaintiff could get if the plaintiff
wins, does the plaintiff have to take "yes" for an answer? Phrased
that way, you might think "yes" is the obvious response.  But if
that is correct, then class action defendants have an easy way to
avoid class certification by simply picking off the named
plaintiffs as they appear.   Moreover, as if that were not enough
to fill the argument slot, the same case also will consider the
extent to which the government's broad sovereign immunity extends
to government contractors, the so-called "derivative sovereign
immunity" doctrine.

To understand the specific problem that confronts the Court, some
history is necessary.  Two years ago, the Court heard arguments in
Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action (much like a class action) in which the lower
court had held that an offer of settlement which mooted all of the
only plaintiff's claims did not moot the case as a whole.  The
lower court had concluded that the plaintiff's interest in
pursuing relief on behalf of the other potential plaintiffs was
enough to maintain an Article III controversy.  The biggest
problem for the defendant was a 1980 decision (Deposit Guaranty
National Bank v. Roper), in which the Court had held that a
plaintiff whose own claim was moot nevertheless could continue his
pursuit of an appeal challenging the denial of class
certification.  Seeking strenuously to avoid the decision of that
question, the plaintiff, joined by the government as an amicus,
argued that the offer of settlement in fact had not mooted the
plaintiff's individual claim; if that were so, then the case would
not present the question on which the Court granted review.

Writing for a bare majority of five, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled
for the defendant in a succinct and matter-of-fact opinion,
holding that Article III does not contemplate a case with no
plaintiff; the possibility that other plaintiffs might come along
later is not enough to keep the case alive.  The opinion mentioned
in a footnote that the mootness of the claim of the named
plaintiff was not an issue before the Court because her claim had
been conceded as moot in the district court, the court of appeals,
and in the response to the petition.  Justice Elena Kagan, by
contrast, writing for a group of four dissenters, addressed only
the claim of individual mootness; in her view, an unaccepted
settlement offer can never make a case moot.  Accordingly, the
four dissenters would not have reached the merits, but would have
affirmed on the basis that the plaintiff's claim in fact was not
moot.  In sum, what Genesis gives us is a five-to-zero vote that a
representative action cannot survive mootness of the claim of the
named plaintiff and a four-to-zero vote that an unaccepted offer
of settlement cannot moot the claim of the named plaintiff.

Campbell-Ewald brings that second question squarely before the
Court.  The case involves a class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits a wide variety of
formerly common telemarketing activities; the statute provides for
statutory damages of $500 but not attorney's fees.  Promptly after
receiving the complaint, the defendant -- petitioner Campbell-
Ewald Co. -- made an offer of relief of $1500, three times the
statutory damages that respondent Jose Gomez (the named plaintiff)
would receive if he ultimately prevailed.

The question whether that offer is enough to vitiate Gomez's claim
raises foundational questions about class actions.  From the
perspective of defendants (in class actions or otherwise), it is
crucial that there be some way to end litigation.  If the
defendant wishes to concede and to pay a full recovery, hasn't the
purpose of the lawsuit been completely served?  The point is put
most elegantly in an amicus brief from the Consumer Data Industry
Association:

Suppose that James Madison, having been sued by William Marbury,
had relented and delivered to Marbury his commission.  Suppose
further that Mr. Marbury had shut his door and refused to accept
it, announcing to the Secretary of State that instead of having
his injury redressed in full, he was more interested in hearing
the Supreme Court expound on the issue of judicial review, and in
ensuring that commissions not be illegally denied to other
Federalists.  Would Chief Justice Marshall have humored Mr.
Marbury's academic interest in hearing the Court "say what the law
is"?

It is easy to quibble about the details -- should the result of
the settlement be a direct dismissal of the action or instead
entry of judgment in favor of the objecting plaintiff -- but
Campbell-Ewald (represented by former Solicitor General Greg
Garre) has a powerful argument that the business of courts is
resolving "real" disputes between parties before the Court.  It is
safe to expect the argument to be appealing to the Justices who
were in the majority in Genesis (in addition to Thomas, Chief
Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
and Samuel Alito).

Having said that, we know from Genesis that four of the Justices
find Campbell-Ewald's argument unconvincing.  So all that the
plaintiff has to do is persuade one of the five Justices in the
Genesis majority to accept his view on this question -- which the
Genesis majority explicitly left open.  The central strategy
chosen by Jonathan Mitchell (the former Solicitor General of
Texas, representing Gomez) is to pound repeatedly on various
logical difficulties of Campbell-Ewald's position.  Most
obviously, if the offer itself moots the case, then how can the
court enter judgment at a later date?  Similarly, how can a
settlement offer that is rejected be binding as a resolution of
the case; a rejected contractual offer has no binding effect, even
on the offeror.  Again, there is something deeply unsettling about
a district court forcing acceptance of an offer by entering
judgment in favor of the objecting plaintiff.

Any Justice with a will to do so obviously could sweep all of
those formalistic issues aside; Campbell-Ewald suggests that even
after a case becomes moot a court can take "non-merits-based
steps" to clear the docket in a manner "consonant to justice"
(quoting an earlier decision on the effects of mootness).  The
dissenters, though, are surely motivated by what is actually at
stake: the ability of defendants to undermine the effectiveness of
class relief by paying a pittance to pick off class
representatives one after another.  The question for the argument
will be whether any member of the Genesis majority finds that
concern compelling.

If that is not enough to spark interest, the case also involves
the wholly separate question of derivative sovereign immunity.
Campbell-Ewald was a government contractor assisting the Navy in
recruiting.  In the course of its activities, the Navy sent a
message to a list of individuals provided by Campbell-Ewald.  It
appears likely that the list mistakenly included individuals who
had not agreed to receive such messages; Gomez's suit is on behalf
of all such individuals.

All agree that the Navy is categorically immune from such an
action.  Campbell-Ewald seeks "derivative" immunity.  It relies
heavily on a pre-World War II decision (Yearsley v. W.A. Ross
Construction Co.) granting such immunity to a contractor sued
under state law in connection with a public works project.
Campbell-Ewald argues that Yearsley compels recognition of
immunity.  Gomez, by contrast, contends that immunity from state-
law claims makes sense as a matter of preemption, but immunity
from federal law claims is something entirely different.  The
general statutory grant of immunity to federal employees, for
example, does not extend to violations of federal statutes.

The United States (as an amicus) weighs in to support the
contractor.  It agrees (no surprise) that it is absolutely
protected, but it argues that the contractor should be immune only
if the Navy had delegated to Campbell-Ewald the Navy's "privilege"
to make calls otherwise barred by the TCPA.  Because the Navy did
not delegate that privilege - but rather required in the contract
that Campbell-Ewald comply with all applicable federal laws -- the
federal government urges that Campbell-Ewald should receive no
immunity.

It is difficult to gauge the Court's reaction to this problem.
Because its decisions in the area of contractor immunity are on
the one hand rare and on the other decidedly non-textual --
witness Scalia's opinion in Boyle v. United Technologies -- the
Justices have a relatively free hand here to fashion such immunity
as they deem appropriate.  To my mind, the arguments are so
closely balanced that it is difficult to predict what they will
think.  ScoutBlog.com's Mann said "My best guess is that they will
regard the class action questions as so important that they will
turn to the immunity question largely as an afterthought.  The
argument, of course, will tell us more about that."


CHAMBERS STREET: Faces Two Class Suits in Maryland and N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chambers Street Properties said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that two putative class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger between the
Company and Gramercy have been filed in New York Supreme Court,
New York County. A separate action asserting both class action and
shareholder derivative claims challenging the proposed merger has
been filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland. The
New York actions are captioned Berliner v. Gramercy Property
Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July 9, 2015) and
Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015 (filed July 22,
2015) and the Maryland action is captioned Jobin v. DuGan, et al.,
Index No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27, 2015). The lawsuits
allege that the directors of Gramercy breached their fiduciary
duties to Gramercy stockholders by agreeing to sell Gramercy for
inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection
terms in the Merger Agreement. The complaints further allege,
among other things, that the Company and certain of its affiliates
aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties.
The lawsuits seek, among other things, an injunction barring the
merger, rescission of the merger to the extent it is already
implemented, and an award of damages. The defendants believe the
lawsuits are without merit and will vigorously defend themselves
in these actions.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Minn. Court Dismissed Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
court has entered judgment of dismissal dismissing all claims in
class action lawsuits.

Five putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged Enventis
shareholders that challenged the Company's merger with Enventis in
which the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc., Enventis and members of
the Enventis board of directors were named as defendants.  The
shareholder actions were filed in the Fifth Judicial District,
Blue Earth County, Minnesota.  The actions generally alleged,
among other things, that each member of the Enventis board of
directors breached fiduciary duties to Enventis and its
shareholders by authorizing the sale of Enventis to the Company
for consideration that allegedly was unfair to the Enventis
shareholders, agreeing to terms that allegedly unduly restricted
other bidders from making a competing offer, as well as
allegations regarding disclosure deficiencies in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  The complaints also alleged that the
Company and Sky Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the
Enventis board of directors.  The lawsuits sought, amongst other
things, equitable relief, including an order to prevent the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
The Enventis board of directors appointed a Special Litigation
Committee to address the claims.

"We believed that these claims were without merit," the COmpany
said.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the five lawsuits as In Re: Enventis Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489.  On September 23,
2014, the District Court entered an order that denied the
plaintiffs' request for expedited proceedings and stayed all
proceedings "pending the completion of the Special Litigation
Committee and the issuance of its decision."

On February 2, 2015, the Special Litigation Committee issued a
report stating that the claims lacked merit and should not
proceed.  On March 4, 2015, the members of the Enventis board of
directors filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims with
prejudice.  On March 11, 2015, the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc.
and Enventis filed their motion to dismiss the matter with
prejudice.

A hearing on the motions to dismiss was scheduled for May 8, 2015.
However, on April 29, 2015, all parties entered into an agreed
stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice.  On May 4, 2015,
the court entered an order granting the parties' stipulation to
dismiss all claims, and on May 6, 2015, the court entered the
judgment of dismissal dismissing all claims with prejudice and
without costs to any party.


COOK MEDICAL: Recalls Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters
----------------------------------------------------------
Cook Medical initiated a voluntary recall for select sizes of
Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters. This recall includes all
lots of these select sizes of the Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic
Catheters. This recall is an expansion of the voluntary lot-
specific recall issued on July 2, 2015. The products include
specific versions of the Torcon NB(R) Advantage Beacon(R)Tip
Catheters (catalog prefix HNBR4.0, HNBR4.1 and only HNBR5.0 with
the RUC suffix), Royal Flush(R) Plus Beacon(R)Tip High-Flow
Catheters (catalog prefix HNR4.0), and Slip-Cath(R) Beacon(R) Tip
Hydrophilic Catheters (catalog prefix SCBR4.0, SCBR4.1, and only
SCBR5.0 with the RUC suffix), and Shuttle(R)Select Slip-Cath(R)
catheters (catalog prefix SCBR4.5).

The Beacon Tip Angiographic Catheters have been found to exhibit
tip splitting or separation, which has resulted in 42 Medical
Device Reports. Tip splitting has the potential to lead to loss of
device function. Tip separation may require medical intervention
to retrieve a separated segment or, if not retrieved, has the
potential to occlude blood flow to end organs.

The Beacon Tip Angiographic Catheters in this recall were
distributed globally between September 2012 and September 2015.
Product can be identified by the part number provided on the outer
package product label. The part numbers for products subject to
this recall are those with catalog number prefixes and suffixes
listed in the initial paragraph above. All lots currently in
distribution are affected.

Cook Medical has notified its customers and distributors by recall
notification letters. The letters requested that all customers and
distributors quarantine and discontinue use of all potentially
affected units and return the affected product to the company as
soon as possible for credit.

The FDA and other regulatory agencies around the world have been
notified of this action.

Consumers with questions may contact Cook Medical Customer
Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339- 2235, Monday through
Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time or by email
at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com. Adverse reactions or
quality problems experienced with the use

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or via regular mail or fax.
Download the form at www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-
800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, and then complete and
return to the address on the preaddressed form, or submit by fax
to 1-800-FDA-0178. Adverse events may also be reported to Cook
Medical Customer Relations at 1-800-457-4500 or 1-812-339-2235,
Monday through Friday, between 7:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Eastern
time or by email at CustomerRelationsNA@cookmedical.com

Beacon(R) Tip Angiographic Catheters Recall Extension - Affected
Lot Numbers

Beacon(R) Tip Royal Flush(R) Plus High-Flow Catheter

  Product Catalog Numbers                             PIG
  ------------------------                            ---
  HNR4.0-35-100-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-100-P-10S-CFP,     All Lots
  HNR4.0-35-100-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-100-P-6S-VCF,
  HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-0,HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-DAV,
  HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM1, HNR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM2,
  HNR4.0-35-100-ST-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-100-ST-10S-PIG,
  HNR4.0-35-100-ST-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-110-P-10S-PIG,
  HNR4.0-35-120-P-6S-PED,HNR4.0-35-120-ST-6S-PED,
  HNR4.0-35-125-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-125-P-10S-PIG,
  HNR4.0-35-50-P-NS-0, HNR4.0-35-65-P-8S-VCF,
  HNR4.0-35-70-P-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-70-P-10S-CFP,
  HNR4.0-35-70-P-10S-PIG, HNR4.0-35-70-P-4S-PED,
  HNR4.0-35-70-P-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-70-P-NS-0,
  HNR4.0-35-70-ST-10S-0, HNR4.0-35-70-ST-10S-PIG,
  HNR4.0-35-70-ST-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-90-P-10S-0,
  HNR4.0-35-90-P-10S-CFP, HNR4.0-35-90-P-10S-PIG,
  HNR4.0-35-90-P-6S-PED, HNR4.0-35-90-P-8S-VCF,
  HNR4.0-35-90-P-NS-0,HNR4.0-35-90-ST-10S-0,
  HNR4.0-35-90-ST-10S-

Beacon(R) Tip Torcon NB(R) Advantage Catheter

  Product Catalog Numbers                             PIG
  ------------------------                            ---
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-0, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-C1,      All Lots
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-
  CANADA-041480, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-DAV,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JB1,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JB3,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-JIM, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-KMP,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-MPA, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-O1,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM1, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM2,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-SIM3,HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-VERT,
  HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-VTK, HNBR4.0-35-100-P-NS-WNBG,
  HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-0, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-DAV,
  HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-JB1,
  HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-MPA,
  HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-SIM2, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-VERT,
  HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-VTK, HNBR4.0-35-125-P-NS-WNBG,
  HNBR4.0-35-40-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-0,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-C1,HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-C2,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-C3, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-DAV,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-JB1,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-MPA,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RC2,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RDC, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RIM,
  HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-SIM1, HNBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-SIM2,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-C2,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JL2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JL2.5,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JL3, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JR1,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JR2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-JR3.5,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-RH, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-RLG,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS1,
  HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS2, HNBR4.0-35-80-P-NS-VS3,
  HNBR4.0-NT-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.0-NT-80-P-NS-RC1,
  HNBR4.0-NT-80-P-NS-RIM, HNBR4.0-NT-80-P-NS-RLG,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-0, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-C1,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-DAV,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-JB1,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-JB2, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-JB3,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-KMP, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-MPA,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-O1, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-SIM1,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-SIM2, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-SIM3,
  HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-VERT, HNBR4.1-35-100-P-NS-WNBG,
  HNBR4.1-35-110-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.1-35-110-P-NS-JB2,
  HNBR4.1-35-110-P-NS-WNBG, HNBR4.1-35-120-P-NS-JB2,
  HNBR4.1-35-130-P-NS-DAV-T, HNBR4.1-35-40-P-NS-KMP,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-C1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-C2,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-DAV, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-H1,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-JB1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-KMP,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-LEV1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-MPA,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RC2,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RDC, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-RIM,
  HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-SHK1.0, HNBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-SIM1,
  HNBR4.1-35-75-P-NS-CHG-D, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-C1,
  HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-C2, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JL2,
  HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JL2.5, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JL3,
  HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JR1, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JR2,
  HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-JR3.5, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-RC1,
  HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-RH, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-RLG,
  HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-VS, HNBR4.1-35-80-P-NS-VS2,
  HNBR4.1-NT-100-P-NS-H1, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-C1,
  HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RC1, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RH,
  HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RIM, HNBR4.1-NT-80-P-NS-RLG,
  HNBR5.0-35-65-P-NS-RUC, HNBR5.0-35-90-P-NS-RUC
Shuttle(R) Select Slip-Cath(R) Catheter

  Product Catalog Numbers                           PIG
  ------------------------                          ---
  SCBR4.5-35-135-P-NS-ANG-SHTL, SCBR4.5-35-135-     All Lots
  P-NS-ANG-SHTL-JP, SCBR4.5-35-150-P-NS-0-SHTL,
  SCBR4.5-35-150-P-NS-ANG-SHTL, SCBR4.5-35-75-P-
  NS-ANG-SHTL, SCBR5.0-35-90-P-NS-RUC

Slip-Cath(R) Beacon(R) Tip Catheter

  Product Catalog Numbers                           PIG
  ------------------------                          ---
  SCBR4.0-35-150-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-35-65-P-NS-RC2,    All Lots
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-C2,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-AV, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-H1,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-HN4, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-JB1,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-JB2, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-KMP,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-MAN, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-MPA,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-MPB, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-SIM1,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-SIM2, SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-SIM3,
  SCBR4.0-38-100-P-NS-VERT, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-0,
  SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-DAV, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-JB1,
  SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-SIM1,SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-SIM2,
  SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-TEGT, SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-VERT,
  SCBR4.0-38-125-P-NS-VTK,SCBR4.0-38-40-P-NS-KMP,
  SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-0, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-C2,
  SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-KMP, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-MPA,
  SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-RIM, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-TC,
  SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-TC-BNK, SCBR4.0-38-65-P-NS-VERT,
  SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-RH, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS,
  SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS1, SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS2,
  SCBR4.0-38-80-P-NS-VS3, SCBR4.1-35-65-P-NS-C2,
  SCBR4.1-35-75-P-NS-CHG2.5


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Farber" Class Action in S.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP is facing a class action lawsuit by
Lawrence G. Farber related to Simplification merger, Crestwood
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, as a putative class action on behalf of
Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G. Farber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC,
Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D.
Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David
Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP
ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, and
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint alleges, among other
things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner breached its
fiduciary duties, certain individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, and that other
defendants have aided and abetted such breaches. The plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the Simplification Merger unless and until such
alleged breaches have been cured.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Faces "Aron" Class Action in S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Isaac Aron, a
purported unitholder of the Crestwood Midstream, filed on July 21,
2015, a complaint in the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, as a putative class action on behalf of Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Robert G. Phillps,
Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D. Getting, Warren H.
Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood
Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, Crestwood
Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity
Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP,
LLC. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Crestwood
Midstream's general partner and certain individual defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an alleged incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the merger
unless and until certain information is disclosed to Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders.

While the Company and Crestwood Midstream cannot predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or any other lawsuits that may be filed
subsequent to the filing of this Form 10-Q, nor can the Company
and Crestwood Midstream predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve these lawsuits or any other
lawsuits, the Company, Crestwood Midstream and the other
defendants named in this lawsuit intend to vigorously defend
against this and any other actions.


CROCS INC: Parties Seek State Court Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Crocs Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a class action lawsuit
are petitioning the State Court for approval of the settlement.

On August 8, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
California State Court against a Crocs subsidiary, Crocs Retail,
LLC (Zaydenberg v. Crocs Retail, LLC, Case No. BC554214). The
lawsuit alleged various employment law violations related to
overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of
wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses.
Crocs filed an answer on February 6, 2015, denying the allegations
and asserting several defenses.

On June 3, 2015, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed
in California State Court against Crocs Retail, LLC (Christopher
S. Duree and Richard Morely v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. BC583875),
making substantially the same allegations as in the Zaydenberg
lawsuit. The parties attended a mediation on June 26, 2015, and
reached a preliminary settlement for both lawsuits. The parties
are now petitioning the State Court for approval of the
settlement.


CVS PHARMACY: "Bhatt" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Madhavi Bhatt, and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23622 (S.D. Fla., September 29, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant managed, owned and operated a retail pharmacy in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
      Jonathan S. Minick, P.A.
      1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
      Miami, FL 33135
      Tel: (786) 441-8909
      Fax: (786) 523-0610
      E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


CVS CAREMARK: "Brown" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Willie Brown, and all others similarly situated v. CVS Caremark,
Garfiedl Beach CVS, LLC, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Does 1 through
100, Case No. 2:15-cv-07631 (C.D. Calif., September 29, 2015),
seeks penalties and damages for Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code, including without limitation, failure to
provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements and
failure to timely pay wages to terminated employees.

The Defendants operate retail pharmacy stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 488-6555
      Fax: (213) 488-6554
      E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com

          - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
      Tel: (213) 381-1515
      Fax: (213) 233-4409
      E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz


DEL MONTE: Recalls Granny Smith Green Apples Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., ("Del Monte Fresh") is
initiating a voluntary recall of Granny Smith green apples because
they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stuffiness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea,
Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

A total of 695 boxes containing 8 "Granny Smith" green apples each
and 67 clear plastic bags containing 6 "Granny Smith" green apples
each were distributed to Coremark and 7-Eleven for sale in
convenience stores in the Mountain States region on Oct. 1-12,
2015.  States affected include CO, KS, MO, NE, NM, OK, SD, UT and
WY.  The apples at store level are individual fruit on open
displays.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  The problem was
discovered when a customer performed microbial testing on raw
apples received.

Consumers who suspect that they have purchased "Granny Smith"
green apples affected by this recall should dispose it in the
garbage and contact Del Monte Fresh Produce for a refund.
Affected retailers have been requested to remove the product from
sale.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company's consumer
hotline at 1-800-659-6500 operating 24 hours seven days a week or
email Del Monte Fresh at Contact-US-Executive-
Office@freshdelmonte.com


DEL MONTE: Recalls Parfait Yogurt Cups Due to Almonds
-----------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., ("Del Monte Fresh") is
initiating a voluntary recall of "Fresco Fresh" brand parfait
yogurt cups because they may contain undeclared almonds. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled products were distributed to a limited number of
customers in North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia. These
items had the Fresco Fresh label and contained vanilla or
strawberry parfait yogurt over fresh fruit in the bottom with a
separate granola insert at the top of the cup. The granola
component contained almonds. The absence of the required allergen
statement on the product label was discovered during a routine
retained-sample inspection.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.

There are three Parfait yogurt fruit cup types: Strawberry yogurt
with fresh bananas, Vanilla yogurt with fresh blueberry/
strawberry blend and Vanilla yogurt with fresh strawberries. The
products had "Best if Enjoyed By" dates between October 11 - 20,
2015 and were distributed between October 3 - 12, 2015.

  Product           Best if         Lot         UPC
  Description       Enjoyed By      Number      ----
  -----------       ----------      ------
  6.5 oz Banana     10/11, 13, 18,  10276101;   7-17524-77501-6;
  Strawberry Yogurt 19,20/2015      10279101;   7-17524-77512-2
  Parfait                           10283101;
                                    10278101;
                                    10280101;
                                    10282101;
                                    10285101
  6.5 oz Strawberry  10/13,         10278101;   7-17524-77503-0
  Yogurt Parfait     15/2015        10280101
  6.5 oz Strawberry  10/13, 15,     10276101;   7-17524-77511-5
  Blueberry Yogurt   16, 18,        10279101;
  Parfait            20/2015        10280101;
                                    10283101;
                                    10282101

Consumers who suspect that they have purchased a "Fresco Fresh"
brand parfait yogurt cup affected by this recall should dispose it
in the garbage and contact Del Monte Fresh Produce for a refund.
Affected retailers have been requested to remove the product from
sale.

Consumers with questions may contact the Company's consumer
hotline at 1-800-659-6500 operating 24 hours seven days a week or
email Del Monte Fresh at Contact-US-Executive-
Office@freshdelmonte.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/rJ5MiU


DOLE FRESH: Recalls Bagged Salad Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------
Dole Fresh Vegetables is voluntarily recalling a limited number of
cases of bagged salad. The product being recalled is Dole Spinach
coded A27409B & A27409A, with an Enjoy By date of October 15 and
UPC 7143000976 due to a possible health risk from Salmonella. Dole
Fresh Vegetables is coordinating closely with regulatory
officials. No illnesses have been reported in association with the
recall.

The product code and Enjoy By date are in the upper right-hand
corner of the package; the UPC code is on the back of the package,
below the barcode. The salads were distributed in 13 U.S. states
(Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Wisconsin).

No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall.
This precautionary recall notification is being issued due to an
isolated instance in which a sample of Dole Spinach salad yielded
a positive result for Salmonella in a random sample test conducted
by the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development;
Laboratory Division.

Neither Baby Spinach nor any other salads, are included in the
recall. Only the specific Product Codes, UPC codes and October 15,
2015 Enjoy By date identified above are included in the recall.
Consumers who have any remaining product with these Product Codes
should not consume it, but rather discard it. Retailers and
consumers with questions may call the Dole Food Company Consumer
Response Center at (800) 356-3111, which is open 8:00 am to 3:00
pm (PT) Monday - Friday.

Dole Fresh Vegetables customer service representatives are already
contacting retailers and are in the process of confirming that the
recalled product is being removed from the stream of commerce.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause foodborne illness in a
person who eats a food item contaminated with it. Symptoms of
infection may include fever and gastrointestinal symptoms such as
nausea, diarrhea, vomiting or abnormal pain. The illness primarily
impacts young children, frail and elderly people and those with
weakened immune systems. Most healthy adults and children rarely
become seriously ill.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/LjzoH8


ECOLA SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Salmon & Tuna Due to Clostridium
---------------------------------------------------------------
ECOLA Seafoods Inc. of Cannon Beach, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling ALL canned salmon and tuna with any code starting with
"OC" because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-
threatening illness or death.  Consumers are warned not to use the
product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing.  Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms.  People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO REPORTED CASES OF ILLNESS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR
PRODUCT TO DATE.

All products were distributed to consumers in Oregon.The last date
of distribution of recalled products was September 2015 (with an
expiration date of September 2018.)  Affected production codes
include any codes starting with "OC".  The code can be found on
either the bottom or on top of the can.  Recalled products are
packaged in metal cans with net weight 7.5 oz.

The ECOLA Seafoods products were made by Skipanon Brand Seafoods
LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were notified
that that our products were possibly under- processed. The problem
was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC
by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Consumers who have purchased recalled salmon or tuna canned
products are urged to return it to ECOLA Seafoods for a full
refund.  If you have any questions, call Cindy Beckman at (503)
436-9130 between the hours of 9 am and 3 pm PST, Monday-Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/x6QGYj


EHEALTH INC: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
eHealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on January 26 and March
10, 2015, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against
us, our chairman and chief executive officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr.
Lauer"), and our senior vice president and chief financial
officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  On May 6,
2015, the Court consolidated the two cases.  On June 10, 2015, a
consolidated complaint was filed.  The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance, guidance and
operations during an alleged class period of May 1, 2014 to
January 14, 2015.  The consolidated complaint alleges that we and
Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, equitable/injunctive relief and such other
relief as the court deems proper.  On July 15, 2015, defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Machado" Action in D. Mass
----------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Christopher Machado, a purported holder of the Company's common
stock, filed on May 4, 2015, a civil action in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the
Company and the Company's chief executive officer and the
Company's chief financial officer, Machado v. Endurance
International Group Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-
cv-11775-GAO.

The Company said, "The complainant in the action asserts claims on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities
between November 4, 2014 and April 27, 2015. The complaint asserts
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, based on assertions that disclosures made by us
during the class period concerning our organic growth rate,
average revenue per subscriber, and financial accounting related
to our international business were false or misleading. Plaintiff
seeks, on behalf of himself and the purported class, compensatory
damages and his costs and expenses of litigation."


ENERNOC INC: Del. Chancery Court Moved Settlement Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Chancery
Court initially scheduled a hearing to be held on June 30, 2015,
which was subsequently rescheduled to August 20, 2015, to consider
whether to approve the settlement.

On November 6, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, World Energy, Wolf
Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of directors of
World Energy arising out of the merger between the Company and
World Energy. The lawsuit generally alleged that the members of
the board of directors of World Energy breached their fiduciary
duties to World Energy's stockholders by entering into the merger
agreement because they, among other things, failed to maximize
stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-protection terms.
The lawsuit also alleged that the Company and World Energy aided
and abetted the board of directors of World Energy in breaching
their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff sought to stop or delay the
acquisition of World Energy by the Company, or rescission of the
merger in the event it is consummated, and seeks monetary damages
in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial.

The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and on December 24,
2014, without admitting, but expressly denying any liability on
behalf of the defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) regarding a proposed settlement to resolve all
allegations. The MOU was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
on December 24, 2014. Among other things, the MOU provides that,
in consideration for a release and the dismissal of the
litigation, World Energy would include additional disclosures in a
Form SC 14D9-A to be filed with the SEC no later than December 24,
2014. The MOU also provided that the litigation, including the
preliminary injunction hearing, be stayed. The merger closed on
January 5, 2015.

On March 26, 2015, the parties executed and filed with the
Delaware Chancery Court a formal stipulation of settlement. The
Company has recognized an obligation of $300 in connection with
the settlement. The Delaware Chancery Court initially scheduled a
hearing to be held on June 30, 2015, which was subsequently
rescheduled to August 20, 2015, to consider whether to approve the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the Delaware Court of
Chancery will approve the settlement.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Sept. 30
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. FCAU, on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities between August 1, 2014 and
July 24, 2015,  inclusive (the "Class Period").

Fiat Chrysler shareholders who wish to discuss this action and
their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela,
Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at
info@ktmc.com

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/fiat-chrysler-automobiles-nv

Fiat Chrysler was formed in October 2014 as the result of a merger
of Fiat Group Automobiles and Chrysler  LLC.

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

As detailed in the complaint, on June 28, 2015, Fiat Chrysler
announced a recall of certain 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge
Durango vehicles because they "may have been inadvertently
equipped with improperly heat-treated suspension components."  On
this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.06 per share,
or 6.8%, to close on June 29, 2015 at $14.53 per share.

On July 24, 2015, Fiat Chrysler announced another recall of
certain 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango vehicles "after
it was demonstrated that a security flaw in the vehicles'  systems
rendered the vehicles vulnerable to remote electronic manipulation
('hacking'), including  cutting the vehicle's brakes, shutting
down the vehicle's engine, steering the vehicle off the road, and
shutting down the vehicle's electronics systems." On this news,
shares of the Company's stock declined $0.39, or 2.5%, to close at
$15.15 per share on July 24, 2015.

On July 26, 2015, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ("NHTSA") announced that it was imposing a record
$105 million fine on the Company in connection with the Company's
handling of 23 previous recalls affecting more than 11 million
vehicles. As detailed in the complaint, the penalties were tied to
violations in an array of areas, including misleading regulators,
inadequate repairs, and failure to alert affected car owners in a
timely manner.  On this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined $0.74 per share, or approximately 4.9%, to close at
$14.41 per share on July 27, 2015

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com

Members of the class may,no later than November 10, 2015, petition
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
Darren J. Check, Esq.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(888) 299 - 7706
(610) 667 - 7706
info@ktmc.com


GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Supreme Tosses Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that more than
14 years after Ganley Chevrolet in Cleveland spot-delivered a used
Chevy Blazer to Jeffrey and Stacy Felix, it's still arguing with
them in court over the arbitration provision contained in their
purchase documents.

The latest decision in the case, rendered by the Ohio Supreme
Court, tossed out class certification as well as a class award and
whittled the case once again to the Felixes' complaints against
the dealership.

The Felixes bought the 2000 Blazer in March 2001.  They claim the
dealership first promised them 0 percent financing through GMAC
and when that fell through next promised them financing at 1.9
percent, which they agreed to but GMAC rejected.  The dealership
finally told them they had bank financing at 9.44 percent
interest.  The Felixes refused that deal but kept the Blazer,
allegedly putting payment funds into escrow.

The Felixes sued the dealership in 2001, claiming unfair consumer
practices.  In May 2003, they amended their suit to request a
class-action, contending the arbitration provision in the purchase
contracts of Ganley Chevrolet and two dozen other stores in the
Ganley Management Co. dealership group was unconscionable and
violated Ohio's consumer protection law.

The defendants (collectively, Ganley) unsuccessfully tried to
force the dispute into arbitration.

'Based on a fiction'

A Cuyahoga County judge certified a class action on behalf of
thousands of customers whose contracts had a similar arbitration
provision, dating back to 1999 and continuing to 2004, when the
arbitration provision was revised.  The judge also ordered Ganley
to pay each of those customers $200, a decision upheld by the Ohio
Court of Appeals.

But now a divided Ohio Supreme Court has tossed out the class
certification and the $200-a-customer award.  The decision leaves
intact, however, a finding that the arbitration provision under
dispute was invalid and unenforceable.

The court said the case can't proceed as a class action under the
consumer protection law because the Felixes offered no evidence
that every customer was injured by the invalid arbitration
provision,

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor, the court
said: "There is absolutely no showing that all of the consumers
who purchased vehicles through a contract with the offensive
arbitration provision were injured by it or suffered any damages."

The court characterized the $200 awards -- the minimum under the
consumer protection law -- as "based on a fiction" because damages
are available only by showing a member of the class "was injured
and sustained damages as a result of the defendants' conduct."

Back to trial court

Dealership lawyer Steven Dever of Cleveland said the case now
returns to the trial court to determine whether Ganley is liable
to the Felixes and, if so, how much the couple may collect.

Other Ganley customers "never had a dispute and never intended to
use the arbitration provision," Mr. Dever said.  He added: "There
was no demonstration whatsoever" that any other customers were
harmed.  "The case involved a single consumer complaint," he said,
and the decision "confirms that only consumers who truly were
damaged can bring a class-action lawsuit."

Still, the Felixes' lawyer, Lewis Zipkin, said he will try to
prove to the trial court that every member of the class was, in
fact, injured because their document fees were used to pay to
prepare contracts with the illegal arbitration provision.

"The members [of the proposed class] did suffer damages," said
Zipkin, of Beachwood, Ohio.  "The argument is: Did they pay for
documents that were illegal or for documents that were illegally
prepared?"

Defense lawyer Dever said that if there's a trial, Ganley will
seek damages from the Felixes because they've had use of the
Blazer for 14 years without making any payments.


GARIBALDI CANNERY: Recalls Canned Products Due to Clostridium
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Garibaldi Cannery LLC of Garibaldi, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling ALL cans with any code starting with "OC" of The
Garibaldi Cannery canned products because it has the potential to
be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can
cause life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms:  general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

There have been no reported cases of illness to date.

Products were distributed to consumers in Oregon and shipped
nationwide via our website www.thegaribaldicannery.comdisclaimer
icon. The last date of distribution of recalled products was
September 2015 (with an expiration date of September 2018.)

Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC".
The code can be found on either the bottom or on top of the can.
Products are packaged in metal cans with net weights ranging from
6 oz. to 8 oz.

  PRODUCT NAME                NET WEIGHT
  ------------                ----------
  ALBACORE TUNA               8 oz. (227 g)
  ALBACORE TUNA BELLIES       8 oz. (227 g)
  (The word Bellies is
  written on top of can )
  ALBACORE TUNA NO SALT       8 oz. (227 g)
  JALAPE¥O ALBACORE TUNA      8 oz. (227 g)
  SMOKED ALBACORE TUNA        8 oz. (227 g)
  GARLIC ALBACORE TUNA        8 oz. (227 g)
  PACIFIC SALMON              6 oz. (170 g)
  SMOKED PACIFIC SALMON       6 oz. (170 g)
  SILVER SALMON               6 oz. (170 g)
  CHINOOK SALMON              6 oz. (170 g)

The Garibaldi Cannery products were made by Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC and this voluntary recall was initiated after we were
notified that that our products were possibly under- processed.
The problem was discovered during an inspection at Skipanon Brand
Seafoods LLC by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Consumers are advised to contact The Garibaldi Cannery for
replacements of canned products. Replacements or refunds will only
be given for products that are returned to The Garibaldi Cannery.

As of October 9th, 2015 The Garibaldi Cannery received new canned
product from a different manufacturer to offer as replacements.
Consumers and retailers can distinguish this from recalled
products by looking at the code starting with "B" on the top of
the can.

If you have any questions, call The Garibaldi Cannery LLC at (503)
322-3344 between the hours of 9:00am PST and 6:00pm PST, Monday -
Sunday, or send e-mail to thegaribaldicannery@gmail.com


GEORGE BEST: "Lumpkin" Suit Alleges Minimum Wage Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Lumpkin, and all others similarly-situated v. George Best,
Inc. dba Globe Bar & Cafe, Joseph Dunne and Declan Mehigan, Case
No. 15-2908F (Mass. Cmmw., September 25, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Tips
Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law.

George Best Inc. owns and operates several restaurants in Boston,
including the Globe Bar & Cafe. a self-styled casual dining
restaurant and bar located in the Back Bay in Boston.

Joseph Dunne is the president and one of the directors of George
Best Inc.

Declan Mehigan is the treasurer, secretary and one of the
directors of George Best Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Tel: (617) 607-3261
      Fax: (617) 488-2261
      E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com

          - and -

      Maura Green, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MAURA GREENE, LLC
      One International Place, 8th Floor
      Boston, MA 02210
      Tel: (617) 936-1580
      E-mail: maura@mauragreenelaw.com


GOOD FOOD: Recalls Beef, Pork, & Poultry Products Due to Nitrite
----------------------------------------------------------------
Good Food Concepts, a Colorado Springs, Colo. establishment, is
recalling approximately 12,566 pounds of beef, pork, and poultry
products that were produced without a fully implemented Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plan. These products
are also misbranded and contain sodium nitrite, which is not
declared on the product label, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The beef, pork, and poultry items were produced on various dates
between October 16, 2014 and October 16, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      SMOKED BACON."
  --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BACON ENDS."
      Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      SMOKED PIT HAM."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK
      SMOKE HAM BUTT PORTION BI."
      1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK HAM BUTT
      PORTION BI."
  --- Various sized containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKED
      HAM SHANK PORTION BI."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK
      HAM STEAK."
  --- Various sized packages containing "PORK PEEPA'S HAM BNLS."
      1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKE
      HAM DICED."
  --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKE
      HAM GROUND 1#."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK
      SMOKED HAM SHANKS SLICED."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      PEPPERONI SLICE."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT GENOA
      CLASSIC."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BEEF
      PASTRAMI."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      BOLOGNA SLICE."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      PEPPERONI."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT HAM
      STEAK COUNTRY STYLE."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT HAM
      DELI SLICED."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      CANADIAN BACON."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      BOLOGNA 1#."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK
      LIVERWURST WESTPHALIAN."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOOD DIRECT PORK
      LIVERWURST PISTACHIO DELI STYLE."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
  --- TURKEY BREAST NATURAL SMOKED, SLICED."
      Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      ROASTED DELI TURKEY."
  --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT BRISTOL BEER
      BRATWURST."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      POLISH SAUSAGE PORK."
  --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT SAUSAGE PORK
      BANGERS."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      ANDOUILLE."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      LINGUISA."
  --- 1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT PORK SMOKED
      GERMAN BRATWURST."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      GERMAN BRATWURST."
  --- Various sized packages "RANCH FOODS DIRECT KOLBASA RING."
      1-lb. packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT 8/1 HOT
      DOGS."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      SAUSAGE BEEF HOT DOG FOOT LONG 5/1."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT VEAL
      BRATS."
  --- Various sized packages containing "RANCH FOODS DIRECT
      CORNED BEEF BRISKET."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
27316" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations in Colorado and New Mexico.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a food safety assessment
at the establishment.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Nikowa
Neill, Administrative Support, at (719) 377-7514. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Eryn Taylor, Marketing, at
(720) 259-2488.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


HERSHEY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of Child Slave Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abby Haglage, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that The Milton
Hershey School in Pennsylvania is one of the wealthiest education
centers in the world.  Founded in 1909 as an orphanage for "male
Caucasian" boys, it was awarded 30 percent of the company's future
earnings by Milton S. Hershey upon his death.  Thanks to the
success of Kit-Kats, Reese's, and Whoppers, the school is worth a
staggering $7.8 billion.

Now home to more than 2,000 students, it owns a controlling
interest in the $22.3 billion Hershey company -- a chocolate maker
with roots in child protection and education that, in the worst
form of irony, allegedly relies on cocoa harvested by child
laborers in West Africa.

It is this irony that serves as the motivation behind a class
action lawsuit filed against Hershey and two of its competitors,
Mars and Nestle.  The complaints, filed by three California
residents, allege that the companies are guilty of false
advertising for failing to disclose the use of child slavery on
their packaging.  Without it, the plaintiffs claim, the companies
are deceiving consumers into "unwittingly" supporting the child
slave labor trade.

"America's largest and most profitable food conglomerates should
not tolerate child labor, much less child slave labor, anywhere in
their supply chains," the complaint reads.  "These companies
should not turn a blind eye to known human rights abuses . . .
especially when the companies consistently and affirmatively
represent that they act in a socially and ethically responsible
manner."

The class action suits seek both monetary damages for California
residents who have purchased the chocolate and revised packaging
that denotes child slaves were used.  It's a new approach to an
old problem: the chocolate industry's deep, dark, not-so-secret
scandal.  It's been 15 years since the first allegations of child
slavery in the chocolate industry caused national outrage. Will
this be the final straw?

West Africa is home to two-thirds of the world's cacao beans
(cocoa), the main ingredient in chocolate-a product that's fueled
a $90 billion industry.

The first group to question the financial strategies behind the
industry's wealth was a British organization called True Vision
Entertainment.  In a shocking 2000 documentary titled Slavery: A
Global Investigation, the group reported on the chocolate
industry's alleged connection to cocoa harvested by child slaves.
The award-winning film opens on stick-thin adolescent boys in the
Ivory Coast slinging hundred-pound bags of cocoa pods on their
backs, followed by an interview in which the boys express their
confusion over not being paid.

Later the filmmakers meet with 19 children who were said to have
just been freed from slavery by the Ivorian authorities.  Their
guardian describes how they worked from dawn until dusk each day,
only to be locked in a shed at night where they were given a tin
cup in which to urinate. During the first six months (the
"breaking-in period"), they say, they were routinely beaten.  "The
beatings were a part of my life," says Aly Diabata, one of the
former child laborers. "I had seen others who tried to escape.
When they tried, they were severely beaten."

The boys' stories are sickeningly graphic.  Before beatings, the
boys say they were stripped naked and tied up.  They were then
pummeled with a variety of weapons, from fists and feet to belts
and whips.  In the film, some of the boys get up and imitate the
beatings.  Others stand to reveal hundreds of scars lining their
backs and torsos -- some still bloody and scabbed.  They get quiet
when the filmmakers ask whether any are beaten and say some are
simply "taken away."

Asked what he'd say to the billions who eat chocolate worldwide
(most of the boys have never tried it), one boy replies: "They
enjoy something I suffered to make; I worked hard for them but saw
no benefit.  They are eating my flesh."  Toward the end of the
segment, the filmmakers meet with one of the "slave masters," who
admits he purchased the young boys and that some of his men
routinely beat them.  His reasoning: He is paid a low price for
the cocoa and thus needs to harvest as much of it as he possibly
can.

The release of the film in late 2000 sparked national outrage.  No
one seemed more shocked than the chocolate companies themselves.
In June 2001, Hershey senior vice president Robert M. Reese told
Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Bob Fernandez that "no one, repeat,
no one, had ever heard of this."  After internal investigations,
several companies, including Hershey, expressed concern over the
conditions of laborers in West Africa.

The news made its way to Congress, where U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel
quickly drafted legislation asking the Federal Drug Administration
to introduce "slave free" labeling.  After gaining approval in the
House of Representatives, the bill moved to a vote in the Senate,
where it had the support needed to win passage. But just before
the legislation made it to a vote, the chocolate industry stepped
in with a promise it has yet to keep: to self-regulate and
eradicate the practice by 2005.

The Engel-Harkin Protocol (or Cocoa Protocol), as the agreement
was called, was signed in September 2001.

Eight companies -- including Nestle, Mars, and Hershey -- were
signatories of the massive accord, pledging $2 million to
investigate the labor practices and eliminate the "Worst Forms of
Child Labor," the official term from the International Labor
Organization, by 2005.  When the July 2005 deadline arrived with
the industries yet to make major changes, an extension was granted
until 2008.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a
class action lawsuit are currently undergoing discovery in
relation to this matter.

On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were
filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the
Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had
been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy
analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9,
2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain
information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the
FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo. On April
22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the cases and
a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the Court. On June
27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf
of the putative class as contemplated by the order of the Court.
On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on
February 24, 2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to
dismiss was denied by the Court. The defendants answered the
amended complaint on April 13, 2015. The parties are currently
undergoing discovery in relation to this matter.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of
the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims in
the lawsuit and intends to deny liability and defend itself
vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company
will be successful. At this time, no assessment can be made as to
the likely outcome of this action or whether the outcome will be
material to the Company. Therefore, the Company has not accrued
for any loss contingencies related to this lawsuit.


IXIA: Parties Failed to Reach Deal in Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ixia said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in a securities class action
conducted the scheduled mediation with respect to the purported
class action but did not to reach an agreement to resolve and
settle the litigation.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2013, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor
Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial
complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that
the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements. The complaint further alleged that
the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls and issued
materially false and misleading financial statements for the
fiscal years ended December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal
quarters ended March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011,
March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The
complaint, which purported to assert claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, sought, on behalf of the purported class,
an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief."

"On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

"On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under
the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The
first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of
the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's
stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during
February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to
inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period
of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

"On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the
Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint.

"On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended
complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing
on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court
gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint.

"On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class
action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary,
non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a
possible settlement of both the purported securities class action
and the shareholder derivative action.

"On July 23, 2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation
with respect to the purported class action but did not to reach an
agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. The stay in this
action expired on July 31, 2015, and the Oklahoma Group has until
August 20, 2015 to file a further amended complaint.

"Although the Company denies the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defenses,
we are in the very early stages of this litigation, and are unable
to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount of or
potential range of loss with respect to this case. Accordingly, no
liability has been accrued in the financial statements related to
this matter. However, the ultimate disposition of the case could
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows."


KMART CORP: NY Court Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gina Hautur and Carol Gurnish tried to join a
collective action in New Jersey brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.  The plaintiffs in the collective action
accused Kmart Corporation of intentionally classifying hourly
employees as managerial employees to avoid paying overtime.
Hautur and Gurnish missed the deadline to join the collective
action in New Jersey and commenced their own FLSA collective
action with the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.

Kmart wanted the case dismissed as an improper duplicative action
under the "first-filed rule."  Kmart has filed a corresponding
motion to dismiss.  Hautur and Gurnish counter that the first-
filed rule does not apply under the circumstances in their case
and that the FLSA does not prohibit collective actions in
different districts against the same defendant.

Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York recommended the denial of the
motion to dismiss and the certification of issues for
interlocutory appeal.

The case is captioned GINA HAUTUR and CAROL GURNISH, Individually
and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 15-CV-267A.

A full-text of Magistrate Scott's Report and Recommendation dated
September 22, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/Ot7foOfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Charles Gershbaum, Esq., Hepworth
Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC, David A. Roth, Esq., HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM &
ROTH, PLLC, Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq., KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP,
Gary E. Mason, Esq. -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD BRYSON &
MASON LLP, Jason S. Rathod, Esq. -- jrathod@wbmllp.com --
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP, Marc S. Hepworth, Esq., HEPWORTH
GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC, Michael H. Reed, Esq., KLAFTER OLSEN &
LESSER LLP, Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. --
nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com, MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC, Peter
Winebrake, Esq. -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC, R. Andrew Santillo,
Esq. -- WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC & Seth Richard Lesser, Esq. --
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP.

Defendant is represented by:

         Michael J. Puma, Morgan, Esq.
         LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
         101 Park Ave.
         New York
         Phone: +1.212.309.6000
         Email: mpuma@morganlewis.com


LA COLONIAL: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Ruiz, and all others similarly situated v. La Colonial
Tortilla Products, Inc., Barrett Business Services, Inc., and Does
1 through 50, Case No. BC595927 (Cal. Super., September 25, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid compensation arising from the Defendants'
failure to provide employees meal and rest periods, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wage and unreimbursed
business expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code and
California Civil Code.

La Colonial Tortilla Products, Inc. manufactures tortilla
products. It provides custom formulations and packaging for food
service markets; and private label for retail markets. The company
was founded in 1952 and is based in Monterey Park, California with
manufacturing facilities in San Jose and Los Angeles.

Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a provider of business
management solutions for small-and mid-sized companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Expert Discovery Scheduled to Close Dec. 18
------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that expert discovery is
scheduled to close on December 18, 2015, in a purported class
action complaint.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21,
2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint,
which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed
above, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations
back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to
2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar
matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District
Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to
the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed
their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended.

On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new judge. On July
30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion to dismiss and
took the matter under advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss.
On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed their answer to the
Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery is scheduled to close on December 18, 2015.

This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the company is awaiting
a decision by the Court on a motion to dismiss class action
lawsuit.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer,
chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et
Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement
Fund as co-lead plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially
similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting
officer as a defendant.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and on
March 2, 2015, moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure
to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity.
That motion was fully submitted as of June 1, 2015, and is
awaiting a decision by the Court. The Company cannot estimate a
range of potential liability, if any, at this time.


LSB INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against LSB Industries, Inc. ("LSB" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LXU). Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between May 8, 2015 and August 7, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the Firm
immediately to discuss their legal options.

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

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

According to the complaint, on August 7, 2015, the Company
announced net sales of approximately $183 million for the second
quarter of 2015, and updated the estimated total cost of the El
Dorado project to a range of $660 million to $680 million.  The
Company's results fell below market expectations, and LSB blamed
"work performed by a previous subcontractor" as part of the cause
for the El Dorado price estimate.

If you purchased shares of LSB during the Class Period you have
until November 24, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if
you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: "Thomas" Action Pending in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the case,
Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-
cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of California.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April
21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors
and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the Company,
and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the
Company's public stock offerings.

On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were
consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in
the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative
subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6,
2013 public stock offering.

The consolidated amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of the
putative class for (i) alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Company
and certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, (ii) alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by certain of the Company's current directors and former
officers, and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A)
of the Exchange Act by a shareholder. The consolidated amended
complaint also asserts claims on behalf the subclass for (i)
alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
(the "Securities Act") by the Company, certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, and certain financial firms
that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock
offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities
Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and
former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain
financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public
stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the
Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's former
officers, and a shareholder of the Company. The consolidated
action, Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al.,
No. 3:14-cv-1160, is pending in the Northern District of
California. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any
reasonably possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses,
with respect to the matters described above.


MAGNUM HUNTER: Appeals Court Affirmed Securities Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has entered a Summary
Order unanimously affirming the Southern District of New York's
dismissal of the Securities Cases in favor of the Company and the
individual defendants.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially
similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District
of New York and in the Southern District of Texas.

All such cases are collectively referred to as the Securities
Cases. The cases filed in the Southern District of Texas have
since been dismissed. The cases filed in the Southern District of
New York were consolidated and have since been dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or
misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including
statements related to the Company's internal and financial
controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation
expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the
dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered
accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors'
position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters
identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended.
The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements
made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period,
as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the
Company's internal controls made in connection with a public
offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities
Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed the decision dismissing the Securities Cases to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern
District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Cases in favor
of the Company and the individual defendants. It is possible that
additional investor lawsuits could be filed over these events.


MARKET OF CHOICE: Recalls Baked Brie Products Due to Pecans
-----------------------------------------------------------
Market of Choice is recalling its Market Cheese Shop Baked Brie
Herb/Garlic variety, due to undeclared pecans (a tree nut). Use of
this product by anyone allergic to pecans may result in illness or
injury.

The Baked Brie Herb/Garlic has been recalled from nine Market of
Choice stores, including those in Eugene, Ashland, Corvallis, SW
Portland, Cedar Mill and West Linn, Oregon. This product was sold
Aug. 3, 2015 through Sept. 27, 2015.

Recall placards have been placed in areas where the product was
sold. No confirmed illnesses have been reported at this time.

The recalled product can be identified by UPC code 217563014997.

Market of Choice customers who purchased the recalled product may
return it for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company through its website at disclaimer
iconwww.marketofchoice.com, or by calling 541-513-0486, M-F from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. (PDT).


MEDICINES COMPANY: Dismiss Bid Under Consideration by Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit is now under consideration by the Court.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit
was filed against us and certain of our current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 20, 2013
through February 12, 2014, which we refer to as the class period.
On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our
stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because we and certain current and former
officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor.

"Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that statements made
throughout the class period about the trials were misleading
because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not show
superiority to the drug clopidogrel, that the clinical trials were
unethically and inappropriately administered, that clopidogrel was
not administered optimally, and that cangrelor patients exhibited
higher bleeding rates. The amended complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

"On November 17, 2014 we and certain of our current and former
officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we
filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January
16, 2015. Briefing is now complete.

"On July 16, 2015, the Court heard oral argument on the motion,
which is now under consideration by the Court.

"We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit,
will deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. An
adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations. We are presently unable to predict the outcome of the
lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if
any, related to the lawsuit."


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Acetaminophen Tablets
-------------------------------------------------
Medline Industries, Inc. announced that it will initiate a
voluntary nationwide recall of lot #45810 of Acetaminophen
tablets, 500mg, uncoated compressed tablets to the consumer level.
The Acetaminophen 500mg, Tab 100/BT (OTC20101) has been found to
be mislabeled displaying "Acetaminophen 325mg" (OTC10101) instead
of "Acetaminophen 500mg". The Acetaminophen tablets, 500mg is
incorrectly labeled as 325 mg tablets. This error is not easily
identifiable by the user or prescriber. If the product is taken at
the maximum labeled dose, every four hours, five doses a day, or
with other medications containing acetaminophen, it may lead to
liver toxicity or liver failure. To date, Medline Industries, Inc.
has not received any reports of adverse events associated with
this product.

Acetaminophen tablets is an over the counter (OTC) oral medication
used to temporarily relieve minor aches and pains due to minor
pain of arthritis, muscular aches, back aches, headaches,
toothaches, the common cold, premenstrual and menstrual cramps,
and reduces fever. This item is packaged as 100 tablets per
bottle, Medline Item Number: OTC20101, NDC#: 53329-641-30. The
recalled Acetaminophen 500mg, Tab 100/BT (OTC20101) includes lot #
45810 with expiration date May 2018.

This lot was distributed nationwide from June 12, 2015 through
September 18, 2015. Medline Industries, Inc. is investigating to
determine the root cause and corrective and preventative actions.
Medline Industries, Inc. notified its distributors, consumers
and/or retailer customers by First Class Mail on September 25th,
2015 and is arranging for return and credit of all recalled
products. Consumers, distributors, and/or retailers that have
product which is being recalled should stop using and return to
Medline Industries, Inc.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Medline
Industries, Inc. by phone 866-359-1704 or recalls@medline.com
Monday through Friday between the hours of 8am and 5pm CST.
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking
or using this drug product.

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

Complete and submit the report
Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178

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


MEMPHIS, TN: Motion for Monetary Damages, Attorneys' Fees Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon P. McCalla granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, entry of
judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post-judgment interest in the case
captioned LAKENDUS COLE and LEON EDMOND, individually and as
representatives of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, Defendant, No.: 2:13-CV-02117-JPM-DKV,
(W.D. Tenn.)

Plaintiff Lakendus Cole is a police officer employed with the City
of Memphis Police Department Organized Crime Unit, and Plaintiff
Leon Edmond is a Special Agent employed with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Plaintiffs assert a class action claim against Defendant City of
Memphis for "the policy, procedure, custom, or practice by which
police officers of the Memphis Police Department (MPD) order all
persons to immediately leave the sidewalks and street on Beale
Street when there are no circumstances present which threaten the
safety of the public or MPD police officers (referred to in this
Introduction as the "Beale Street Sweep"). Plaintiffs Cole and
Edmond also assert individual claims against the City of Memphis.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for payment of attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole,
and post-judgment interest.

In his Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3EpIijfrom Leagle.com, Judge McCalla granted the
Plaintiff's motion for payment of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses, entry of judgment for Lakendus Cole, and post-
judgment interest. Defendant City of Memphis was directed to pay
Lakendus Cole:

     -- $35,000.00 in damages as awarded by the jury;

     -- $411.48 in prejudgment interest on the damages award; and

     -- postjudgment interest on the damages award.

The Court further granted Plaintiffs' motion as to the request for
attorneys' fees: Spence Law Firm, PLLC was awarded $389,563.50 as
attorneys' fees based on 1,468.35 hours of labor, and an
enhancement of the award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$58,434.53, for a total attorneys' fees award of $447,998.03.

Bryan Meredith, Esq., Emmett Lee Whitwell, Esq., and Robert L.J.
Spence, Jr., Esq., of SPENCEWALK, PLLC serve as counsel for
Plaintiff Lakendus Cole.

J. Michael Fletcher, Esq. -- michael@michaelfletcherlawoffice.com
-- of FLETCHER LAW FIRM -- Barbaralette G. Davis, Esq., and Zayid
A. Saleem, Esq., of CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE-Memphis serve as
counsel for Defendant City of Memphis


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Race Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
Kathy Frazier, and all others similarly situated v. Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC, and Morgan Stanley,
Case No. 3:15-cv-04512 (N.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for race discrimination in
violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981, retaliation in violation of
42 U.S.C. section 1981 and breach of contract.

The Plaintiff alleges that compensation and advancement
opportunities available to Morgan Stanley Financial Advisors, vary
widely depending on their race, as African Americans are
systemically denied equal employment opportunities.

Morgan Stanley is a publicly traded, global financial services
firm and Fortune 500 corporation incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in New York. As part of its wealth management
services, Morgan Stanley employs more than 16,000 persons
nationwide as FAs to service clients across the United States.
Morgan Stanley is registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission as a broker-dealer and with the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission as a futures commission merchant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Sharon R. Vinick, Esq.
      LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 318-7702
      Fax: (510) 318-7701
      E-mail: sharon@levyvinick.com

          - and -

      Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
      STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
      303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 431-0888


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: "Holinko" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Holinko, and all others similarly situated v. National
Football League, NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC, and DirecTV
Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-07665 (C.D. Calif., September 30,
2015), seeks to recover damages, including treble damages, costs
of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees arising from Defendants'
violations of Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and Sections 4
and 16 of the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants have engaged in
anticompetitive practices and entered into combinations and
express agreements restricting competition in the distribution of
live professional football game programming.

DirecTV, LLC and DirecTV Holdings LLC are together referred to as
"DirecTV." DirecTV and its subsidiaries provide satellite
television service throughout the United States and issue bills to
commercial and residential subscribers.

National Football League and NFL Enterprises LLC are together
referred to as "NFL" or the "League." Each of the NFL's 32 member
teams are independently owned, operated, and managed, and are
headquartered in various cities throughout the United States. The
teams compete with each other both on the field and to attract
fans, personnel, and revenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER SCHACK
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Tel: (858) 485-6535
      Fax: (858) 485-0608
      E-mail: natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Petition for Rehearing in Data Breach Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hunton & Williams LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, reports
that on September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit rejected Neiman
Marcus' petition for a rehearing en banc of Remijas v. Neiman
Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122.  In Remijas, a Seventh Circuit
panel found that members of a putative class alleged sufficient
facts to establish standing to sue Neiman Marcus following a 2013
data breach that resulted in hackers gaining access to customers'
credit and debit card information. No judge in regular active
service requested a vote on the rehearing petition.  Additionally,
all members of the original panel voted to deny rehearing.  As
Hunton & Williams LLP previously reported, and according to The
Practitioner's Handbook for Appeals to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "it is more likely to have a
petition for writ of certiorari granted by the Supreme Court than
to have a request for en banc consideration granted" in the
Seventh Circuit.

At least for now, a circuit split will remain on whether the risk
of future fraud and identity theft, or their associated mitigation
costs, confer Article III standing.


NESTLE INDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Maggi Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ashpreet Sethi, writing for Bloomberg TV, reports that claiming
that the Company is being targeted and singled out, Nestle India
has told the National Consumer Court that the government's class
action suit against the company over alleged lead content and MSG
in Maggi should be dismissed.

"We are being targeted as the government does not intend to take
action against other manufacturers who are making wrong claims
about MSG and lead content in their products," said the Nestle
Counsel.

Terming the government's class action suit as a case of no
consideration with the Bombay High Court dismissing tests results
done by government agencies so far, Nestle India has urged the
National Consumer Court to junk Government's plea for fresh
testing of Maggi samples.

The food regulator FSSAI has informed the Court that fresh testing
is required for all Maggi samples considering new laboratories
have been identified for the same.

The national consumer court has been hearing Government's class
action suit seeking damages worth Rs 600 odd crores from Nestle
India for misleading consumers about Maggi's ingredients.

The Court is yet to decide whether FSSAI should be allowed to hold
fresh testing of Maggi samples.  The National Consumer Court was
set to hear the matter again on October 8.


NEW ENGLAND NATURAL: Recalls Trader Joe's Granola Products
----------------------------------------------------------
New England Natural Bakers Inc. Greenfield, MA, is issuing a
voluntary recall for one specific lot (747 cases) of Trader Joe's
Coconut Cranberry Granola with "Best By 08/19/16" printed on the
package, because Pecan Praline Granola containing milk, wheat and
tree nuts (pecans) was packaged into the Coconut Cranberry Granola
box.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk,
wheat, and/or pecans run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The potentially affected product was distributed to Trader Joe's
stores in Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Utah, Virginia, Vermont and Washington D.C.

The Trader Joe's Coconut Cranberry Granola (SKU 51131) is packaged
in a 16 oz. box, with "Best By" date 08/19/16 printed at the top
of the package UPC Code: 0051 1315 printed on side panel.

The voluntary recall was initiated by New England Natural Bakers
Inc. after Trader Joe's was contacted by a customer. One allergic
reaction has been reported to date.  All affected product has been
removed from store shelves.

Customers who have purchased the Trader Joe's Coconut Cranberry
Granola may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers
with questions may contact New England Natural Bakers Inc. at
(413)772-2239 8:30AM-5:00PM EST, Monday - Friday.


NEW FRONTIER: Recalls Gluten Free Seaweed Chips Due to Wheat
------------------------------------------------------------
New Frontier Foods, Inc. of Burlingame, CA is voluntarily
recalling six days of production of Ocean's Halo Gluten Free
Seaweed Chips produced at a third party manufacturer because of an
undeclared allergen -- wheat -- with potential adverse health
effects.

The Seaweed Chips produced on the affected dates of production are
being recalled because routine testing showed levels of gluten
above the FDA limit for a gluten free product. As a result, the
products may contain an undeclared allergen -- wheat -- in
products labeled as gluten-free. To date, New Frontier Foods has
not received any reports of illness that may be associated with
gluten.

New Frontier Foods is voluntarily recalling affected chips
produced on those dates from customer warehouses and retail store
shelves. No other dates and no other New Frontier Foods products
are covered by the recall.

Products containing wheat can cause illness or severe reactions
for individuals with wheat allergies or Celiac disease. Products
containing wheat can also cause illness or discomfort for
individuals with gluten intolerance.

Consumers with wheat allergies, Celiac disease or gluten
intolerance should not consume products bearing the affected code
dates and should contact New Frontier Foods for a replacement or
full refund. For consumers who do not have an allergy to wheat,
Celiac disease or a gluten intolerance, the products are safe to
eat.

This voluntary recall includes 3 flavors Ocean's Halo Seaweed
Chips, with the following "BEST BY" dates shown as Lot Numbers
below.

  Product   Brand    Description  Outer Case  Unit (Bag)  Lot
  Name      Name     -----------  UPC         UPC         Numbers
  ----      ----                  ----------  ----------  -------
  The       Ocean's  Sea Salt     1085189-    8 51899-    082416,
  Organic   Halo     2.5oz        9005174     00517 74    091416,
  Seaweed            bag/12 ct                            091516,
  Chip                                                    091616
  The       Ocean's  Chili Lime   1085189-    8 51899-    091716
  Organic   Halo     2.5oz        9005198     00519 1
  Seaweed            bag/12 ct
  Chip
  The       Ocean's  Korean BBQ   1085189-    8 51899-    082416,
  Organic   Halo     2.5oz        9005181     00518 4     091516,
  Seaweed            bag/12 ct                            091616,
  Chip                                                    092116

Consumers requesting refunds or calling with further questions
should contact Bob Childs at New Frontier Foods at 1-888-767-2035
from the hours of 9am-5pm PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/hk9CQg


NIJAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coriander Powder Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nijay International, Inc. of Anaheim, CA is recalling 8 cases of
Down to Earth Organic Coriander Powder, because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism, which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections,
endocarditis and arthritis.

Down to Earth Organic Coriander Powder, batch # 1404D25 with a
best before date of 05/24/2015 was distributed to retail stores in
Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, TX. The product is
packaged in 7 oz. transparent, green plastic bags.

To date, Nijay International, Inc. has not received any reports of
illness related to this recalled product.

The recall was a result of routine sampling by an FDA contract
lab, which revealed the presence of Salmonella.

Consumers who have purchased Down to Earth Organic Coriander
Powder are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1
(714) 602-6123 Mondays through Fridays, between 9.00am to 5.00pm
PST.

The UPC for this product is 40074 13813. This code is located
above the ingredient list.


PACIFIC OYSTER: Recalls Canned Seafood Products
-----------------------------------------------
As a follow up to the recall issued by Skipanon Brand Seafoods,
Pacific Oyster Company d/b/a The Fish Peddler of Bay City, Oregon,
is voluntarily recalling canned tuna, salmon, and smoked salmon
(any code starting with "OC" located under the can) that was sold
at its restaurant/retail store, because they have the potential to
be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium can cause
life-threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use
the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism can cause the following symptoms: general weakness,
dizziness, double-vision, trouble with speaking or swallowing,
difficulty breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal
distension, and constipation. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

There have been no reported cases of illness to date.

The products being recalled were distributed only at the Fish
Peddler restaurant/retail store in Bay City, Oregon. The products
are under the "Pacific Seafood" label and can be identified as 6
oz cans of "Premium Solid White Albacore Tuna," 6.5 oz cans of
"Pacific Salmon," and 6.5 oz cans of "Smoked Pacific Salmon."

  Premium Solid White     6 oz     any code starting with
  Albacore Tuna                    "OC" under the can
  Pacific Salmon          6.5 oz   any code starting with
                                   "OC" under the can
  Smoked Pacific Salmon   6.5 oz   any code starting with
                                    "OC" under the can

The voluntary recall is being initiated due to a lack of
documentation and possible under-processing at Skipanon Brand
Seafoods (custom processor for Pacific Oyster Company). The
problem at Skipanon Brand Seafoods was discovered during an
inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This
recall is being made with the knowledge of the FDA and the Oregon
Department of Agriculture (ODA).

Consumers are advised to throw away or return recalled product to
the company. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
503-905-4446 between PST 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM or by email to
fishpeddler.baycity@gmail.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/AJ9AsI


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Pier 1 Imports, Inc.  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between December 19, 2013
and February 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") are
encouraged to contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal
options.

If you purchased shares of Pier 1 during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by email at joon@khanglaw.com

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

According to the complaint, the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose the truth regarding
"unplanned" expenses that had led the Company to lower its
financial guidance.  When the truth was revealed to the public,
shares dropped causing investors harm.

If you purchased shares of Pier 1 during the Class Period you have
until October 26, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com


PROVIDENCE SERVICE: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Providence Service Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
putative stockholder class action derivative complaint was filed
on June 15, 2015, in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware,
captioned In re The Providence Service Corporation Derivative
Litigation, Case No. 11149.

The complaint names Richard A. Kerley, Kristi L. Meints, Warren S.
Rustand, Christopher Shackelton (the "Individual Defendants") and
Coliseum Capital Management, LLC ("Coliseum LLC") as defendants,
and the Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaint states
direct claims alleging that the dividend rate increase term in the
Company's outstanding convertible preferred stock is an
impermissibly coercive measure that impairs the voting rights of
the Company's stockholders on the removal of certain voting and
conversion caps ("Caps") currently applicable to the preferred
stock, and that Individual Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the dividend rate increase term and
attempting to coerce the stockholder vote relating to the
Company's preferred stock, and by failing to disclose all material
information necessary to allow the Company's stockholders to cast
an informed vote on the Caps.

The complaint states derivative claims alleging that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company by entering into the subordinated note and standby
agreement with Coliseum LLC, and granting Coliseum LLC certain
stock options.  The complaint further alleges that Coliseum LLC
has aided and abetted the Individual Defendants in breaching their
fiduciary duties and that demand on the Board is excused as
futile.  The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the stockholder vote relating to the dividend rate
increase, a finding that the Individual Defendants are liable for
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's
stockholders, a finding that Coliseum LLC is liable for aiding and
abetting the Individual Defendant's breaches of their fiduciary
duties, a finding that Coliseum LLC is liable for unjust
enrichment, a finding that demand on the Board is excused as
futile, a revision or rescission of the terms of the Subordinated
Note and preferred stock as necessary and/or appropriate, a
requirement for the Company to reform its corporate governance
profile to protect against future misconduct similar to that
alleged by the putative stockholder class, a certification of the
putative stockholder class, costs and disbursements (including
expenses, attorneys' and experts' fees), and any other and further
relief as is just and equitable.

On June 26, 2015, the Court entered a schedule governing expedited
proceedings as agreed to by counsel for the parties. A hearing on
plaintiff's motion to enjoin the stockholder vote was scheduled
for September 10, 2015. The Company believes the plaintiffs'
allegations lack merit and will vigorously contest them.
Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any liabilities related
to this matter as the probability and range of a settlement cannot
be determined.


REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Action in E.D. Va. at Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in November 2014, the
Company was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 3:14cv758. On January 12,
2015, the Company filed its answer. On July 13, 2015, the court
transferred the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"This case is at an early stage and although we intend to defend
it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome," the
Company said.


REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Action in E.D. Pa. at Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company in March
2015, was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
styled Helen Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. On
June 2, 2015, the Company filed its answer. This case is at an
early stage and although the Company intends to defend it
vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome.


S MARTINELLI: Recalls Sparking Beverages Due to Glass Chips
-----------------------------------------------------------
S. Martinelli & Company of Watsonville, California, announced a
voluntary nationwide recall of certain lots of Martinelli's 8.4
oz. mini glass bottles of Gold Medal Sparkling Cider, Sparkling
Cider Northwest Blend, Sparkling White Grape, and Sparkling Red
Grape, due to the possibility of small glass chips at the top of
the bottles occurring when opening the bottle, which could
possibly enter the beverage. Consumers could potentially be cut or
injured if a chip occurs.

Only certain lots of the 8.4 oz. bottles, typically known in the
trade as "mini-bottles," of Martinelli's Gold Medal Sparkling
Cider, Sparkling Cider Northwest Blend, Sparkling White Grape and
Sparkling Red Grape are affected by this recall. The recalled
products have a "Best Before" date of after March 1, 2018, but
before September 12, 2018, on the front label of the bottle.

The company announced this recall after internal testing
identified the potential for some bottles to chip when being
opened. This recall is being done out of an abundance of caution.

No other Martinelli's beverage or size bottle is impacted. The 750
ml "champagne" and the 10 oz. bottles are not included in this
recall.

All recalled products are being removed from store shelves.

Consumers who have purchased the product can return the product to
its place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-662-1868 at any time, 24 hours a
day.

S. Martinelli & Company is committed to ensuring the quality and
safety of all of our products.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of and in
cooperation with the Federal Food and Drug Administration.

EXHIBIT A

  Product name/description:
  -------------------------
  12256 Martinelli's Gold Medal Sparkling Cider (12 pac

  Production Date    "Best Before" Date    SKU/UPC
  ---------------    ------------------    -------
  3/05/15            05 Mar 2018           4124400256
  3/06/15            06 Mar 2018           4124400256
  3/07/15            07 Mar 2018           4124400256
  3/25/15            25 Mar 2018           4124400256
  3/26/15            26 Mar 2018           4124400256
  3/27/15            27 Mar 2018           4124400256
  4/02/15            02 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/03/15            03 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/04/15            04 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/06/15            06 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/07/15            07 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/08/15            08 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/09/15            09 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/10/15            10 Apr 2018           4124400256
  4/11/15            11 Apr 2018           4124400256

  Product name/description:
  -------------------------
  46256 Martinelli's Gold Medal Sparkling Cider (4-6 pack
  bundles)

  Production Date    "Best Before" Date    SKU/UPC
  ---------------    ------------------    -------
  3/02/15            02 Mar 2018           41244 46256
  3/03/15            03 Mar 2018           41244 46256
  3/04/15            04 Mar 2018           41244 46256
  4/13/15            13 Apr 2018           41244 46256
  4/14/15            14 Apr 2018           41244 46256
  4/15/15            15 Apr 2018           41244 46256

  Product name/description:
  -------------------------
  99957 Martinelli's Sparkling Cider Northwest Blend (12 pack)

  Production Date    "Best Before" Date    SKU/UPC
  ---------------    ------------------    -------
  3/20/15            03 Mar 2018           41244 99057
  3/21/15            21 Mar 2018           41244 99057
  3/23/15            23 Mar 2018           41244 99057
  3/24/15            24 Mar 2018           41244 99057
  3/25/15            25 Mar 2018           41244 99057
  4/15/15            15 Apr 2018           41244 99057
  4/16/15            16 Apr 2018            41244 99057
  5/05/15            05 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/06/15            06 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/07/15            07 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/11/15            11 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/12/15            12 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/13/15            13 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/14/15            14 May 2018           41244 99057
  5/15/15            15 May 2018           41244 99057

  Product name/description:
  -------------------------
  99925 Martinelli's Sparkling White Grape (12-pack)

  Production Date    "Best Before" Date    SKU/UPC
  ---------------    ------------------    -------
  5/07/15            07 May 2018           41244 99025
  5/08/15            08 May 2018           41244 99025
  5/09/15            09 May 2018           41244 99025



  Product name/description:
  -------------------------
  99926 Martinelli's Sparkling Red Grape (12 pack) - (flint
  glass)

  Production Date    "Best Before" Date    SKU/UPC
  ---------------    ------------------    -------
  5/28/15            28 May 2018           41244 99026
  5/29/15            29 May 2018           41244 99026
  5/30/15            30 May 2018           41244 99026
  9/02/15            02 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/03/15            03 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/04/15            04 Sep 2018           41244 99026

  Product name/description:
  -------------------------
  64926 Martinelli's Sparkling Red Grape (4-6 pack) - (flint
  glass)

  Production Date    "Best Before" Date    SKU/UPC
  ---------------    ------------------    -------
  8/31/15            31 Aug 2018           41244 99026
  9/01/15            01 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/02/15            02 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/04/15            04 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/05/15            05 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/08/15            08 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/09/15            09 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/10/15            10 Sep 2018           41244 99026
  9/11/15            11 Sep 2018           41244 99026

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0prHQ3


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Class Action Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
ServiceSource International, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class
action securities lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International,
Inc. et al., was filed on July 8, 2015, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California ("Weller Lawsuit") against
Company and Company's former Chief Executive Officer.  The Weller
Lawsuit was brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock
during the period January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014. Plaintiffs
allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements
about Company's actual and expected financial performance.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The Company believes that the
claims are meritless, and will vigorously defend it.


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Shiloh Industries, Inc. ("Shiloh" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Shiloh securities between March 9, 2015 and September
14, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks
to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Shiloh securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 20, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Shiloh, together with its subsidiaries, supplies light weighting,
as well as noise, vibration, and harshness solutions to
automotive, commercial vehicle, and other industrial markets in
Europe, Mexico, and the United States. It produces body systems
components, such as shock towers, instrument panel/cross car
beams, torque boxes, tunnel supports, seat supports, seat back
frames, hinge pillars, lift gates, door inners, roof supports/roof
panels, dash panels, body sides, and B and C pillars; and chassis
systems components, including cross members, frame rails, axle
carriers, bearing caps, axle covers, axle housings, clutch
housings, PTU covers, axle tubes, rack and pinion housings,
steering column housings, knuckles, links, wheel hubs, calipers,
master cylinders, steering pumps, brake components, wheel blanks,
and flanges.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Shiloh had underreported the cost
related to its manufacturing of products; (2) Shiloh engaged in
irregular accounting practices related to surcharges assessed on
steel at its facility in Wellington, Ohio; (3) as a result,
Shiloh's earnings and income were overstated; (4) Shiloh lacked
adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Shiloh's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later,
the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established,
fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The Firm
has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


SKIPANON BRAND: Recalls Seafood Canned Products
-----------------------------------------------
Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC of Warrenton, Oregon is voluntarily
recalling ALL LOTS, ALL SIZES of ALL Skipanon brand seafoods
canned products because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-
threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the
product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

There have been no reported cases of illness to date.

Products were distributed to wholesalers and retailers in
Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington and sold to internet
customers nationwide from the website skipanonbrand.com. The last
date of distribution of recalled products is September 2015.

Affected production codes include any codes starting with "OC" and
the code can be found either at the bottom or on top of the can.
Products are packaged in metal cans with net weights ranging from
5.5 oz. to 66.5 oz.

  PRODUCT NAME            NET WEIGHT          UPC
  ------------            ----------          ---
  ALBACORE TUNA           48 oz. (1361 g)     6 58071 00148 0
  ALBACORE TUNA BELLIES   6.5 oz. (1885 g)    6 58071 00145 9
  ALBACORE TUNA           66.5 oz. (1885 g)   6 58071 00144 2
  ALBACORE TUNA           6 oz. (170 g)       6 58071 00117 6
  SMOKED ALBACORE TUNA    5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00116 9
  CHINOOK SALMON          6 oz. (170 g)       6 58071 00118 3
  SMOKED CHINOOK SALMON   5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00112 1
  PEPPERED SMOKED         5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00114 5
  CHINOOK SALMON
  COHO SALMON             6 oz. (170 g)       6 58071 00119 0
  SMOKED COHO SALMON      5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00113 8
  COLUMBIA RIVER SOCKEYE
  DELUXED HANDFILLED *    6 oz. (170 g)       6 58071 00120 6
  SOCKEYE SALMON          6 oz. (170 g)       6 58071 00120 6
  SMOKED SOCKEYE SALMON   5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00140 4
  FANCY STEELHEAD         6 oz. (170 g)       6 58071 00141 1
  SMOKED STEELHEAD        5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00142 8
  PEPPERED SMOKED         5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00143 5
  STEELHEAD
  SMOKED STURGEON         5.5 oz. (156 g)     6 58071 00111 4

* This label shows Packed by Oregon Ocean Seafoods (old firm name)

This voluntary recall was initiated due to lack of documentation
and possible under-processed products. The problem was discovered
during the inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and the inspection is ongoing. This recall is being made with the
knowledge of the FDA the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA).

Customers are advised to return or to contact company and hold for
pick up all products. At this point we are determining the best
course of action to remedy the situation.

If you have any questions, call Skipanon Brand Seafoods LLC at
(503) 861-8277 between the hours of 10:00am PST and 5:00pm PST,
Monday - Friday, or send e-mail to recallskipanonbrand@gmail.com.


SPARK NETWORKS: Parties in "Werner" & "Wright" Suits Await Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the parties in the
cases, Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark Networks
USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc., Spark
Networks USA, LLC, et al., are awaiting an order designating the
coordinated case judge and the coordinated cases are stayed
pending such action.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation.  The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.

On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc.  The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks,
Inc.'s commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.

Spark Networks filed a motion to coordinate the two matters in Los
Angeles Superior Court and the motion was granted.  The parties
are currently awaiting an order designating the coordinated case
judge and the coordinated cases are stayed pending such action.


SPARK NETWORKS: Nov. 4 Hearing on Class Certification Motions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing for the
motions to certify the class actions is set for November 4, 2015
in the Israeli Consumer Actions Ben-Jacob vs. Spark Networks
(Israel) Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland
vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981.  Spark
Networks (Israel) Ltd. ("Spark Israel") was served with a
Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as a Class Action in
the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges
that Spark Israel refused to cancel her subscription and provide a
refund for unused periods and claims that such a refusal is in
violation of the Consumer Protection Law.  Spark Israel was served
with a Statement of Claim and a motion to Certify it as a Class
Action in the Gever action on January 21, 2014.  The plaintiff
alleges that Spark Israel renewed his one month subscription
without receiving his positive agreement in advance and claims
that such renewal is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law.
Spark Israel was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to
Certify it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12,
2014.  The plaintiff alleges that Spark Israel refused to give her
a full refund and charged her the price of a one month
subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.

In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is seeking personal
damages and damages on behalf of a defined group. On May 8, 2014,
the Court granted Spark Israel's motion to consolidate all three
cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be litigated
jointly. Spark Israel's combined response to their motions to
certify the classes was filed November 1, 2014, and the plaintiffs
responded to the combined response.

The parties had a hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014.
Following the hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed
by the parties be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council
("ICC") so that the ICC can provide its position as to the
parties' allegations within 90 days. The ICC issued its opinion on
April 1, 2015.  Following the filing of the ICC opinion, the
parties filed briefs addressing the ICC opinion. A hearing for the
motions to certify the class actions is set for November 4, 2015.


SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Faces Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super
Micro" or the "Company") (NYSE: SMCI).  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between September 15, 2014 and
August 31, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the Firm immediately to discuss their legal options.

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

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

According to the complaint, on August 31, 2015, Super Micro
announced that the Company "has determined that it is unable to
file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2015 within the prescribed time period without unreasonable
effort or expense.  [Super Micro] recently discovered certain
irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses and additional
time is required for [Super Micro] to complete its investigation
of the matter."

If you purchased shares of Super Micro during the Class Period you
have until November 3, 2015, to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or
if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: Initial Approval of Reserve Yield Case Deal Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties
in the so-called Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation have filed a
request for the Court's preliminary approval of the settlement and
approval of notices to class members.

During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund
company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was
not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to
maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade,
Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now
known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.

On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with
Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to settle
the claims against them, subject to court approval. On March 26,
2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the claims against the Company and its
directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants, subject
to definitive written terms that will require court approval.
Under the agreement, the Company will make a cash contribution of
$3.75 million toward a class settlement fund. All the parties
entered into a stipulation of settlement as of June 4, 2015,
subject to court approval, and filed a request for the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement and approval of notices to
class members.


TD AMERITRADE: "Order Routing" Litigation Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Order
Routing Litigation remains pending.

Five putative class action complaints have been filed regarding TD
Ameritrade's routing of client orders. The cases are pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et
al. v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc.; Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael
Sarbacker v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald
Klein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints
in Zola, Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to
provide clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the
market venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints
in Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its
clients' non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the
highest rates of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive
best execution on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously
include claims of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of the duty of best execution, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer
Protection Act, violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and
declaratory judgment. The complaints seek various kinds of relief
including damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
equitable relief and other relief. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these lawsuits. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate resolution of
these lawsuits, or the potential losses, if any, that may result


TEMPUR SEALY: Wins Favorable Ruling From Appeals Court
------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court
of appeals has ruled in favor of the Company in the cases:

*  Norfolk County Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic
International Inc., Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed
June 20, 2012

*  Arthur Benning, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tempur-Pedic International Inc.,
Mark A. Sarvary and Dale E. Williams; filed June 25, 2012

On June 20 and 25, 2012, the above suits were filed against the
Company and two named executive officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, purportedly
on behalf of a proposed class of stockholders who purchased the
Company's stock between January 25, 2012 and June 5, 2012. The
complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, alleging, among other things, false and misleading
statements and concealment of material information concerning the
Company's competitive position, projected net sales, earnings per
diluted share and related financial performance for the Company's
2012 fiscal year. The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs,
attorney's fees, expert fees and unspecified equitable/injunctive
relief.

On November 2, 2012, the Court consolidated the two lawsuits and
on March 6, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. On
March 31, 2014, the Court issued an Order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated complaint. The
Court issued its memorandum of opinion and entered final judgment
on May 23, 2014. On June 6, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
("Appeals Court").

Following oral argument, the Appeals Court issued an order on June
4, 2015, ruling in favor of the Company. Plaintiff had until
September 2, 2015 to file a petition seeking review by the United
States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court").

If the plaintiff files such a petition and the Supreme Court
grants it, the Company intends to vigorously defend against the
claims. The outcome of these matters is uncertain, however, and
although the Company does not currently expect to incur a loss
with respect to these matters, the Company cannot currently
predict the manner and timing of the resolution of the suits, an
estimate of a range of losses or any minimum loss that could
result in the event of an adverse judgment in this suit, or
whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


TEMPUR SEALY: Court to Consider Class Cert. Bid in "Todd" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court
is scheduled to consider class certification motions in the fourth
quarter of 2015 in the case, Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary
Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur Sealy International, Inc., formerly
known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North
America, LLC, Defendants; filed October 25, 2013.

On October 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously.

The Court is scheduled to consider class certification motions in
the fourth quarter of 2015 and the outcome is uncertain. As a
result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or
whether the Company's applicable insurance policies will provide
sufficient coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can
give no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


TEMPUR SEALY: Motion to Amend "Todd" Action Okayed
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
amend the class action complaint in the case captioned ALVIN TODD,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No.: 13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of purchasers of Tempur-Sealy products, for claims
arising out of Defendants' marketing and sale of mattresses,
pillows, and other bedding products containing "Tempur" material.
Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint. They filed a First
Amended Complaint shortly thereafter.  They sought leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) which was granted. The operative
SAC asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Business and
Professions Code section 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of Business
and Professions Code section 17500 et seq.; (3) violations of
California Civil Code section 1750 et seq.; and (4) violations of
various other state consumer protection laws and common law unjust
enrichment claims.

Plaintiffs seek leave to file their proposed Third Amended
Complaint to: (1) add a nationwide class claim for unjust
enrichment, applying Kentucky law; (2) add new factual allegations
based on information learned during discovery; (3) remove two
claims based on North Carolina law; and (4) remove the names and
details of Plaintiffs who no longer wish to pursue this litigation
and have been dismissed.

In his Order dated August 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/S4lRpJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted
Plaintiffs' motion to amend class action complaint. The Court said
it would modify the briefing schedule on the motion for class
certification by separate order. The Court said there has been no
showing that Plaintiffs unduly delayed in filing this motion.
Discovery in this case has been hampered by technical and other
difficulties outside the Plaintiffs' control. Defendants have
produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, some in June
2015, and discovery is ongoing. In light of these circumstances,
the filing of Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend on July 16,
2015, was not unreasonable. The Court added that Defendants have
not shown that they will be substantially prejudiced by the
proposed amendment. Discovery in this case is ongoing, and no
schedule has been set beyond the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. Although Defendants may incur additional
expense responding to the new complaint, they will not have to
radically change their litigation strategy in order to defend
against related advertising allegations and an additional unjust
enrichment claim. The Court does recognize that the timing of the
motion for leave to amend puts Defendants at a disadvantage in
opposing the motion for class certification because the proposed
TAC adds a new nationwide unjust enrichment class. The timing of
the motion, which was filed on the same day as Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, will disrupt the case schedule. It does
not, however, amount to "strong evidence" of bad faith.

Angelique Adams, Esq. -- aadams@shipmanlaw.com -- Gary K Shipman,
Esq. -- gshipman@shipmanlaw.com -- William G Wright, Esq. --
wwright@shipmanlaw.com -- of Shipman & Wright, LLP, Anthony Gerard
Simon, Esq. -- asimon@simonlawpc.com -- Benjamin Reid Askew, Esq.
of The Simon Law Firm, P.C., Dana Marie Isaac Quinn, Esq., Jonas
Palmer Mann, Esq. -- jmann@audetlaw.com -- Michael Andrew McShane,
Esq. -- mmcshane@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, Steve
Baughman Jensen, Esq. -- sjensen@allenstewart.com -- Allen Mark
Stewart, Esq. -- astewart@allenstewart.com -- Allen Stewart, P.C.
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Alvid Todd

Mark Lemar Eisenhut, Esq. -- meisenhut@calljensen.com -- Matthew
Ryan Orr, Esq. -- morr@calljensen.com -- Samuel Gary Brooks, Esq.
of Call & Jensen, Daniel Jay Gerber, Esq. -- dgerber@rumberger.com
-- Darren McCartney, Esq., Douglas Bruce Brown, Esq. --
dbrown@rumberger.com -- Samantha Crawford Duke, Esq. --
sduke@rumberger.com -- Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell serve as counsel
for Defendant Tempur-Sealy International, Inc.


TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal by a plaintiff in a class action against Tesla Motors,
Inc. is pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and
our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court,
upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, and thereafter issued a formal written order to
that effect. The plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's
order, and that appeal is pending.


TF SUPPLEMENTS: Recalls Rhino Capsules Due to Desmethyl
-------------------------------------------------------
TF Supplements of Houston, TX, is voluntarily recalling the
following product to the consumer level: RHINO 7 3000 capsules
packaged in a bottle containing six (6) capsules UPC: 616453150126
ALL LOT NUMBERS WITHIN EXPIRY and Rhino 7 Platinum 3000 Capsules
packaged in a single (1) blister packs hang card count UPC:
700729253748 ALL LOT NUMBERS WITHIN EXPIRY. Lot numbers are on the
back top right of the (1) count and on the side of the (6) count
bottle. FDA analysis found these products to contain undeclared
desmethyl carbondenafil and dapoxetine. Desmethyl carbondenafil is
a phosphodiesterase PDE-5 inhibitor which is a class of drugs used
to treat male erectile dysfunction, making these products
unapproved new drugs. Dapoxetine is an active ingredient not
approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Desmethyl carbondenafil may pose a threat to consumers because
this PDE-5 inhibitor may interact with nitrates found in some
prescription drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood
pressure to dangerous levels that can be life threatening.
Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or
heart disease often take nitrates.

Dapoxetine has not been approved by the FDA and therefore its
safety or efficacy has not been established. Chemically,
dapoxetine belongs to a class of drugs known as selective
serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) used to treat depression.
Studies have shown that antidepressants increased the risk of
suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young
adults when compared to placebo. Therefore, consuming these
products presents a health risk which could be life threatening.

TF Supplements has received a report of one (1) adverse event
associated with these products to date.

These products are marketed as dietary supplements for sexual
enhancement and packaged in (6) count bottle and (1) count hanging
card and distributed to consumers nationwide via our retail
website tfsupplements.com. TF Supplements has discontinued sales
of these products.

TF Supplements is notifying its customers via e-mail of this
voluntary recall. Consumers that purchased these products from TF
Supplements should stop using them immediately and can return the
products to:

TF Supplements
6666 Gulf Freeway
Houston, TX 77087

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact TF
Supplements by telephone at 866-620-3586 between (Monday - Friday
9:00am to 5:00pm CST). Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using these products. Consumers can report
adverse reactions or quality control problems to the FDA's
MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program online, by regular mail,
or by fax as follows:

Complete and submit reporting form online at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/report.htm;or

Mail or fax reporting form. Download form at
http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmor call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form. Complete and return to the address on
the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-1078.

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


TRISTAR FOOD: Recalls Dried Raisin Products Due to Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tristar Food Wholesale Co. Inc. located at 115 Amity Street,
Jersey City, NJ 07304, is recalling Heng Cheong Loong Co. (HCL)
Dried Golden Raisins because it contains undeclared sulfites.
People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of
serious or life threatening allergic reactions if they consume
this product. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per
serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some
asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite
sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of
sulfites.

The recalled HCL Dried Golden Raisins, a product of South Africa,
is distributed in encoded 10 oz. plastic bags with UPC 6-930481-
211418. The HCL Dried Golden Raisins were sold in the states of
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Florida, Illinois,
North Carolina and the Philadelphia area. Products were
distributed from July 01, 2015 - Oct 05, 2015.

This recall was initiated after NYSDAM sampling and analysis
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Heng Cheong Loong
Co. Golden Raisins.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased HCL Dried Golden Raisins should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at (201)938-2590 (Mon - Fri 9:00am - 5:00pm
EST).


UNITED STATES: Mentally Ill Deportees Can Return Under Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tatiana Sanchez, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that hundreds of immigrants with mental illnesses who were ordered
deported after representing themselves in immigration court may be
eligible to return to the United States under the terms of a
settlement between the American Civil Liberties Union and the
Department of Homeland Security.

The settlement, finalized in U.S. District Court, will allow
eligible immigrants with serious mental illnesses the opportunity
to reopen their cases, with the potential to return to the U.S.

"It gives a measure of fairness and dignity to people who were
denied it for years in our immigration system," said
Ahilan Arulanantham, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Southern
California office.

The settlement applies to immigrants with mental disabilities who
were detained in Arizona, California and Washington after Nov. 21,
2011, and were deported without legal representation in court and
without a proper competency determination, according to the ACLU.

Mental illnesses considered under the settlement include
psychosis, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and major depressive
disorder, according to court documents.

Provisions of the settlement also encompass lawful permanent
residents or other visa holders who were deported during the given
time frame.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department's Civil Division, which
is handling the case, declined to comment.

Robin Hvidston, executive director of the Claremont-based group,
"We the People Rising," which advocates for stricter immigration
enforcement, questioned the court decision.

Ms. Hvidston said officials need to focus their resources on U.S.
citizens across California.  Veterans, the homeless and the
disabled are in need of attention and tax-payer funded assistance.

"This is not a system that's working well for the citizens -- to
have a judge ruling in favor of people in our country illegally
and who've already gone back home," she said.

Because the Otay Mesa detention facility has a judge assigned to
mental health cases, the immigration prison houses many of
Southern California's mentally ill detainees, said Bardis Vakili,
a staff attorney at the ACLU of San Diego.

Detainees who are San Diego residents and who have mental health
issues are held in Otay, and oftentimes mental health detainees
are transferred to the prison from Los Angeles and other cities in
the area.

They're ordered deported through the San Diego immigration court,
Mr. Vakili said.

The class-action lawsuit was originally filed by the ACLU and
other civil-rights groups in 2010 on behalf of Jose Antonio
Franco-Gonzalez and Guillermo Gomez-Sanchez, immigrants with
mental disabilities who were detained for several years after
being deemed mentally incompetent to represent themselves in
immigration proceedings.

Dr. David Folsom, vice chair of clinical affairs for the
department of psychiatry at UC San Diego Health, said that while
people with minor or moderate mental disabilities are typically
capable of representing themselves in court, those with serious
mental illnesses aren't.

"Deportation proceedings are extremely high stakes.  If you have
to represent yourself, you want to be able to do it with your full
ability," he said.

Following two federal orders, DHS and the Department of Justice
implemented several new procedures that protect unrepresented
detainees with mental illnesses, including screening immigration
detainees for possible mental health concerns; the availability of
competency hearings and independent psychological or psychiatric
evaluations; and qualified representatives for detainees who are
deemed mentally incompetent.

The settlement comes just weeks after 12 unauthorized immigrants
returned to the U.S. under the provisions of an earlier class-
action lawsuit settlement between the ACLU and DHS.

That lawsuit accused U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and
the Border Patrol in Southern California of using coercive tactics
to pressure unauthorized immigrants into voluntarily leaving the
United States.  The suit said the immigrants were deprived of
their right to be heard by an immigration judge, who might have
granted them legal status under certain programs.

ICE and Customs and Border Protection previously declined to
comment on the matter.

The ACLU has been fielding thousands of calls from potential
class-action members since preliminary approval of the settlement
was announced last year, though so far only "dozens" have
qualified, said Anna Castro, spokeswoman for the ACLU in San
Diego.

Ms. Castro declined to provide a specific number of eligible
deportees, saying some may choose to remain in Mexico after having
lived there for several years.


VOLKSWAGEN: Key Issues Arise Following Emissions Test Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that as Volkswagen's reputation continues to be
damaged by the revelation that it cheated emissions tests, a
number of questions remain unanswered.

With about 11 million diesel cars affected, including 1.2 million
in the UK, here are some of the key issues that have still to be
resolved:

Will drivers get any compensation?

Claims are already being prepared in the US, with lawyers
suggesting that drivers have been misled.

In the UK, there are suggestions that drivers and dealerships
might be able to claim for compensation if they were given false
information on purchase, or if their car is devalued as a result
of the scandal.

London-based law firm Slater and Gordon reported that it had been
contacted by more than 500 people who believe they were misled by
VW.

But there are a lot of question marks over the potential success
of any such claim. Such as, did the cheat software fundamentally
alter the car that drivers thought they were buying and its value?
Similar question marks surround the tax brackets that these cars
fell into.  Vehicle tax in the UK is based on levels of carbon
dioxide emissions.  So far, the cheat devices in the US appear
only to have given false readings on nitrogen oxide emissions.
Did any devices cheat more than just nitrogen oxide emissions? If
so, did these devices cheat tests to a degree that means a tax
discount for low emissions was incorrectly administered? If so,
would it be worthwhile for the tax authorities to chase up any
underpaid tax?

What will be the long-term effect on VW's prices?
Only time will tell how prices of VW cars will be affected in the
months and years ahead.

On the plus side for owners, is the example of previous car
industry scandals.

Editors at CAP Black Book -- a manual referred to by professional
used-car dealers -- point to the global recall of Toyota and Lexus
cars back in 2009 and 2010.  This, they say, was the result of
serious safety issues, but it did not have a significant impact on
used car values.

However, any fall in the popularity of VWs could mean that they
are less in demand as used cars, so owners wishing to sell might
have to lower their asking price.

Predicting prices and used car values in the future depends on so
many variables including, most critically, how this scandal
develops.

How high up did the scandal go?
Martin Winterkorn has been replaced as chief executive, and other
people across the group have been suspended.

An internal inquiry is underway, but it would be surprising if
such a blatant and widespread attempt to rig emissions tests
didn't end with more heads rolling.

This was not the action of some rogue employee.  There will have
been a chain of command that approved the use of the cheat
software in 11 million cars.

What's more, it's emerging that VW executives may have been warned
of the scam at least two years ago.

In the US, lawyers are still seeking action against employees of
General Motors some two years after the carmaker began recalling
cars with dangerous ignition faults.

If VW can't identify who knew what, aggressive lawyers may do so.
What fines will VW face?

Jurisdictions across the world are investigating VW.  From the EU
to South Korea, VW faces heavy financial punishment.

But the US, whose authorities take a robust approach to corporate
wrongdoing, is where VW could face its most costly and prolonged
litigation.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which exposed VW's test
rigging, can fine $37,500 (GBP25,000) per vehicle, which would put
the maximum cost fine for the near 500,000 cars affected in the US
at $18 billion.

The US Justice Department may yet launch criminal action, turning
up the legal heat.  And individual states are preparing possible
action, either individually or together.

The carmaker has so far set aside EUR6.5 billion ($7.3 billion;
GBP4.8 billion) to cover the costs of the scandal.

What about lawsuits from customers?

Private law firms have already reportedly filed dozens of lawsuits
in the US on behalf of VW owners.

But eventually hundreds of class-action lawsuits are expected to
follow.

These cases may be consolidated before a single federal judge.
Claims will include defrauding customers, compensation for falling
values of second-hand VW cars, and refunds for customers who paid
extra for cars they thought were better for the environment.
How much will these damages claims be for . Who knows? But it's
safe to say they will run into billions of dollars.

What will be the wider car industry impact?

VW's shares plunged in the days following the revelations.  What
got less publicity was that investors in several VW component
suppliers also ran for cover.

Shares in Delphi, Tenneco, Honeywell, and Continental were among
suppliers hit.

There's a fear that the VW scandal will do irreparable damage to
the diesel market.

In the US, the market for diesel cars is tiny.  Has this nascent
market now been killed off?

Mike Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation, the largest US car
retailer, told the WSJ: "It is another black eye for diesel
vehicles overall."

In Europe diesel accounts for 50% of cars sold.

It's possible the VW scandal will spur on development of cleaner
diesel technology.

Others, though, say it is the death knell of technology that never
lived up to its hype, and will mean more investment in hybrid and
electric technology.

Can VW rebuild its reputation?

The simple answer is "yes", but it won't be quick or easy.
Five years ago, Japanese giant Toyota was in a similar position in
the US after it had failed to address known safety defects in its
cars, which were linked to the death of dozens of people.
Toyota responded with an extensive campaign to address the
failings in its own organisation and rebuild consumer trust.
As a result its sales recovered following a short-term fall.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Oxnard Test Site Focus of Emissions Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Wenner, writing for Ventura County Star, reports that a
Volkswagen emissions compliance laboratory in Oxnard is a focus of
at least one class-action lawsuit filed in the wake of the
carmaker's emissions cheating scandal.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Bagert" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Bagert, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07174 (D.N.J., September
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of
Magnuson-Moss Act, violation of The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen has marketed its so-called
"clean diesel" vehicles as high performing, fuel efficient, and
environmentally-friendly. In truth, Volkswagen's clean diesel
vehicles are anything but clean.

The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation
doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated
under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is
in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are
located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times,
Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted
the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008

          - and -

      Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
      GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART
      11 Broadway, # 2150
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 847-8315


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Negligent Misrepresentation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Epperson, Brian Epperson, and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
02655 (D. Tenn., September 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act of 1977.

Volkswagen has been using what is known as "defeat devices" on the
CleanDiesel engines, which reduce the effectiveness of the
emissions control system during normal driving conditions.

The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation
doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated
under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is
in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are
located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times,
Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted
the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the nation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Timothy R. Holton, Esq.
      HOLTON LAW FIRM
      296 Washington Avenue
      Memphis, TN 38103
      Tel: (901) 523-2222


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit for Fraudulent Concealment
------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kettley, Kelly Lee, and all others similarly-situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00386 (D.
Hawaii, September 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
Fraudulent Concealment and Violations of the Hawaii Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

Plaintiff alleges that by manufacturing and selling cars with
defeat devices that allowed for higher levels of emissions than
were certified to the EPA, Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act,
defrauded its customers, and engaged in deceptive acts and
practices.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., is a corporation
doing business in the State of Hawaii and is organized under the
laws of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of
business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia
20171. At all times relevant to this action, Volkswagen
manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the
Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names in
Hawaii.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Andrew J. Lautenbach, Esq.
      STARN, O'TOOLE, MARCUS & FISHER
      733 Bishop Street, Suite 1900
      Pacific Guardian Center, Makai Tower
      Honolulu, HI 96813
      Tel: (808) 537-6100
      E-mail: alautenbach@starnlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Skye" Suit Seeks Actual and Punitive Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Skye, Michael Kang, Geoffrey Veith, and all others
similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 5:15-cv-04482 (N.D. Calif., September 29,
2015), seek to obtain actual and punitive damages, restitution,
and enjoinment for the Defendants' violations of the federal law,
California and Pennsylvania's consumer protection statutes and
common law, and for breaches of applicable warranties.

Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen had equipped its vehicles with
illegal software designed to falsify the vehicles' emissions. The
software automatically detects when a vehicle is undergoing
emissions testing and activates the full emissions control system.
Then, as soon as the test is over, the software switches the
vehicles back into "road calibration," eliminating some pollution
controls.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a New Jersey
corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business
in Herndon, Virginia.

Defendant Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent
company of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Its headquarters and
principal place of business are in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen
designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and warrants vehicles
in the United States under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Judith A. Zahid, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 693-0700
      Fax: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: jzahid@zelle.com

          - and -

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 350-9700
      Fax: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com

          - and -

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (415) 692-0772
      Fax: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Aprea" Suit Alleges Fraud
--------------------------------------------
John Aprea and Nicole Kennedy, and all others similarly situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01607 (M.D.
Fla., September 25, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
alleged fraud, violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, breach of contract and implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs alleged that Volkswagen defrauded Florida residents
by selling them so-called "clean diesel" vehicles that it
represented to be less polluting than standard vehicles, but in
fact emitted much greater amounts of greenhouse gases than other
vehicles. Volkswagen purposely designed these vehicles to
circumvent emissions testing to hide their true levels of toxic
output.

The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey
corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand
Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional
headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all
relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased
and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the
Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Steven R. Maher, Esq.
      THE MAHER LAW FIRM, P.A.
      631 W. Morse Blvd., Suite 200
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Tel: (407) 839-0866
      E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Criminal Fraud Allegation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arash Badeanlou, Rachel Gourki, Gary L. Grela, David A. Licht,
Alex Scull, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07108 (D.N.J., September 25,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged criminal
fraud.

The Defendant designed and sold cars that were designed to, and
did, mislead consumers and regulators about the vehicles'
emissions, fuel efficiency and performance. Despite touting the
"green" benefits of its diesel vehicles, Defendant sold cars that
produced pollution up to 40 times higher than advertised, and then
intentionally concealed the truth about those cars through a
sophisticated scheme involving defeat devices.

The Defendant Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey
corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand
Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional
headquarters located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all
relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased
and warranted the vehicles with defeat devices under the
Volkswagen and Audi names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1100

          - and -

      Timothy R. Pestotnik, Esq.
      PESTOTNIK LLP
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1025
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (610) 237-5080

          - and -

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 595-3001

          - and -

      Jeff Holmes, Esq.
      HOLMES LAW GROUP APC
      3311 East Pico Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Tel: (310) 396-9045

          - and -

      Debra L. Hurst, Esq.
      HURST & HURST
      701 B. Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 236-0016

          - and -

      Cameron Gharabiklou, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CAMERON J.
      GHARABIKLOU
      530 B Street, Suite 1530
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (858) 412-0019


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Brilla" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Hope Brilla, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07122 (D.N.J., September 28,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, Magnuson-Moss Act -- implied warranty, unjust
enrichment and violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Since 2009, over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States were sold with a "defeat device" to create
the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with
extremely low emissions. A "defeat device" is nothing less than a
software trick that was deliberately designed by Volkswagen's
engineers to make the engine more cleanly when emission testing
was being conducted, but otherwise to run more powerfully and fuel
efficiently. Volkswagen marketed vehicles with these defeat
devices as "green" and environmentally friendly, when in fact
these representations were hollow. Volkswagen's vehicles possessed
none of the promised attributes.

Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive,
Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional headquarters located
in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen
manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the vehicles
with defeat devices under the Volkswagen and Audi names throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 429-2290

          - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: (865) 247-0090

          - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 346-2222


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Covell" Seeks Actual and Treble Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Covell, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02132 (D. Colo.,
September 25, 2015), seeks actual and treble damages pursuant to
the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for Defendant's false
representation arising out of fraud.

The Plaintiff alleged that the case involves a deliberate choice
by Volkswagen to defraud American consumers and ignore American
laws designed to protect all from harmful pollutants. Since at
least 2009, Volkswagen has deliberately installed illegal "defeat
devices" in several models of Volkswagen and Audi vehicles powered
by the 2.0 Liter "Clean Diesel" engine.

Volkswagen Group of America is a New Jersey corporation with its
principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive,
Herndon, Virginia 20171, and Eastern Regional headquarters located
in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times, Volkswagen
manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted the vehicles
with defeat devices under the Volkswagen and Audi names throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jake C. Eisenstein, Esq.
      FISHER & ASSOCIATES P.C.
      3900 E. Mexico Ave., Ste. 950
      Denver, CO 80210
      Tel: (303) 779-5300
      Fax: (303) 779-5305
      E-mail: jeisenstein@yourcoloradolawyers.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Fraud
----------------------------------------------
Preston Roberts, Amanda Elaine Davis, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00220 (W.D. N.C., September 28, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for fraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty and
violation of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

The class action arises from Volkswagen's intentional installation
of "defect devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. Volkswagen marketed
those vehicles as environmentally friendly vehicles with extremely
high fuel efficiency and performance and very low emissions, but
the vehicles did not actually possess those desirable and
advertised attributes.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business
in every U.S. state and the District of Columbia, and is organized
under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal place of business
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all
relevant times, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold,
leased, and warranted the Affected Vehicles under the Volkswagen
and Audi brand names throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mindy C. Fisher, Esq.
      DUNGAN, KILBOURNE & STAHL, P.A.
      One Rankin Avenue, Third Floor
      Asheville, NC 28801
      Tel: (828) 254-4778
      Fax: (828) 254-6646
      E-mail: mfisher@dunganlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Common Law Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Katia Manuel-Adams and Gregory L. Adams, and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07183 (D.N.J., September 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty, violation of Magnuson-Moss Act, violation of The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and violation
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen has marketed its so-called
"clean diesel" vehicles as high performing, fuel efficient, and
environmentally-friendly. In truth, Volkswagen's clean diesel
vehicles are anything but clean. Volkswagen installed a
sophisticated software algorithm, or "defeat device," in the Class
Vehicles that instructs them to cheat on emissions tests; that is,
to engage full emissions controls only when undergoing official
emissions testing. At all other times, the emissions controls are
de-activated, and the vehicles emit extremely high, and illegal,
levels of pollutants.

The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation
doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated
under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is
in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are
located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times,
Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted
the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008

          - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 429-2290


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Barger" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Barger, and all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07175 (D.N.J.,
September 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for common
law fraud, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, Magnuson-Moss Act, unjust enrichment, and
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the defeat devices that Volkswagen
designed and installed worked by switching on the full emissions
control systems only when the car's emission systems were
undergoing testing. When switched on the defeat device reduced the
vehicles' performance, limiting acceleration, torque and fuel
efficiency to clean up its act.

The Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation
doing business in all 50 states and is organized and incorporated
under the laws of New Jersey. Its principal place of business is
in Herndon, Virginia, and its Eastern Regional headquarters are
located in Woodcliff Lakes, New Jersey. At all relevant times,
Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased and warranted
the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names
throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 429-2290

          - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Tel: (865) 247-0090

          - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 346-2222


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Suit Alleges Unlawful Trade Practices
-------------------------------------------------------
Emily Downing-Moore, Thaddeus Moore, Zachary A. Blalack, Natalie
B. Blalack, and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and Audi AG, Case
No. 6:15-cv-01825 (D. Ore., September 25, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, violation of
Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a domestic for-
profit New Jersey corporation, and is headquartered in Herndon,
Virginia. Volkswagen is a wholly owned subsidiary of Volkswagen
AG, the world's largest automobile manufacturer. Volkswagen
designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sells the
Class Vehicles through the United States, including within the
State of Oregon.

Established in 1937, Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
(hereinafter, "Volkswagen AG") is a German car corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Germany, with its
principal place of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany.
Volkswagen AG is the parent company of Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.

In 1964, Volkswagen AG acquired Auto Union, and in 1969,
Volkswagen AG acquired NSU Motorenwerke AG. Volkswagen AG merged
Auto Union and NSU to create Audi AG, which has since been
developed into Volkswagen's luxury vehicle brand. Audi is a German
automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers, produces,
markets, and distributes luxury automobiles, and is a majority
owned (99.55%) subsidiary of Volkswagen Group. Since 2007, Audi
has used the slogan "Truth in Engineering," and is among the best-
selling luxury automobiles in the world.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jennifer L. Jonak, Esq.
      JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
      85100 Cloverdale Road
      Creswell, OR 97426
      Tel: (510) 501-6276
      Fax: (510) 291-2910
      E-mail: jenny@jonak.com

          - and -

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 692-3606
      E-mail: jberger@cpmlegal.com


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling cheese sold in all stores
nationwide that came from its supplier because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
Consumers should seek immediate medical care if they develop these
symptoms.

The recalled cheese was cut and packaged in clear plastic wrap and
sold with Whole Foods Market scale labels. Whole Foods Market
decided to recall the cheese after routine sampling conducted by
the FDA found Listeria Monocytogenes in a whole, uncut wheel of
the cheese. The Papillon Organic Roquefort cheese product can be
identified by the scale label that begins with PLU 029536. All
sell by dates are affected.

No illnesses or infections have been reported to date. Signage is
posted on retail store shelves to notify customers of this recall,
and all affected product has been removed from shelves.

Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market
stores may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call
512-477-5566 ext. 20060 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
EST.


* Courts Issue Opinions on Class Certification Ascertainability
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ira Neil Richards, Esq. -- irichards@schnader.com -- and Aaron J.
Fickes, Esq. -- afickes@schnader.com -- of Schnader Harrison Segal
& Lewis LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that that
"Ascertainability" -- that is, whether class members can be
ascertained with administrative efficiency -- continues to develop
as a significant issue in class certification.  Two recent
opinions, Brecher v. Republic of Argentina, No. 14-4385, 2015 U.S.
App. LEXIS 16493 (2d Cir. Sept. 16, 2015), in which the Second
Circuit adopted ascertainability as a separate class-certification
requirement, and In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation, No. 08-md-2002, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124799 (E.D. Pa.
Sept. 18, 2015), in which the court applied what has been called
"heightened ascertainability" within the Third Circuit,
demonstrate how the developing law on ascertainability can impact
a class certification outcome.  Ascertainability, though, is not
necessarily developing uniformly or consistently as a distinct
class certification requirement.  Significantly, the Seventh
Circuit has expressly rejected the concept.  It has even come
under criticism from judges within the Third Circuit.  For
practitioners, it is therefore critical to know the law of the
circuit in which you are litigating and to continue to closely
monitor developments in ascertainability.

Brecher, from the Second Circuit, involved one of a series of
class actions by holders of defaulted Argentine bonds.  The
district court had certified a class to include all holders of
beneficial interests in the relevant bonds without limitation as
to the time held. (Previously, the Second Circuit had approved a
class that incorporated a time limitation).  Argentina appealed.
In reversing and remanding, the Second Circuit formally adopted
ascertainability as a separate class-certification issue. Using
language essentially identical to that earlier adopted by the
Third Circuit, the Second Circuit held that a class is
sufficiently ascertainable when it is defined by objective
criteria that are administratively feasible, such that determining
membership would not require mini-trials.

Under the newly-adopted ascertainability requirement, the class
certified by the district court failed.  The class definition
incorporated objective criteria, namely owning a beneficial
interest in certain bonds.  Nonetheless, the class failed because
it was too difficult to determine who met the criteria.  According
to the Second Circuit, the secondary market for Argentine bonds
remains active, and the bonds do not have a unique number.  So,
the court reasoned, it would be nearly impossible to ultimately
determine who holds bonds that were opted into or out of the class
by previous owners, especially if those bonds were subsequently
co-mingled.

In In re Processed Egg Products, the district court, following
controlling Third Circuit precedent, applied heightened
ascertainability in declining to certify a consumer class action.
Three categories of plaintiffs alleged that the nation's major egg
producers conspired to increase the price of eggs.  Indirect
purchasers, i.e., those who bought eggs at a supermarket but not
directly from the producers, comprised one category of plaintiffs.

As in Brecher, the putative class of indirect purchasers contained
objective criteria, specifically, those who purchased certain
types of eggs within a given time period.  The class, however,
presented an ascertainability problem.  Those who bought eggs
directly from the producers, typically in very large quantities,
could readily demonstrate membership in the direct-purchaser class
because the purchasers and the sellers maintained records.  But
how would someone who purchased one carton of a certain type of
eggs from a supermarket several years earlier prove that they in
fact made that purchase? In such a circumstance, the buyer or the
seller is highly unlikely to have a receipt or other evidence of
the sale.

Counsel for the indirect purchasers proposed a solution: potential
class members would submit affidavits swearing that they fell
within the class definition.  Moreover, because the Third Circuit
had earlier held that ascertainability requires more than a
putative class member's "say so" that he or she is a member of the
class, the plaintiffs proposed that a claims administrator would
screen and attempt to verify the affidavits.

The plaintiffs' proposed solution fell short.  The court held that
it could not ignore the "core concern" of ascertainability: that a
defendant must be able to challenge class membership.  This the
defendants could not do when there were no records to identify
class members and the proposed methods to weed out unreliable
affidavits still did not give the defendants a meaningful
opportunity to challenge an individual's membership in the class.

However, after applying Third Circuit precedent, the district
court leveled in a footnote two criticisms against the heightened
ascertainability requirement.  First, pointing to language from a
2015 concurring opinion from Judge Rendell of the Third Circuit
and a recent Seventh Circuit opinion rejecting the Third Circuit's
approach, the court stated that heightened ascertainability is
"disharmonious" with Rule 23's aims.  Rule 23 requires that courts
balance the difficulties in managing a class action against the
countervailing interests of whether a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy.  Heightened ascertainability, the Seventh Circuit
reasoned, upsets this balance by placing too great an emphasis on
managing the class action.  The result is to effectively bar low-
value consumer class actions.  Second, the court questioned why
affidavits are essentially considered incompetent evidence for
class actions while they are competent evidence in most other
settings.

Brecher and In re Processed Egg Products provide key takeaways
about ascertainability, but important questions remain.

The Third Circuit's ascertainability standard continues to be a
significant area for both sides to address in Rule 23(b)(3) class
actions.  This is especially true for consumer class actions
involving relatively low-cost goods or services for which
consumers are unlikely to keep a receipt after purchase.
The Second Circuit's adoption of ascertainability as a separate
class certification issue, not merely an aspect of Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement, in a way that tracks the Third Circuit
strongly suggests that the parties to class actions in that
circuit will need to be prepared to address as an evidentiary
matter at the time of class certification whether it is
administratively feasible to identify class members.

Objective criteria, long helpful in demonstrating
ascertainability, alone may be insufficient for class
certification if it is difficult to determine who meets the
objective criteria.

It remains to be seen whether other circuits will follow the Third
Circuit's lead and adopt heightened ascertainability as a separate
class certification issue or whether they will continue with the
traditional approach of applying a lower level of ascertainability
as part of Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance inquiry.  The Eleventh
Circuit in a non-precedential opinion recently tilted towards the
Third Circuit's approach, whereas the Seventh Circuit expressly
rejected that approach.


* New Class Action Procedures in UK May Spark More Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Lee, Esq. -- andrew.lee@allenovery.com -- of Allen & Overy
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that new class action
procedures was set to come into force in just four days' time on
October 1.  These will make the UK a more attractive forum for
potential claimants and are likely to lead to an increase in the
number of class actions being brought.  Indeed, recent statements
in the press by lawyers acting for plaintiffs in the class actions
in New York against banks in connection with foreign exchange
trading indicate that they intend to bring class actions in the UK
under the new regime on behalf of investors based outside the US.
Firms conducting internal investigations or being investigated by
regulators for breaches of competition law also need to be aware
of the new rules and consider whether taking a step during the
investigation might harm their position in any future class
action.

The UK already has rules allowing "class action" type proceedings,
but such cases have faced a number of obstacles.  High Court
claims managed by a Group Litigation Order first need to be issued
separately and to a significant extent are still treated
individually, making them expensive for claimants and complex to
run. Collective proceedings can be brought in the Competition
Appeal Tribunal (CAT) for damages caused by a breach of UK or EU
competition law, but only one claim has been brought in the 12
years that the current rules have been in force.  This is because
only a "specified body" can bring collective proceedings, and  is
the only body that has been specified.  Each claim must also be a
'consumer claim' by an individual for an infringement affecting
goods or services they received outside the course of their
business.

The new class action regime will amend the Competition Act 1998 by
replacing the current CAT collective proceedings rules.  Below,
Allen & Overy LLP considers the key features and changes, as well
as some important differences with US class action rules.

(1) Who can bring a class action?

Class actions are commenced by a proposed class representative.
Claims can be brought by any person who has suffered loss or
damage, including both consumers and businesses.  The claims
sought to be included must "raise the same, similar or related
issues of fact or law" for the CAT to make a collective
proceedings order.  Ultimately, the CAT rather than the claimants
decides the description of the class.

(2) What can a class action be based on?

Claims must be based on an alleged infringement of competition law
(referred to as "standalone cases") or a competition law
infringement decision of the Competition and Markets Authority,
the CAT or the European Commission (referred to as 'follow-on
cases').  The relevant competition law infringements are
infringements of the prohibitions on agreements which prevent,
restrict or distort competition within the UK or the EU and abuse
of a dominant position affecting trade within the UK or between EU
member states.  For follow-on cases, the CAT is bound by an
infringement decision once it has become final, and these cases
are limited to the infringements found by the regulator.

(3) What types of class action are there?

Two types of collective proceedings can be brought: opt-in
proceedings (on behalf of each class member who opts in by
notifying the class representative) and opt-out proceedings (on
behalf of each member of the defined class except: (a) anyone
domiciled in the UK who opts out by notifying the class
representative; and (b) anyone not domiciled in the UK unless they
opt in).  Opt-out collective proceedings are a feature of US class
actions, but were not previously permitted in the UK. They could
increase the amount for which a defendant is potentially liable
and make it easier for those who have suffered loss to recover
damages.

(4) What happens if the claimants win?

A judgment or order given in the collective proceedings is binding
on all parties represented by the class representative.  The CAT
can make an aggregate award of damages without first assessing the
amount of damages recoverable in respect of each individual class
member.  Unlike in the US, the CAT cannot award exemplary damages
or "treble damages".  For opt-out collective proceedings, damages-
based agreements (where the claimants' lawyers are paid a
proportion of the damages awarded to the claimants) are
unenforceable.  In contrast, similar arrangements are common in US
class actions.  The purpose of this rule was to avoid the
"litigation culture" in the UK, provide a safeguard against weak
claims or speculative litigation, and avoid creating an incentive
for claimant lawyers to focus on the largest cases.

(5) What happens if the claimants lose?

If the case is unsuccessful, the claimants will usually be liable
for the defendants' costs in accordance with the normal UK costs
rules.  This increases the financial risk to claimants and should
deter potential claimants from bringing weak claims.  If the
claimants are unable to pay, the claimants' lawyers may need to
fund a payment to the defendants.  In the US, each side bears its
own costs, even if the defendants win, which has fuelled the
commencement of class actions.  Collective settlements are also
possible in the UK.

(6) What other rules are coming?

The EU Damages Directive must be implemented in the UK by the end
of 2016 and will assist claimants in collective proceedings in the
CAT.  It provides for a rebuttable presumption that cartel
infringements cause harm.  It also requires EU member states to
ensure that a final infringement decision of a national
competition authority or court of any EU member state is deemed to
be at least prima facie evidence of a competition law
infringement.

(7) So what will all this mean in practice?

The new class action rules will change the litigation landscape
for potential claimants and their lawyers, as well as for
defendants.  It will be easier for claimants to bring collective
actions, share and minimise their legal fees, and benefit from a
successful result or settlement.  Those who have breached
competition law can expected an increased likelihood of a class
action being brought against them, with a potentially considerable
and unknown liability arising from any opt-out collective
proceedings.  However, the new rules provide some important
controls regarding the award of damages and costs which should
prevent the rapid growth of class action litigation, as has
occurred in the US.  Much will depend on how broadly or narrowly
the class is defined, the merits of each claim, and the risk
appetite of defendants either to settle or defend the case to its
conclusion.


* UK Consumer Rights Act Introduces "Opt Out" in Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clive Coleman, writing for BBC News, reports that The Consumer
Rights Act 2015 will make it far easier for groups of consumers to
seek compensation from firms that have fixed prices and formed
cartels.

It introduces "opt out" actions where everyone affected is
automatically a member of the "class" which is suing.
Consumer groups say it is a huge step forward in helping secure
compensation.

Fixing the prices

Previously, when groups of consumers or small and medium-sized
businesses wanted to take action against companies who fixed the
price of goods or services, on -- for example -- replica football
shirts or air fares, it was very difficult.

All of those affected had ether had to "opt in" to the action or
bring a claim in their own name.  As individual losses were small
and legal costs and risks high, few did.

Such were the problems with opt-in actions that there has only
been one of note.  This was when consumer body sued JJB Sports
which had taken part in fixing the prices of some replica football
shirts.

The action was settled and consumers who joined it who had paid up
to GBP39.99 for certain England and Manchester United football
shirts, during specific periods in 2000 or 2001, received a
payment of GBP20 each.

JJB Sports also agreed to compensate those who bought one of the
shirts but did not join the claim.

They were entitled to GBP10 if they presented either proof of
purchase or the shirt itself, with its label intact, at a JJB
Sports store.

It was all a bit messy and many who bought the shirts did not join
the claim and so did not get any money back.

Under the new law, everyone who purchased the overpriced goods can
be automatically "in" the claim unless they opt out.

It means there will be strength in numbers and consumers could get
their money back without lifting a finger.

"The new collective redress rules will give consumers more power
against unscrupulous businesses that have been found guilty of
anti-competitive practices," said executive director Richard
Lloyd.

"Now everyone who has been affected will be automatically included
so more people should get redress and sooner."

He added the move was good news for consumers and responsible
businesses because "those caught acting illegally will be made to
pay the price".

'Billions in damages'

Under the new law, claims have to be approved by the Competition
Appeal Tribunal.

They can be brought by a suitable representative of the group
affected by the price fixing, who then advertises the claim in
order to make others in the group aware of it and would then
distribute the money.  Any residue goes to charity.

Two kinds of claims can be brought.

Firstly, so-called "follow on" claims that follow a competition
regulator's finding that there has been an infringement of
competition law.

Secondly, "standalone" claims which are not based on an
infringement decision.  This frees up claimants to seek damages
for any competition law violations -- not just those the
regulators have chosen to pursue.

In the US, class actions are far more widespread with damages
awards running into billions of dollars.

They are not confined to cases where companies get together and
fix prices.

Claims against retailers and manufacturers relating to faulty
goods and services can also be brought.

Class actions have been filed in the US by groups of consumers
affected by the recent Volkswagen emission test scandal.
In the US, juries hear the cases and set the damages, which can
then be trebled by the judge.

'Safeguards included'

So, will the new regime really see US-style class actions with
huge pay outs?

"The regime incorporates a number of safeguards against what are
perceived to be the 'excesses' of the US system," said
Anna Morfey, a specialist competition law solicitor with the
London firm Hausfeld.

"In particular, the fact that the losing party is typically
required to pay the winner's costs acts as a deterrent to
frivolous claims in the UK.

"But there are other important differences -- no treble or
'exemplary' damages, and no jury trials of these claims in the UK,
will mean damages awards really are compensatory and not windfalls
for claimants."

What is clear is that companies who fix prices now face a much
greater risk of being sued by all of those who have paid the
inflated prices.

Class action explained

The Competition Appeal Tribunal decides whether the "class
representative" is representative of anybody else who would want
to sue

Safeguards to prevent frivolous claims include strict conditions
to be met before a claim is approved as "opt-out" as opposed to
"opt-in"; and rules governing damages and costs

"Opt-out" provisions only apply to UK-domiciled consumers or
companies.


* UK Fund Managers Mull Suit as New Antitrust Rules Introduced
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Ridley, writing for Reuters, reports that large companies
and fund managers in Britain looking to sue banks over foreign
exchange rigging are eyeing a fresh route to seeking damages, as a
new law ushers in U.S.-style class actions for antitrust cases on.

Litigators are hoping to replicate from Britain the success of
U.S. class action claims against banks such as Goldman Sachs, HSBC
(and Barclays, that have yielded more than $2.0 billion for
investors in settlements to date.

With around 40 percent of the $5.3 trillion-per-day foreign
exchange market traded in London, lawyers are jostling for
position.  UK firms that have traditionally brought group claims
here, such as Stewarts Law, are seeing U.S. rivals such as
Hausfeld launch hiring sprees and others opening shop in London.

An official at one London-based fund manager, who declined to be
named, said: "We are talking about it (a claim) internally and
with our custodians.  If we think it is in clients' interest, we
would certainly consider being part of a class action."

Britain's new Consumer Rights Act introduces the first "opt-out"
class actions for breaches of UK or EU competition law from
Oct. 1.  In such cases, UK-based members of a defined group will
automatically be bound into legal action unless they opt out,
saving on hefty advertising costs. Overseas-based claimants,
however, will still have to actively sign up.

The regime is designed to offer a more effective route to
compensation for consumers and businesses who fall victim to anti-
competitive conduct.  It will be overseen by Britain's freshly-
empowered Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT).

Critics say opt-out regimes can fuel claims without merit.  Others
argue victims too often go uncompensated for injustice.  Countries
from Belgium and Italy to Australia and China are proposing and
introducing similar systems.

The banking industry, in the spotlight since the financial crisis,
has paid more than $235 billion in fines and compensation over the
last seven years.

SIGNING UP CLAIMANTS

Some lawyers admit to being tempted to grab the limelight with
Britain's maiden class action lawsuit.  But European antitrust
authorities have yet to conclude their forex probe, law firms
would need significant resources to litigate and early CAT cases
could get bogged down in interlocutory fights about shaping the
new regime, experts are warning.

"We are in active conversations with a number of multinational
companies and we have some who have already signed up to bringing
this case," says Belinda Hollway, a London-based partner at U.S.-
based law firm Scott and Scott, setting up shop in London after
leading successful U.S. forex claims.

"But the simplest and quickest route to obtaining compensation at
this stage is a conventional (opt-in, group) action in the High
Court," she added.  A forex claim might not be launched in Britain
until early 2016, she said.

The work that precedes even a High Court case should not be
underestimated - especially as the losing side foots the combined
legal bill, said Stewart Law's Clive Zietman.

"There is a very real possibility of claims. But claimants have to
be pretty determined with rock solid facts," he said.

Whichever route claimants take, lenders are braced.

They have set aside billions of dollars to cover civil lawsuits
after U.S. and UK authorities described how traders gathered in
chatrooms with names such as "The Cartel".  Seven lenders were
fined around $10 billion and four banks have pleaded guilty to
attempted market manipulation.

Britain's former "opt-in" regime for antitrust cases, where each
claimant has to be individually identified, has inspired only one
claim: a football kit price-fixing case won by consumer
organization a decade ago.  It proved complex and costly to
organize and few claimed the compensation won.

But if the new regime is successful, it could be expanded to allow
class actions on grounds such as product liability and securities
fraud.

Such claims drove the landmark U.S. tobacco settlement over
cigarette-related public health claims in 1998, set at around $200
billion over 25 years, and the $7.2 billion Enron settlement with
shareholders after the energy giant's collapse in 2008.


* UK Legistlation Establishes Procedure for Competition Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn McCann, writing for Legal Business, reports that The
Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was set to come into force
(October 1), will for the first time establish a procedure for
class actions for competition claims, giving consumers and small
businesses an easier route to success for claims made over anti-
competitive behaviour, including price fixing and market sharing.

The legislation, which gives a number of new powers to the UK's
specialist competition court the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT), means there will now be collective redress system for
competition claims.  It also means individual consumers and small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) will not have to undertake
significant financial risks to embark on expensive litigation.

SMEs who wish to bring a case will also be considered for a fast-
track procedure, which means trials will take six months at the
most, making it both quicker and easier to seek redress.

The CAT, which until now could only hear claims that followed on
from infringement decisions by competition regulators, will now be
able to hear stand-alone claims.  The new rules also include a
procedure for collective settlements and also empower the CAT to
grant injunctions to stop anticompetitive behaviour.

There are a number of requirements around the way in which
claimants can participate in a class action.  At a simple level,
both opt-in (a claimant choosing to join the class) and opt-out (a
claimant automatically being part of the class unless they take
steps to opt out of it) may be brought in the CAT.  However,
opt-out class actions can be brought by UK claimants only.
Foreign claimants must specifically opt-in to the class.

Speaking to Legal Business Addleshaw Goddard competition partner
Bruce Kilpatrick said the changes will make low-value, high-volume
claims, such as the high-profile football kit price-fixing case,
now viable in the UK.

"It will act as a significant deterrent in practice for companies
that are maybe engaged in anti-competitive activity particularly
in those consumer-facing markets and also will help to bring an
effective redress mechanism for consumers and small businesses for
the first time,| he added.

As expected, the Consumer Rights Act is likely to concern big
businesses, due to the risk of increased litigation and those
excesses experienced in US antitrust class action litigation.

However Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer litigation and antitrust
partner Mark Sansom maintains that there are safeguards in place
for concerned clients.

"The new regime includes some safeguards to keep things in check.
In particular, the CAT has to authorise each and every claim and
that is intended to weed out spurious claims or ones that are
duplicative.  Also we don't have US-style treble damages -- any
damages at the end of the process would be compensatory only -- we
don't have jury trials and we have the 'loser-pays' costs rule,
all of which should disincentivise bad claims."

One area that will benefit from the arrival of class actions for
damages for competition infringements will be third party
litigation funding, which will be used to underwrite many claims.
This legislation could have a significant impact on the litigation
landscape in this country, if these competition class actions are
deemed a success.

Rosie Ioannou, senior counsel at funder Vannin Capital, said:
"What is clear, given experiences in other jurisdictions where
class actions now operate, is that funding will be key to their
success.  It remains to be seen exactly how funding of class
actions in the UK will work in practice: different approaches have
been taken in other jurisdictions where class actions are
currently permitted.  We consider that the CAT's approach to
certification of claims, including the funding element of such
claims, will be key."



* US Supreme Court Set to Tackle Labor-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Meneghello of Fisher & Phillips LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the the first Monday in October is the
traditional first day of a new U.S. Supreme Court term.  As
always, the 2015-16 term will have several cases that are of
particular interest to the nation's employers.  Here is a review
of some of the cases Fisher & Phillips LLP is tracking:

Attack On Public Sector Unions

One of the more important cases to be decided this term is
Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association.  This case could be
a crucial stepping stone for those who want to further reduce the
impact of unions on the American workplace.  This case, or one
like it, has been long awaited by those who hope to strike a
critical blow against public sector unions.

The petitioners in Friedrichs want to eliminate "agency shop" fees
that public unions take from non-members.  If a worker chooses not
to join a union, a 1977 SCOTUS opinion still allows states to
force those workers to contribute a membership fee out of their
paychecks (Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.).  If the SCOTUS
overturns that case and allows employees to opt out of paying
anything to labor unions, it could spell big trouble for public
unions in the form of lower resources and reduced political clout.

Private employers can only hope that such a development would
eventually have a carryover effect on private sector unions, as
the Friedrichs decision will have no direct impact on non-
governmental businesses.  Some observers believe that a pro-
employer decision could lead to a further galvanizing of the
"right to work" movement that has been slowly moving through state
legislatures across the country.

A Higher Bar For Class Action Lawsuits?

Another case we are closely tracking is Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo.
This decision could have major implications in the world of class
action lawsuits, which have become a (very expensive) thorn in the
side for many employers across the country.

Under federal rules, a court can certify a lawsuit as a class
action if it finds that there is sufficient similarity among all
possible employees implicated by the claim; i.e., that they have
suffered the same injury. In this case, a large multimillion class
action alleging wage and hour violations was allowed to proceed,
despite the fact that each of the employees had a slightly
different claim that was averaged out to reach a consensus figure.
Some employees, in fact, were permitted to join the class despite
the fact they had never been actually harmed by the employer's
overtime policy.

Employers are hopeful that the SCOTUS has accepted this case to
tighten the reins on class action certification, setting a more
stringent bar for these kinds of claims.  By requiring tighter
rules on similarity, the number of class action lawsuits should be
reduced by a sizeable degree.

Class Actions, Part Deux

The Supreme Court will further define the contours of class action
litigation when it decides Campbell-Edward v. Gomez.  The issue in
this case: whether class action lawsuits become moot after a
plaintiff receives a full offer of relief.

The case itself involves a non-employment scenario; an individual
launched a class action case against the U.S. Navy after receiving
unsolicited promotional text messages.  But the procedural
maneuver at issue could aid employers looking for innovative ways
to fend off costly class action claims. If the SCOTUS agrees with
the defendant's position, employers could potentially disarm class
actions by offering to make the named plaintiff whole through an
offer of judgment.  Class actions may start to look a whole lot
less attractive to the plaintiff's bar if such a move could stop
costly litigation in its tracks.

Fair Credit Reporting

Yet another class action case will be decided this term. In
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a claimant filed a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
claiming that he had been victimized by false background
information and that harm was done to his credit, insurance, and
employment prospects.  The issue in this case is whether he can
proceed with his claim without demonstrating proof of economic
injury.  The SCOTUS will decide whether or not an individual must
suffer actual harm to bring a FCRA suit.

Employers should take an interest in this case because of the
increasing number of FCRA class action lawsuits filed against
businesses alleging unlawful background screening practices.  If
the SCOTUS determines that employees or applicants can sue under
FCRA despite having no demonstrable injury, a veritable tidal wave
of class action litigation could result.

When Does The Clock Start Ticking?

Another interesting case on the 2015-16 docket is Green v.
Brennan.  This case will resolve a circuit split, where a few
federal appeals courts have ruled one way, and a few other federal
appeals courts have ruled the opposite way. The issue in this case
is when the all-important clock starts ticking that provides the
deadline for filing discrimination lawsuits.

In some cases, employees will claim that they are "constructively
discharged" from employment.  In other words, they are not suing
because they were actually fired, but instead they claim that the
employer forced them to quit by making their work life so
miserable that any reasonable worker in their shoes would have
also quit. In these kinds of cases, there is an open question as
to when the statute of limitations clock starts ticking.

Five federal courts of appeal have held that the filing period
starts when the employee actually resigns (which generally helps
employees).  Three others have held that the filing period could
start way earlier -- when the employer last commits whatever
discriminatory act that gives rise to the resignation (which
generally helps employers).  The SCOTUS will answer the question
once and for all and (hopefully) provide firm guidance.

Affirmative Action, Again

If the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, looks familiar to
you, don't worry -- you're not having d‚j… vu. The Supreme Court
will once again consider the extent to which public universities
can consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, and once
again the same litigants are back before the Court.

In 2013, the Supreme Court found that the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals had erred in not appropriately applying a "strict scrutiny
review" to the university's race-conscious admissions policies.
The 5th Circuit once again upheld the university's admissions
plan, a decision the SCOTUS has again agreed to review.

While colleges and universities are closely following the case,
the decision may also have an impact outside the higher education
arena.  For instance, the outcome of the case could directly
impact private and public employers with affirmative action
programs designed to promote workplace diversity.  Depending on
the breadth of the final decision, it may also may have
implications on the permissible scope of affirmative action
employment programs designed to remedy historical effects of
discrimination as well as executive orders dealing with
affirmative action, such as Executive Order 11246.

F&P SCOTUS Alerts

As always, Fisher & Phillips will be there to issue same-day
analysis and summaries of all of these cases, providing background
and context for each decision, explaining the Court's reasoning in
layman's terms, and discussing the impact on employers.  There
will almost certainly be additional labor and employment cases
added to the Court's docket in the coming months, and you can look
to Fisher & Phillips to get you up to speed on those, as well.




                            *********

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  * * *