CAR_Public/151022.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 22, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 211


                            Headlines


850 COMMERCE: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination
AGL RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Attempt to Sell Firm
AHED OF OHIO: Sued for Refusing to Pay for Overtime Hours Worked
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Napoli" and "Stein" Actions
APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Certification to be Fully Briefed by Nov. 30

APOLLO GLOBAL: Twin City Pipe Filed Consolidated Class Action
APOLLO GLOBAL: Silva & Hudson Suit v. Aviva in Early Stage
APOLLO GLOBAL: No Hearing on Merits Yet in OM Group Suit
APPLE AMERICAN: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
ARYZTA LLC: Faces "Cipres" Suit Over Cal. Labor Law Violations

ASSOCIATED NATIONAL: Recalls Sambucol Cold & Flu Capsules
ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Forex Litigation Pending
BGHA INC: Recalls Climbing Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard
CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Wolfe" Collective Suit Pending

CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Niver" Collective Suit Pending
CANADA HERB: Recalls NGO OM (Water Mint) Due to Salmonella
CLYDE ANDERSON: "Rousset" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
COAST TO COAST: Faces "Cutrer" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
COLLECTO INC: "Bozin" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

COMCAST CABLE: Accused of Retaliation & Disability Discrimination
CONCORDE LIMOUSINE: "Mediratta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DENSO CORPORATION: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
DINDOLLY ENTERPRISES: Recalls Chevdo and Pickle Products
DIRECTV LLC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Claims Website Operation Illegal
DUCATI: Recalls Multistrada 1200 & 1200s 2015 Models
EAST GREENHILL: "Estrada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ELDER CARE: "Hackworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Bhuta" Suit Alleges Negligence

EXPERIAN NORTH: "Moore" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
FIRM APOTEX: Recalls Apo-Risperidone Solutions
FLORIDA FIRE: Accused of Failing to Properly Pay Class Members
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra & Silverado 2014 Models
GLOBAL MANUFACTURING: Recalls Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard

GLOBUS MEDICAL: Nov. 30 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
GOLDEN HORSE: Recalls Children's Denim Pants
GOODWILL SERVING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
GRADIENT INSURANCE: Faces "Jacobs" Suit for FLSA Violations
HITE USA: "Shin" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations

HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Battery Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
ILLINOIS BELL: "LaMarr" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
J JACOBO FARM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over PAGA Claim
KISKADEE VENTURES: Recalls Finger Mint Due to Salmonella

KKR & CO: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
KMART CORP: Sued for Writing Down PII on Credit Card Transactions
KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Remover Products Due to Injury Risk
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Defending Against "Fernandez" Class Action
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Actions Remains Pending

LEONARDO BROS: "Garybo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
LOGITECH INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Defective Alert Systems
LOUISIANA BANCORP: Defending Against "Smith" Action
LULULEMON USA: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations
LUOWYANG LLC: Rents Out Units Unfit for Human Occupancy, Says Suit

MACK: Recalls CXU and CHU 2012 Models Due to Crash Risk
MIAMI SHORES: Faces "Aloma" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Currently in Discovery
MUSTANG SURVIVAL: Recalls Flotation Devices & Life Jackets
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Compensation Rules Violate Antitrust Law

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Consolidated Class Action
PHARMERICA CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 12
PLASTIC2OIL INC: Settlement in Stockholders' Suit Has Final OK
SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Sued for Failing to Pay All Compensation
SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Brattain" Suit Over "Natural" Cigarettes

SEASONS HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
SEONG CHAN: Illegally Fired Female Employee, New York Suit Claims
SNAKE RIVER: Recalls Horse Trailer 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls Feather Witch Hat Due to Noncompliance
TCC COOKING: Recalls Vertical Roaster Products Due to Burn Hazard

TURTLE BEACH: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk
UBER: Drivers' Labor Dispute Ruling to Impact Other Tech Startups
VALEANT PHARMA: Faces "Nilsen" Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
VOLKSWAGEN: Bernstein Litowitz to Expand Emissions Investigation
VOLKSWAGEN: Clean Air Act Loophole May Avert Criminal Charges

VOLKSWAGEN: Emission Tests Scandal Costs May Reach $6.5 Billion
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "G.T. Leasing" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2013 Model Due to Crash Risk
VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2012 Models Due to Injury Risk
WILLIAMS COS: Faces "Blystone" Suit Over Sale to Energy Transfer

ZYNGA INC: Supplemental Briefing Required on Settlement
ZYNGA INC: "Reyes" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
ZYNGA INC: Hearing Date Has Not Been Set in Lee v. Pincus

* Competitive Enterprise Inst. & Class Action Fairness to Merge
* Predatory Class Action Trial Lawyers Target Food Companies


                            *********


850 COMMERCE: Accused of Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yesica Cordova, and other similarly situated individuals v. 850
Commerce Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Porfirios Restaurant, a Florida
Limited Liability Company and Renato Alvarado, Individually, Case
No. 2015-018287-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 10, 2015) arises from
the Defendant's alleged sexual harassment and sex discrimination
against the Plaintiff in violation of the Florida Civil Rights
Act.

850 Commerce Restaurant, LLC, does business as Porfirios
Restaurant.  The Company is a Florida Limited Liability Company
having its main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida,
where the Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AGL RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Attempt to Sell Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel ABT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGL Resources, Inc., Sandra N. Bane, Thomas D. Bell
Jr., Norman R. Bobins, Charles R. Crisp, Brenda J. Gaines, Arthur
E. Johnson, Wyck A. Knox, Dennis M. Love, Dean R.O'Hare, Armando
J. Olivera, John E. Rau, James A. Rubright, John W. Somerhalder
II, Bettina M. Whyte, and Henry C. Wolf, Case 1:15-cv-03597-WSD
(N.D.Ga., October 9, 2015), is a shareholder class action
complaint filed on behalf of the holders of the common stock of
AGL Resources, Inc. against AGL's Board of Directors for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by their attempt
to sell the Company to The Southern Company through its wholly-
owned subsidiary, AMS Corp.

The Company is an Atlanta-based energy services holding company
with operations in natural gas distribution, retail operations,
wholesale services and midstream operations. The Company's
securities trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol
"GAS."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Bain, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
     1050 Promenade II
     1230 Peachtree Street, NE
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 724-9990
     Fax: (404) 724-9986
     E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

          - and -

     Shane Rowley, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


AHED OF OHIO: Sued for Refusing to Pay for Overtime Hours Worked
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jody Sexton v. AHED of Ohio, Inc., Stautzenberger College
Education Corporation, John Girard, and Dean Susan Alexander, Case
No. CV-15-850318 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, August 26, 2015) alleges that
throughout her employment, the Defendants refused to pay the
Plaintiff for overtime hours worked and, instead, required her to
alter her timesheets to show an artificially reduced 40-hour
workweek.

AHED of Ohio, Inc., and Stautzenberger College Education
Corporation Ohio corporations, are the owners of an educational
institution known as Stautzenberger College, located in the City
of Brecksville, County of Cuyahoga, Ohio.  John Girard and Dean
Susan Alexander, residents of Cuyahoga County, were employed by
the Corporate Defendants and were the Plaintiff's supervisors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew M. Ries, Esq.
          HARRINGTON, HOPPE & MITCHELL, LTD.
          108 Main Ave. SW, Suite 500
          Warren, OH 44481
          Telephone: (330) 392-] 541
          Facsimile: (330) 394-6890
          E-mail: mries@hhmlaw.com


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Napoli" and "Stein" Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Ampio 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 on May 8, 2015 and
May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the Company brought two
putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court
in the Central District of California, Napoli v. Ampio
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03474-TJH and
Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03640-TJH, alleging that Ampio and certain of its current and
former officers violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or omitting information regarding the STEP
study. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend these lawsuits vigorously.

"We currently believe the likelihood of a loss contingency related
to these matters is remote and, therefore, no provision for a loss
contingency is required," the Company said.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Class Certification to be Fully Briefed by Nov. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 ordered
class certification to be fully briefed by November 30, 2015.

In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is
affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of
Affinion's common stock.

In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its
business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card
companies, developed a set of business practices intended to
create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into
unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs
allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect
stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's
board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the
California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other
things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief,
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court
has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the
caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they
proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013. On December 5, 2012,
plaintiffs filed another putative class action, captioned Frank v.
Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in the District of
Connecticut, naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially similar to those in the CAC.

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court
transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re:
Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion
to consolidate. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral
argument on defendants' motions to dismiss.

On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and Trilegiant on behalf of
all defendants, and also granted separate motions to dismiss filed
by certain defendants, including AGM. On that same day, the court
directed the clerk to terminate AGM as a defendant in the
consolidated action. On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for
interlocutory review of certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss
rulings, not including its order granting AGM's separate dismissal
motion. Defendants filed a response on May 23, 2014, and
plaintiffs replied on June 5, 2014. On November 13, 2014,
plaintiffs and the remaining defendants filed a Joint Status
Report Regarding Discovery stating that no discovery had taken
place since plaintiffs filed their interlocutory-review motion.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
interlocutory review. On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs and the
remaining defendants filed a joint report under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(f) that, among other things, requested that the
Court extend the deadlines in its standing order for (i)
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint until May 29, 2015; (ii)
the close of fact discovery until January 15, 2016; and (iii) full
briefing of class certification until June 1, 2016.

On May 29, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' request to file an
amended complaint and set (i) a December 31, 2015 discovery
cutoff, (ii) a February 29, 2016 deadline for dispositive motions,
and (iii) jury selection for November 1, 2016 (if dispositive
motions are filed, or May 3, 2016, if they are not).

On June 15, 2015, the court held a pre-motion hearing on class
certification, and on June 16, 2015, the Court ordered class
certification to be fully briefed by November 30, 2015.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Twin City Pipe Filed Consolidated Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 consolidated
shareholder class action complaint has been filed by by Twin City
Pipe Trades Pension Trust that did not name as defendants Apollo,
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., or AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The first purported class
action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et
al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January 21, 2014 (the "Coyne
Action"). The second purported class action, which was captioned
John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak Action"). The
Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution on October 14,
2014. The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene
Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed
on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank,
et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported class action, which was
captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was
filed in the County Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7,
2014. This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21,
2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.
Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other
things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the
merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in
limited discovery.

On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was
brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder
Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings
Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and
its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that CEC's former directors breached
their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders by conducting a
deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection
devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the
transaction. It further alleges that two members of the board who
also served as the senior managers of the company had material
conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the
board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest
facing the bank. The consolidated complaint seeks, among other
things, to recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs. Although
Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the above actions,
and therefore no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can
be made at this time, Apollo believes that such actions are
without merit.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Silva & Hudson Suit v. Aviva in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 class
action was commenced on June 12, 2015, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Rachel
Silva and Don Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life
Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA
Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene
Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM. The defendants'
time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the complaint has
been extended and thus no answer, motion, etc. addressed to the
complaint has been served or filed. Additionally, no party has
served any discovery request in this case and thus no discovery
has been taken or given yet.

The complaint in this action alleges violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs basically allege that commencing
in 2007 and continuing thereafter Aviva and its then management
engaged in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the
financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of
Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities
to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates and
misvaluing assets, and that after Athene Holding purchased all of
the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October 2, 2013
the scheme was unwound and rewound so as to continue, and that as
a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity products issued
by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were damaged as a
result thereof.

The defendants will deny the material allegations of the complaint
and will vigorously defend themselves against these claims.
Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this case,
it believes that it is without merit, and because the case is in
its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any,
can be made at this time.


APOLLO GLOBAL: No Hearing on Merits Yet in OM Group Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC 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 following the June
1, 2015 announcement that OM Group, Inc. ("OM Group") had entered
into a merger agreement (the "OM Group Merger Agreement") with
certain entities affiliated with AGM and an entity affiliated with
Platform Specialty Products Corporation ("PSP"), six putative
class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on behalf of purported OM Group stockholders against
certain current and former OM Group directors, the merger entities
affiliated with AGM, which include Duke Acquisition Holdings, LLC
and Duke Acquisition, Inc. (together with AGM, the "Apollo
Parties"), and, except in one action, the merger entity affiliated
with PSP, MacDermid Americas Acquisitions Inc. (together with PSP,
the "PSP Parties"). AGM, PSP, and OM Group were also named as
defendants in some of these putative class actions.

On July 16, 2015, these six actions were consolidated into a
putative class action captioned In re OM Group Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consol. Case No. 11216-VCN (the "Consolidated
Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action subsequently
designated the complaint previously filed in the action captioned
City of Sarasota Firefighters' Pension Fund v. Apollo Global
Management, LLC, Case No. 11249-VCN as the Consolidated Action's
operative complaint. That complaint challenges, among other
things, the OM Group Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, alleging, among other things, that OM
Group's directors breached their fiduciary duties to OM Group
stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales process, agreeing to a
price that does not adequately compensate OM Group stockholders,
agreeing to certain unfair deal protection terms in the OM Group
Merger Agreement and by failing to disclose material information
to OM Group stockholders. The complaint also alleges that the
Apollo Parties and the PSP Parties aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint seeks various remedies,
including declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief.

While plaintiffs had declared their intent to pursue preliminary
injunctive relief, and a hearing had been scheduled for August 6,
plaintiffs dropped that request on August 2, 2015. The court has
not yet set a schedule for resolving the case on the merits.

Because this action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate
of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the Consolidated Action.


APPLE AMERICAN: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taelyn Lewis as an individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated v. Apple American Group, LLC, and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC590908 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
August 10, 2015) alleges that the Company's policies resulted in,
among other things, the failure to pay all minimum and overtime
wages due.

Apple American Group, LLC, is a corporation operating restaurants
throughout California and is the employer of the Plaintiff.  The
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Bicvan T. Brown, Esq.
          Jennifer Han, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  bbrown@mahoney-law.net
                  jhan@mahoney-law.net


ARYZTA LLC: Faces "Cipres" Suit Over Cal. Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernabe Cipres, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ARYZTA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Real
Time Staffing Services, LLC, a California limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.:BC5 97 45 0
(Cal. Super., County Of Los Angeles, October 9, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay
wages, including overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees in the State of California in violation of California
state wage and hour laws as a result of, including but not limited
to, unevenly rounding time worked.

ARYZTA LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, provides global
food services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     JamesA. De Sario, Esq
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310)553-3603


ASSOCIATED NATIONAL: Recalls Sambucol Cold & Flu Capsules
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 8, 2015
Posting date: October 13, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55324

Contraindication for people allergic to acetylsalicylic acid or
other salicylates not stated on product label.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers and retailers. (BC, AB, SK, MB,
ON, QC, NB, NS, NF)

Affected products: Sambucol Cold & Flu
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80060823
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Echinacea purpurea - 44.5mg
          Salix alba - 77.4mg (15.5:1)
          Sambucus nigra subsp. nigra - 30mg (50:1)
          Vitamin C - 245mg
          Zinc - 12mg

Lot or serial number: 60048811

Recalling Firm: Associated National Brokerage Inc. (ANB)
                199 Mathew Boyd Cres.
                Newmarket
                L3X 3C7
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization: Holder PAC Health (Canada) Inc.
                         1235 Bay St., Suite 400
                         Toronto ON M5R 3K4
                         Toronto
                         M5R 3K4
                         Ontario
                         CANADA


ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Breaches of Fiduciary Duty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Crosby, and all others similarly-situated v. Atmel
Corporation, Steve Laub, Tsung-Ching Wu, David M. Sugishita, Jack
L. Saltich, Edward Ross, Charles P. Carinalli, Papken S. Der
Torossian, Dialog Semiconductor PLC, and Avengers Acquisition
Corporation, Case No. 11564 (Del. Ch., October 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty.

On September 20, 2015, Atmel announced that it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated September 19, 2015, pursuant
to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into Atmel with Atmel
surviving as the wholly-owned subsidiary of Dialog in a mixed
stock-cash transaction valued at approximately $4.6 billion (the
"Proposed Transaction"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Atmel stockholders will receive $4.65 in cash and 0.112 Dialog
American Depositary Shares ("ADS"), or $5.77 in value based on
Dialog's closing price on September 18, 2015 (the "Merger
Consideration").

The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of Atmel.

Headquartered in San Jose, California, Defendant Atmel designs,
develops, manufactures, and sells semiconductor integrated circuit
products primarily in the United States, Asia, Europe, South
Africa, and Central and South America. The Company markets its
products worldwide to a diverse base of original equipment
manufacturers serving primarily commercial markets.

Defendant Dialog is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of England and Whales with principal executive offices
located at Neue Strasse 95 D-73230 Kirchheim/Teck-Nabern, Germany.
Dialog supplies chips used in Apple Inc.'s iPhone and iPad.
Dialog's common stock trades on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange under
the ticker symbol "DLG."

Defendant Merger Sub is a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dialog.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

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


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settlement in Forex Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The Bank Of New York Mellon 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 BNY
Mellon reached on May 21, 2015, a settlement in principle on a
previously disclosed pending foreign exchange-related putative
class action lawsuit asserting securities law violations. Under
the terms of the settlement, BNY Mellon will make a payment of
$180 million, which resulted in a pre-tax charge of $50 million in
the second quarter of 2015. This settlement effectively resolves
virtually all of the currently pending foreign exchange-related
actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by
individual customers. The settlement is subject to court approval.

On March 19, 2015, BNY Mellon announced that it has resolved
substantially all of the FX-related actions currently pending,
resulting in a total of $714 million in settlement payments. BNY
Mellon reached settlements with the DOJ and NYAG under which it
will pay each of them $167.5 million and provide functionality
allowing customers to compare pricing for BNY Mellon's "defined
spread" and "session range" standing instruction FX products. In
addition, BNY Mellon reached settlements with the plaintiffs in
the outstanding customer class actions, as well as with the U.S.
Department of Labor ("DOL"). BNY Mellon will pay $335 million
under the class action settlement, which is subject to court
approval, and an additional $14 million to the DOL. BNY Mellon has
also reached a settlement in principle with the SEC. Under the
terms of the agreement with the SEC staff, which is subject to
Commission approval, BNY Mellon will pay a $30 million penalty. On
May 21, 2015, BNY Mellon reached a settlement in principle with
the plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit asserting
securities law violations. Under the terms of the settlement,
which is subject to court approval, BNY Mellon will make a payment
of $180 million. With these settlements, BNY Mellon has
effectively resolved virtually all of the currently pending FX-
related actions, with the exception of several lawsuits brought by
individual customers.


BGHA INC: Recalls Climbing Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
BGHA, Inc. dba Big Game, of Windom, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 12,200 Climbing tree stands. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The cable assembly on the climbing tree stand can release, posing
a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves three model year 2014 Big Game climbing tree
stands models: CL050 (The Outlook) with batch number 9B-0414,
CL100-A (The Cobalt) with batch numbers 9B-0214 and 9B-0514, and
CL500-AP (The Fusion) with batch numbers 9B-0214 and 9B-0514.
These climbing tree stands are used to hunt from an elevated
position and were sold with an accessory bag. The black metal tree
stands include the main stand platform with a nylon hanging strap
assembly. The Outlook has a nylon netted seat without a backrest.
The Cobalt and The Fusion have a camouflage-print, padded seat
with the Big Game logo at the front of the backrest. The batch
number starts with BN and can be found on a small tag located on
the frame below the seat.

Big Game has received one report of the cable assembly releasing
which resulted in injuries to the knee, wrist and hip.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/606ife

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass
Pro Shop, Cabela's, Menards, Rogers Sporting Goods and Sportsman's
Guide stores nationwide and online from June 2014 through June
2015 for between $130 and $380.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tree stands
and return them for free replacement cables.


CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Wolfe" Collective Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. 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
tentative settlement in a nationwide collective action lawsuit
filed by Jonathan Wolfe remains pending.

On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Jonathan
Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Wolfe").

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015
and the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 26,
2015, adding that Anchor's failure to pay overtime to a subclass
of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (the "Pennsylvania Act").

For this subclass, the Wolfe plaintiff seeks certification of a
class action under the Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks
to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. The portion of the potential liability that relates to
the period prior to March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company
acquired Anchor, is eligible for indemnification under the
securities purchase agreement that effected that transaction;
however, the right to indemnification under the securities
purchase agreement for the potential Wolfe liability is subject to
a deductible and limitations otherwise set forth in the securities
purchase agreement.

On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a
tentative settlement of this litigation. The tentative settlement
must be approved by the U.S. District Court. The tentative
settlement amount is not material to the unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements.


CALUMET SPECIALTY: Settlement in "Niver" Collective Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. 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
tentative settlement in a nationwide collective action lawsuit
filed by Timothy Niver remains pending.

On November 21, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor and the Company, as well as SOS, failed to
pay solids control technicians overtime in compliance with the
FLSA was filed titled Timothy Niver v. Specialty Oilfield
Solutions, Ltd., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania ("Niver").  The Niver plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on January 21, 2015, adding that defendants'
failure to pay overtime to a subclass of solids control
technicians violated the Pennsylvania Act.  For this subclass, the
Niver plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the
Pennsylvania Act. The Niver plaintiff seeks to recover overtime
pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Anchor and the Company filed their answer to the amended complaint
on February 2, 2015. The Company consented to conditional
certification in the case, and notice of the collective action has
been issued to potential class members. The portion of the
potential liability that relates to the period prior to August 1,
2014, the date on which the Company acquired the assets of SOS,
was retained by, and is the responsibility of, SOS. To the extent
Anchor or the Company is found liable for damages relating to the
period prior to the acquisition of the assets of SOS, Anchor and
the Company are eligible for indemnification under the asset
purchase agreement that effected that transaction, and no
deductible is applicable; however, the right to indemnification is
subject to limitations otherwise set forth in the asset purchase
agreement. On June 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and
agreed to a tentative settlement of this litigation. The tentative
settlement must be approved by the U.S. District Court. The
tentative settlement amount is not material to the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements.


CANADA HERB: Recalls NGO OM (Water Mint) Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canada Herb
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10089

Canada Herb is recalling NGO OM (water mint) from the marketplace
due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not
consume and distributors, retailers and food service
establishments such as hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals
and nursing homes should not sell or use the recalled product
described below.

Only NGO OM (water mint) imported by Canada Herb and sold from
September 29, 2015 to October 7, 2015 is affected by this recall.
This product may have been sold in clear plastic bags bearing the
name Canada Herb or may have been repackaged or sold in bulk
without a label or coding. Consumers who are unsure if they have
purchased the affected product are advised to contact their
retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home or in your
establishment. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned
to the location where it was purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name   Size       Code(s) on     UPC
  name     -----------   ----       product        ---
  -----                             ----------
  None     NGO OM        Variable   None           None
          (water mint)

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


CLYDE ANDERSON: "Rousset" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marc Rousset, and all others similarly-situated v. Clyde B.
Anderson, Terrence C. Anderson, Ronald G. Bruno, Ronald J.
Domanico, Edward W. Wilhelm, Terrance G. Finley, R. Todd Noden,
James F. Turner, Family Acquisition Holdings, Inc., and Family
Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 11559 (Del. Ch., October 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty.

This is a class action brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Books-A-Million, Inc. in connection with a
proposed transaction pursuant to which the Company will be taken
private by the Company's Executive Chairman Clyde B. Anderson, his
brother and fellow BAM director Terrence C. Anderson, and certain
family members for the unfair price of $3.25 per share in cash
(the "Proposed Transaction").

The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Book-A-
Million.

Family Acquisition Holdings, Inc. and Family Merger Sub, Inc. are
entities formed by the Anderson Family to facilitate the Proposed
Transaction. Its corporate headquarters is located at 2801 Highway
280 South, Suite 350, Birmingham, Alabama 35223.

The Plaintiff is represented at:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310


COAST TO COAST: Faces "Cutrer" Suit Over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Cutrer, on behalf of similarly situated members of the
general public v. Coast To Coast Computer Products, Inc., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
BC597512 (Cal. Super, County of Los Angeles, October 9, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants engaged in a systematic pattern of
wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

C2C provides computer and printing supplies to businesses and
governmental agencies nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, P.C.
     9811 Irvine Center Drive
     Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: 949-379-6250
     Fax: 949-379-6251


COLLECTO INC: "Bozin" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Dan Bozin, and all others similarly-situated v. Collecto Inc. dba
EOS CCA, Case No.2:15-cv-07710 (C.D. Calif., October 1, 2015),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Defendant, Collecto Inc. dba EOS CCA, is a company involved in
consumer debt buying and recovery/collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMCAST CABLE: Accused of Retaliation & Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Deloney v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC and
Comcast Cable, Case No. 2015-L-008163 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
August 10, 2015) alleges retaliation and disability discrimination
in violation of the Illinois Human Rights Act.

Mr. Deloney began working for the Defendant as an Enterprise
Account Executive/Direct Sales Representative in August 2011.  As
a DSR, among other things, he sold fiber optic Metro Ethernet,
private networking and internet services, and Broadband Internet
Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave., Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644-3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com


CONCORDE LIMOUSINE: "Mediratta" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashish Mediratta, and all others similarly situated v. Concorde
Limousine, Inc. dba Concorde Worldwide and John Does 1-10, Case
No. 3:15-cv-07300 (D.N.J., October 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Concorde Limousine, Inc. dba Concorde Worldwide is a
company operating a limousine company in New Jersey.

Defendants John Doe 1 through John Doe 5 are presently unknown
persons who, directly or indirectly, directed, aided, abetted,
and/or assisted with creating and/or executing the policies and
practices of Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway N., Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856) 685-7420
      Fax: (856) 685-7417


DENSO CORPORATION: Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., Hammett Motor Company, Inc.,
Superstore Automotive, Inc., Lee Pontiac-Oldsmobile-GMC Truck,
Inc., Westfield Dodge City, Inc., V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Green
Team of Clay Center Inc., McGrath Automotive Group, Inc., Table
Rock Automotive, Inc., dba Todd Archer Hyundai, Archer-Perdue,
Inc., dba Archer-Perdue Suzuki, Bonneville and Son, Inc., Pitre,
Inc., dba Pitre Buick GMC, Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., John Greene
Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC, Herb Hallman Chevrolet, Inc., dba
Champion Chevrolet, Charles Daher's Commonwealth Motors, Inc., dba
Commonwealth Chevrolet, Commonwealth Kia, Commonwealth Honda,
Commonwealth Volkswagen, Inc., dba Commonwealth Volkswagen,
Commonwealth Nissan, Inc., dba Commonwealth Nissan, Ramey Motors,
Inc., Thornhill Superstore, Inc., dba Thornhill GM Superstore,
Dave Heather Corporation, dba Lakeland Toyota Honda Mazda Subaru,
Central Salt Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, dba Salt Lake
Valley Buick GMC, Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Capitol
Dealerships, Inc., dba Capitol Toyota, Stranger Investments dba
Stephen Wade Toyota, John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC, Hartley
Buick GMC Truck, Inc., Lee Oldsmobile-Cadillac, Inc. dba Lee
Honda, Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. dba Lee Toyota of Topsham,
Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC, Shearer Automotive Enterprises III,
Inc., Empire Nissan of Santa Rosa, LLC, Hodges Imported Cars, Inc.
dba Hodges Subaru, Ancona Enterprise, Inc. dba Frank Ancona Honda,
Bill Pearce Motors dba Bill Pearce Courtesy Honda, HC Acquisition,
LLC dba Toyota of Bristol, and Apex Motor Corporation, and all
others similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, DENSO
International America, Inc., DENSO Automotive Deutschland GmbH,
NGK Spark Plug Co. Ltd., NGK Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., Robert
Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-13465 (E.D. Mich.,
October 1, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief pursuant to federal antitrust laws and state antitrust,
unfair competition, unjust enrichment and consumer protection
laws.

This lawsuit is brought against the Defendants and unnamed
coconspirators, manufacturers and/or suppliers of Spark Plugs,
Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel Ratio Sensors globally and
in the United States, for engaging in a long-running conspiracy to
unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and/or stabilize
prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the
United States for Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air
Fuel Ratio Sensors.

The Defendants owned and/or controlled -- manufactured, marketed
and/or sold Spark Plugs, Standard Oxygen Sensors, and Air Fuel
Ratio Sensors that were purchased throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
      MANTESE HONIGMAN P.C.
      1361 E. Big Beaver Road
      Troy, MI 48083
      Tel: (248) 457-9200
      E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com

          - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Tel: (501) 374-1058
      E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

          - and -

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Tel: (615) 515-3393
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

          - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927
      404 Court Square
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Tel: (662) 834-2488
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

          - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING, LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Place
      30 East Seventh Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Tel: (651) 312-6500
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

          - and -

      Phillip Duncan, Esq.
      DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
      900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 228-7600
      E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com

          - and -

      Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
      LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      Suite 200
      12870 US Hwy 98 West
      Miramar Beach, FL 32550
      Tel: (850) 837-6020
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

          - and -

      Gregory Johnson, Esq.
      G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
      6688 145th Street West,
      Apple Valley, MN 55124
      Tel: (952) 930-2485
      E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


DINDOLLY ENTERPRISES: Recalls Chevdo and Pickle Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Peanut, Allergen -
Sesame Seeds, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Dindolly Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10086

Dindolly Enterprises Ltd. is recalling various Zeenaz brand Chevdo
and Pickle products from the marketplace because they contain
peanuts, tree nuts, mustard and sesame which are not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, mustard
or sesame should not consume the recalled products described
below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanuts, tree nuts, mustard or sesame,
do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious
or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name   Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  name     -----------   ----    product          ----
  ----                           ----------
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo 400 g   All codes where  8 48910 01600 7
           {Nut Free}            peanuts, tree
                                 nuts, mustard
                                 and sesame are
                                 not declared on
                                 the label.
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo 400 g   All codes where  8 48910 02200 8
           {Sugar Free}          mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo 400 g   All codes where  8 48910 01700 4
           Mild                  mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo 400 g   All codes where  8 48910 01800 1
           Medium                mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo 400 g   All codes where  8 48910 01900 8
           Hot                   mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo 400 g   All codes where  8 48910 04000 2
           Nairobi Style         mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Cassava Chevdo 400 g  All codes where  8 48910 01400 3
           Medium                mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Cassava Chevdo 400 g  All codes where  8 48910 01500 0
           Mild                  mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Deluxe Chevdo  400 g  All codes where  8 48910 06000 0
           DESI                  mustard and
                                 sesame are not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Gur Keri       13 oz  All codes where  8 48910 02900 7
           Sweet & Spicy         mustard is not
           Mango Pickle          declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Mango Pickle   13 oz  All codes where  8 48910 02100 1
                                 mustard is not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Chilli Ginger  13 oz  All codes where  8 48910 01300 6
           Pickle                mustard is not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.
  Zeenaz   Mango Mix      13 oz  All codes where  8 48910 02000 4
           Pickle                mustard is not
                                 declared on the
                                 label.

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


DIRECTV LLC: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Giannoulis, and all others similarly-situated v. DIRECTV,
LLC, Case No. BC596668 (Cal. Super., October 1, 2015), seeks
damages for the Defendant's alleged violations of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendant is a provider of satellite television services in
the U.S. Its principal place of business is in El Segundo,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan D. O'Dell, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      500 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 400-5822
      Fax: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: odell@stuevesiegel.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guarino" Suit Claims Website Operation Illegal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Guarino, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Draftkings, Inc. and Fanduel Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
1123 (S.D.Ill., November 9, 2015), seeks damages, restitution,
injunctive relief, and other relief for the Defendants' alleged
operation of daily fantasy sports websites in a manner that
violates Illinois, New York and Massachusetts law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Megan Meyers, Esq.
     GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     156 N. Main St.
     Edwardsville, IL 62025
     Phone: 618/659-9833
     Fax: 618/659-9834
     E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


DUCATI: Recalls Multistrada 1200 & 1200s 2015 Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 121
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015459TC
ID number: 2015459
Manufacturer recall number: RCL-15-003

On certain motorcycles, the side-stand support tube may have an
improper weld in the area that joins the support tube to the
forged upper part of the side-stand. This could result in the
side-stand breaking at that weld, which could cause the motorcycle
to fall over, increasing the risk of injury to the rider and/or
passenger. Correction: Dealers will inspect, and if necessary,
replace the side-stand support tube with a new part.

Affected products

  Make     Model                 Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----                 ----------------------
  DUCATI   MULTISTRADA 1200      2015
  DUCATI   MULTISTRADA 1200S     2015


EAST GREENHILL: "Estrada" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Estrada, and all others similarly situated v. East
Greenhill, LLC, t/a Bestway Supermarket, Daniel B. Choi, Pyoung R.
Choi, Michael K. Choi, and Gwang Jik Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-01260
(D. Md., November 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located in Adelphi,
Maryland, and trading as Bestway Supermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN, LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd., Suite 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Tel: (301) 861-0202
      Fax: (410) 864-8895
      E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


ELDER CARE: "Hackworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Hackworth, Felicia Payne, and all others similarly situated
v. Elder Care Social Services, LLC, Priority One Transportation,
LLC, Johnny Lee Williamson, Sharon Brown, Shantel Jordan, Case No.
2:15-cv-02659 (W.D. Tenn., October 2, 2015), seek to recover
unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a non-emergency and non-medical
transportation service located in Memphis, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 754-8524
      E-mail: rbryant@jsyc.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Bhuta" Suit Alleges Negligence
-----------------------------------------------------
Dipak Bhuta, and all others similarly situated v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01592 (C.D. Calif.,
October 2, 2015), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief
against the Defendant for alleged negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Data
Breach Act and the California Data Breach Law.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an information services
company that provides data and analytical tools to clients around
the world. It offers credit report, credit score, credit
monitoring, and identity theft protection services to individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com

          - and -

      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
      801 N. Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856) 663-8200
      Fax: (856) 661-8400


EXPERIAN NORTH: "Moore" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Moore, Matthew De Vito, and all others similarly situated
v. Experian North America, Inc. and T-Mobile, Case No. 1:15-cv-
08771 (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2015), seeks statutory and actual
damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against the
Defendants' alleged breach of contract and negligence.

This is a class action lawsuit brought by, and on behalf of, a
nationwide class of individuals whose personal information, data
provided to the mobile service provider T-Mobile was compromised
by Experian North America, Inc.

T-Mobile provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes
the credit applications of customers and potential customers
through Experian North America, Inc., an information services
group which provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - 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


FIRM APOTEX: Recalls Apo-Risperidone Solutions
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 6, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55308

Apotex initiated recall of one lot due to out of specification
result for an unidentified impurity.

Affected products: Apo-Risperidone
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02280396
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: 1 mg/ml
Lot or serial number: KV2311

Recalling: Firm Apotex Inc.
           150 Signet Drive
           Toronto
           M9L 1T9
           Ontario
           CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Apotex Inc.
                                380 Elgin Mills Road East
                                Richmond Hill
                                L4C 5H2
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


FLORIDA FIRE: Accused of Failing to Properly Pay Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ydelme Perdigon and Osnel Linen and other similarly situated
individuals v. Florida Fire Stop, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company and Gaston Alonso, Individually, Case No. 2015-018284-CA-
01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 10, 2015) accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay the amount due to the Plaintiffs for services
provided and performed under their agreement in violation of the
laws of the United States and the state of Florida.

Florida Fire Stop, LLC, has its main place of business in Miami
Dade County, Florida, where the Plaintiffs worked.  Gaston Alonso
is a corporate officer of Florida Fire.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra & Silverado 2014 Models
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 138
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015458TC
ID number: 2015458
Manufacturer recall number: 15573

On certain vehicles, a defect in the ignition lock actuator may
make turning the ignition key difficult or cause the key to get
stuck in the "start" position. This may be more likely to occur at
higher interior ambient temperatures. If the vehicle is driven
with the key stuck in the "start" position, and the vehicle
experiences a significant jarring event or the vehicle's interior
temperature cools, the ignition key could move out of the "start"
position, rotate past the "run" position, and move into the
"accessory" position, causing the engine to shut off. This would
result in a loss of motive power and affect power steering and
power brake system function, which could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. The timing of the
key movement out of the "run" position, relative to the activation
of the sensing algorithm in a crash event, may also result in the
airbags not deploying in a subsequent collision, increasing the
risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the ignition lock
housing.

  Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----        ----------------------
  GMC           SIERRA       2014
  CHEVROLET     SILVERADO    2014


GLOBAL MANUFACTURING: Recalls Tree Stands Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Global Manufacturing Company, of Windom, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,300 Climbing tree stands. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The cable assembly on the climbing tree stand can release, posing
a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves model year 2014 API Outdoors climbing tree
stands model GCL300-A (The Marksman) with batch numbers 9G-0114
and 9G-0614. The climbing tree stands are used to hunt from an
elevated position and were sold with an accessory bag. The light
green metal tree stands include the main stand platform with a
nylon hanging strap assembly. They have a nylon netted seat
without a backrest. The batch number starts with BN and can be
found on a small tag located on the frame below the seat.

Global Manufacturing Company has received one report of the cable
assembly releasing; which resulted in a broken vertebra, fractured
rib and sprained shoulder.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Menards and Rogers Sporting Goods stores nationwide and online
from June 2014 through June 2015 for between $140 and $180.

Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Nov. 30 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on Oct. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Globus Medical, Inc.  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 26, 2014
and August 5, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until
November 30, 2015, to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you.  You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's relationship
with an important distributor was deteriorating; and (2) that this
deterioration was hurting the Company's financial performance.
When the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors
harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


GOLDEN HORSE: Recalls Children's Denim Pants
--------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Golden Horse Enterprise NY Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 8,300 Children's denim pants. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The zipper pull can detach, posing a choking hazard to young
children.

The recall involves "Nursery Rhyme Play" brand children's five
pocket 100% denim pants. The pants have a zipper fly, two front
pockets with a coin pocket and two back pockets. The pants were
sold in infant sizes 6/9M through 24M. The size label is sewn in
on the back of the waistband. Only pants with style number 4122186
or 4122185 printed on a white tracking label sewn into the lower
left inside seam are included in the recall. Manufacture date
codes 0415 or 0515 are also printed on the tracking label.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Belk
stores nationwide and online at www.Belk.com from June 2015
through September 2015 for about $24.

Consumers should immediately stop using the denim pants and return
them to a Belk store for a full refund.


GOODWILL SERVING: Accused of Not Paying Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Brantner, an individual, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Goodwill, Serving the People of Southern Los Angeles
County, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC590922 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015)
accuses the Defendants of failure to, among other things, pay
minimum and overtime wages.

Goodwill, Serving the People of Southern Los Angeles County, is a
California corporation.  The Plaintiff does not know the true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
          E-mail: rsuh@maternlawgroup.com
                  MMatern@maternlawgroup.com


GRADIENT INSURANCE: Faces "Jacobs" Suit for FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hollie Jacobs, individually and on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated individuals v. Gradient Insurance Brokerage,
Inc. dba Gradient Annuity Brokerage and Gradient Life Brokerage,
and Gradient Financial Group, LLC, Case 0:15-cv-03820-DSD-JJK
(D.Minn., October 8, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation
for Defendants' alleged violations of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Gradient Financial Group, LLC, claims that through its various
member companies, it provides a diverse portfolio of financial
products and services including insurance, investment advisory
services, asset management, securities, mortgage banking,
compliance, and the KonnexME platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
     Eleanor E. Frisch, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     E-mail: morgan@nka.com
             efrisch@nka.com


HITE USA: "Shin" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
George Shin, and all others similarly situated v. HITE USA, Inc.
and Does 1 through 250, Case No. BC596140 (Cal. Super., September
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code.

Defendant HITE USA, Inc. is a beer distributing company that
distributes Korean beer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ana L. Dela Torre, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 432-8933
      Fax: (562) 435-1656
      E-mail: ana@carlinbuchsbaum.com


HORIZON HOBBY: Recalls Battery Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Horizon Hobby LLC, of Champaign, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,300 E-flite Ultra Micro-4 AC/DC Battery
Chargers. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The chargers can overcharge the batteries and overheat, which
could result in a fire, property damage and injury.

This recall involves the EFLC1105 E-flite Ultra Micro-4, 4x9W,
AC/DC Battery Charger from E-flite. The charger has four
independently functioning charge circuits with a LED status
display. Each port can charge one 30-150mAh, 1S UM cell, a 1S MCPX
cell, or one 120-300mAh 2S pack equipped with a JST-PH, 3-wire
connector. The charger measures 5 inches tall by 7 inches wide by
1.5 inches deep.  The charger is blue with a gray, black and blue
faceplate with white and black type. "Eflite Celectra UMX-$
Battery Charger" is printed across the center of the charger.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/VklG6m

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Horizon Hobby stores nationwide and online at www.HorizonHobby.com
from March 2015 through June 2015 for about $70.

Consumers should stop using the recalled chargers immediately and
contact Horizon Hobby for a replacement charger.


ILLINOIS BELL: "LaMarr" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Jacquelyne LaMarr, Doretta Wagner, and all others similarly
situated v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company, AT&T Midwest, and
AT&T National, Case No. 1:15-cv-08660 (N.D. Ill., September 30,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
straight time and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Wage Payment
and Collection Act.

Illinois Bell Telephone Company is an Illinois corporation doing
business as a telecommunications firm in the Chicago, Illinois
area. The Defendant is engaged in the business of, among other
things, operating a call center in Arlington Heights, Illinois,
specifically engaged in the activity of "customer retention",
i.e., attempting to retain current customers of the Company and
certain related affiliates of the Company who subscribe to various
internet and/or telephone services provided by the Company.

"AT&T Midwest" is an assumed name used to refer to a group of
entities consisting of the Company; Indiana Bell Telephone
Company, Inc.; AT&T Teleholdings, Inc.; and AT&T Services, Inc.

"AT&T National" is an assumed name used to refer to a group of
entities consisting of AT&T Corp. and AT&T Operations, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Glenn J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
      GLENN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 546-5056

          - and -

      Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
      JEFFREY GRANT BROWN, P.C.
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 786-9700


IMPERVA INC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Imperva, 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 motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit is now fully briefed and pending before the
court.

On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing
lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The
lawsuit again names the Company and certain of its officers and
purports to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and
April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
business and financial results and purports to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief.
On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. That motion is now fully briefed and pending
before the court.


J JACOBO FARM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over PAGA Claim
-------------------------------------------------
Marisol Gomez, and all others similarly situated v. J. Jacobo Farm
Labor Contractor, Inc., Bedrosian Farms, LLC, and DOES 1-20, Case
No. 1:15-at-00796 (E.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), seeks
penalties and other remedies under the California Private Attorney
General Act, Labor Code sections 2698 et seq. ("PAGA" claim).

The core violations Plaintiff alleges against the Employer
Defendants are:

  -- failure to pay all minimum wages owed;

  -- failure to pay all overtime wages owed;

  -- failure to provide timely and complete meal periods, and/or
     provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof; and

  -- failure to provide timely, complete, and paid rest periods,
     and/or provide appropriate compensation in lieu thereof.

The Defendants are farm labor contractors and crew leaders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
      MALLISON & MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
      Oakland, CA 94612-3547
      Tel: (510) 832-9999
      Fax: (510) 832-1101
      E-mail: stanm@themmlawfir.com


KISKADEE VENTURES: Recalls Finger Mint Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kiskadee Ventures Limited
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10097

Kiskadee Ventures Limited is recalling freshKIS brand finger mint
from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product was sold at Real Canadian Superstore, 3050
Argentina Road, Mississauga, Ontario.

What you should do
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand      Common name   Size      Code(s) on     UPC
  name       -----------   ----      product        ---
  -----                              -----------
  freshKIS   Finger mint   Variable  PLU56831       Starting with
                                     24.09.15       256831

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/u87FGg


KKR & CO: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. 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 oral argument was
scheduled for September 16, 2015, in a class action appeal in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KKR Financial Holdings LLC
("KFN") shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's
board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in
connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to
which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction
was completed on April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and
prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for
the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint
filed in the California federal court action, which was never
served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining
Delaware actions were consolidated.

On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014.  On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On
November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, the oral argument for
which was scheduled for September 16, 2015.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the
members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The
Delaware action also alleges that KKR, and certain of KKR's
affiliates, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means
of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors
LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action
includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.


KMART CORP: Sued for Writing Down PII on Credit Card Transactions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pietrantonio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KMart Corporation, Case No. MICV2015-05292
(Mass. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) arises from KMart's alleged
violation of the Massachusetts General Laws through its practice
of writing the Plaintiff's and the class members' personal
identification information on a credit card transaction form.

KMart is a Michigan corporation with its principal place of
business located in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.  KMart conducts
business throughout Massachusetts and operates retail locations in
Saugus and Somerville, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL  60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9196
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  msilverman@siprut.com

               - and -

          Alexander Shapoval, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          84 Winnisimmet Street
          Chelsea, MA 02150
          Telephone: (617) 889-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 409-9994
          E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com


KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Remover Products Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 7, 2015
Posting date: October 7, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55248

This recall involves Krud Kutter(R) Ultra Power Specialty Adhesive
Remover sold in 473 mL containers and can be identified by the
model number 287858 and the UPC 020066296131.  The product is
packaged in a clear plastic bottle with an attached spray nozzle.

The product does not meet child-resistant packaging requirements
for consumer chemicals products required by the Consumer Chemicals
and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act.

This lack of child resistant packaging could result in
unintentional exposure to the product and lead to serious illness,
injury, or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Rust-Oleum Consumer Brands Canada has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this product.

Approximately 3,954 units of the recalled products were sold at
various retailers across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from February 2015 to September
2015.

Manufactured in United States.

Manufacturer: Krud Kutter Inc.
              Cumming
              Georgia
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: Rust-Oleum Consumer Brands Canada
             Concord
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return it to the point of purchase or dispose of it according to
municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.

For additional information, consumers may contact Rust-Oleum
Consumer Brands Canada at 1-800-387-3625, by email, or find more
information on the firm's website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xJn5rP


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Defending Against "Fernandez" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their 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 defending against the class action lawsuit filed by
Martin Fernandez over data theft.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia relating to the theft of computer back-up tapes from a
vehicle of a company employee.

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant,
TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Actions Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their 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
plaintiffs' appeal related to securities class actions remains
pending.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The consolidated securities complaint names as defendants the
Company, a former chief financial officer, two former chief
executive officers, a former group president and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011.

The consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations that the Company and individual defendants
made misleading statements or omissions about the Company's
revenues, operating income and internal controls in connection
with disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs
sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants
an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred
by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plantiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30,
2014 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
where the appeal remains pending.


LEONARDO BROS: "Garybo" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Sandra Garybo, Agustin Vega, and all others similarly situated v.
Leonardo Bros., Golden West Labor and DOES 1 through 20, Case No.
1:15-at-00799 (E.D. Calif., September 30, 2015), seeks to recover
wages, compensation, and other relief due under the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, the California Labor
Code and the California Business and Professions Code.

The Defendants are labor contractors.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
      MALLISON & MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
      Oakland, CA 94612-3547
      Tel: (510) 832-9999
      Fax: (510) 832-1101
      E-mail: stanm@themmlawfir.com

          - and -

      Mario Martinez, Esq.
      MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC
      P.O. Box 11208
      Bakersfield, CA 93389-1208
      Tel: (661) 859-1174
      Fax: (661) 840-6154


LOGITECH INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Defective Alert Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Parker, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Logitech, Inc., and Does 1-10, Case No.
RG15781276 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) alleges that the
Company's high-definition digital video home security systems
("Alert Systems") are defective because the cameras experienced a
high-rate of failure and the "powerful" software needed to run the
Alert Systems was rife with bugs and glitches that made the
systems unreliable and inoperable, thus, leaving customers
unprotected and at an increased safety risk.

Logitech, Inc. is a California corporation with its North American
headquarters and principal place of business located in Newark,
California.  Logitech is a global developer and provider of
consumer products, including accessories for personal computers
and tablets like keyboards, mice, webcams, speakers, and
microphones, as well as the digital security systems that are the
focus of this lawsuit.  Logitech is a subsidiary of Logitech
International, S.A., a holding company that maintains its
headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland.  The Plaintiff is, as yet,
ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          Matthew B. George, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4 700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com


LOUISIANA BANCORP: Defending Against "Smith" Action
---------------------------------------------------
Louisiana Bancorp, 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 putative shareholder
derivative and class action lawsuit relating to the proposed
merger of Louisiana Bancorp, Inc. ("Louisiana Bancorp") with Home
Bancorp, Inc. ("Home Bancorp"), captioned Smith v. Louisiana
Bancorp, Inc., et al., was filed on July 31, 2015, in the 24th
Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of
Louisiana. In addition to Louisiana Bancorp, the complaint names
as defendants each of Louisiana Bancorp's directors as well as
Home Bancorp. The complaint alleges that the members of Louisiana
Bancorp's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Louisiana Bancorp's shareholders and/or violated Louisiana law in
connection with the negotiation and approval of the merger
agreement. The complaint also alleges claims against Louisiana
Bancorp and Home Bancorp for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other relief, the plaintiff
seeks to enjoin the consummation of the proposed merger or, in the
event the proposed merger is consummated, rescission thereof.

Each of the defendants believes the claims asserted in this action
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit. However, at this time, it is not possible to predict the
outcome of the proceeding or its impact on Louisiana Bancorp, Home
Bancorp or the proposed merger.

In addition, the plaintiff in the putative shareholder derivative
and class action lawsuit relating to the proposed merger captioned
Slemrod v. Louisiana Bancorp, Inc., et al. has filed a motion to
dismiss such lawsuit.


LULULEMON USA: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Gathmann-Landini and Samanatha Andrade, individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Lululemon Usa
Inc.; and any other related entities Index No. 606545/2015(N.Y.
Super, County of Nassau), seeks compensation, including unpaid
overtime wages, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, for
Defendant's alleged violation of the Labor Law Articles of the New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

Defendants presently operate 25 retail locations in New York
State.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     David H. Rosenberg, Esq.
     Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, New York 11514
     Phone: (516) 873-9550
     E-mail: drosenberg@leedsbrownlaw.com


LUOWYANG LLC: Rents Out Units Unfit for Human Occupancy, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alma Gumzan, Concepcion Guzman-Huerta, Consuelo Olivares-Ambirz,
Cecilia Villegas, David Villegas, Erendira Silva, Jose Ibarra,
Lucila Santa Cruz, and Juan Manuel Delgado v. Jimmy Kim, Chae Kim,
Luowyang, LLC, Lumianda Properties, LLC and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG15783406 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 26, 2015) alleges violations
of applicable housing laws, including the Oakland Housing and
Building Codes, and the California Civil Code and Health and
Safety Code.

The Defendants owned, controlled, or managed the unit that the
Plaintiffs resided in during all relevant periods of time.  All of
the premises are units of the real property located at 320 105th
Avenue and 324 105th Avenue, in Oakland, California.

According to the complaint, throughout the Plaintiffs' tenancy,
several substantial habitability defects existed in the Subject
Premises, which rendered the Subject Premises unfit for human
occupancy under California common law and statutes.  The defects
were allegedly due to the Defendants' failure to maintain the
Subject Premises during their relevant periods of ownership or
management of the Subject Premises.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MACK: Recalls CXU and CHU 2012 Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 4
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015457TC
ID number: 2015457
Manufacturer recall number: SC0395

On certain vehicles, the fifth wheel locking mechanisms could be
susceptible to damage and/or wear. This could cause the locking
mechanism to fail properly engage, potentially resulting in a
towed trailer unit separating from the truck tractor. As a result,
the trailer could strike another vehicle, stationary object, or
bystander, causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Fontaine dealers will replace all Ultra LT fifth wheel units with
Ultra NT model fifth wheel units.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  MACK      CXU        2012
  MACK      CHU        2012


MIAMI SHORES: Faces "Aloma" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosendo Lazaro Aloma, and others situated v. Miami Shores U-gas
Inc., a Florida Corporation, and Ibet Valdes, individually, Case
1:15-cv-23780-JAL (S.D.Fla., October 9, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of minimum wage and
overtime pay under the laws of the United States, the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The corporate Defendant operates a gas station in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A
     20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (786) 923-5899
     E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

     - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE, PA
     1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Phone: (786) 704 - 8898
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Class Action Currently in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Mimedx Group, Inc. is currently in
discovery, 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 December 22, 2014, the FDA issued for comment "Draft Guidance
for Industry: Minimal Manipulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and
Cellular and Tissue-Based Products." Essentially the draft
guidance takes the same position with respect to micronized
amniotic tissue that it took in the Untitled Letter to MiMedx 16
months earlier.

The period for submitting comments on the Draft Guidance expired
on February 23, 2015. The Company has submitted comments to the
Draft Guidance asserting that the Draft Guidance represents agency
action that goes far beyond the FDA's statutory authority, is
inconsistent with existing HCT/ P regulations and the FDA's prior
positions, and is internally inconsistent and is scientifically
unsound. Additionally, the Company asked the FDA to allow MiMedx
to continue to market its micronized products until the guidance
or regulations, as the case may be, have been fully vetted through
a process of notice and comment rule making. Preliminarily, the
FDA has indicated that it intends to issue for comment Draft
Guidance on homologous use later this year and that industry and
other interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on
both guidance documents as a whole at that time.

If the FDA does allow the Company to continue to market a
micronized form of its sheet allografts either prior to or after
finalization of the Draft Guidance, it may impose conditions, such
as labeling restrictions and compliance with Current Good
Manufacturing Practices ("cGMP"). It is also possible that the FDA
will not allow the Company to market any form of a micronized
product without a biologics license even prior to finalization of
the Draft Guidance and could even require the Company to recall
its micronized products. Revenues from micronized products
comprised approximately 14% of the Company's revenues in 2014.

Following the publication of the Untitled Letter from the FDA
regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the
trading price of the Company's stock dropped sharply and several
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
with respect to various statements and alleged omissions related
to the Company's belief that its products were 361 HCT/Ps,
including its micronized products. These cases have now all been
removed to, and consolidated in, the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. By order dated December 9,
2013, the Court approved the appointment of a lead plaintiff and a
lead counsel. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
containing substantially the same causes of action and claims for
relief as the initial complaints, was filed on January 27, 2014.
The case is currently in the discovery phase. The Company
currently believes that the outcome of this litigation will not
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial position
or results of operations.

                  Discovery in Del. Case Allowed

Delaware District Judge Richard G. Andrews tossed out an objection
by Organogenesis Inc., to a magistrate judge's Memorandum Order on
MiMedx Group's motion to compel discovery in the case, IN RE:
MIMEDX GROUP SECURITIES LITIGATION. MIMEDX GROUP INC., Petitioner,
v. ORGANOGENESIS INC., Respondent, MISC. ACTION NO. 15-84-RGA (D.
Del.),

A copy of Judge Andrews' Memorandum Order dated Aug. 18 is
available at http://is.gd/UPVxMSfrom Leagle.com.

The Magistrate Judge granted MiMedx's motion to compel.  According
to Judge Andrews, "To do so was not an abuse of discretion. The
discovery sought is relevant information. The Magistrate Judge
applied the correct standard. The discovery
. . . . is limited in time and scope. There is little burden on
Organogenesis to produce the requeste[d] materials. In order to
make sure that the discovery does seek only relevant information,
I will modify the scope of the requested discovery."

The Court held that the motion to compel is granted as to Requests
11, 12, 14, and 15, but not as to Requests 13 and 16.

"I understand the "Injectable Products" to refer only to the
"AmnioFix Injectable" and "EpiFix Injectable" products. Further,
Requests 11, 12, 14, and 15 are specifically limited to the time
period from December 4, 2012, to August 4, 2013. No costs or fees
are granted to MiMedx," the Court said.

MiMedx Group Inc., Petitioner, represented by Cathrine G.
Dearlove, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Kevin Michael Gallagher,
Richards, Layton & Finger, PA.

Organogenesis Inc., Respondent, represented by Thomas E. Hanson,
Jr., Morris James LLP.


MUSTANG SURVIVAL: Recalls Flotation Devices & Life Jackets
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 8, 2015
Posting date: October 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55268

Mustang Survival MD3153/54 Recreational Personal Flotation Devices
(PFD) and MD3157 Industrial Inflatable Life Jackets
Product description

This recall involves Mustang Survival HIT inflatable PFDs with the
following model numbers:

  --- MD3157
  --- MD3153
  --- MD3154

Only select versions of these models are affected.

Consumers should follow these steps to determine if their PFD is
affected by this recall:

Step 1.  Look for model number on the approval label (shown as 1
in Image 2). If it matches one of the model numbers listed above,
proceed to Step 2.

Step 2.  If your device is marked Made in Canada (shown as 2 in
Image 2), proceed to Step 3.

Step 3.  If the manufacturing (MFG) DATE (shown as 3 in Image 2)
is any date from Sep2014 to Sep2015 inclusively, proceed to step
4.

Step 4.  If you answer NO to any of Steps 1 to 3, then your PFD is
NOT impacted by this recall.

If the bladder in your device is fluorescent green (as seen in
Image 3) and not yellow/gold, proceed to Step 5.

Step 5.  Check to see if your device has a Quality Assurance (QA)
stamp.

Mustang Survival PFDs with the QA Pass Stamp (shown as 4 in Image
2) are NOT affected by this recall.

Mustang Survival PFDs without the QA Pass Stamp ARE affected by
this recall.

The bladder of the affected Mustang Survival HIT inflatable PFDs
can tear causing the PFD to no longer function.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the affected products in Canada. Mustang
Survival has received 2 reports of deflation related to the
affected products.

Approximately 740 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from September 2014 through
September 2015.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Mustang Survival ULC
              Burnaby
              British Columbia
              CANADA

Distributor: Mustang Survival
             Burnaby
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Consumers should follow the steps above to determine if their PFD
is affected by this recall. If their PFD is affected, consumers
should immediately stop using the PFD and contact Mustang
Survival's Customer Service directly. They do not need to contact
the retailer as Mustang Survival will handle the repair.

For more information, contact Mustang at: 1-800-526-0532 Monday to
Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm PST or email.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1XqkqX


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Compensation Rules Violate Antitrust Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that NCAA compensation rules for college athletes
violate antitrust law, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Sept. 30 in a
case brought by athletes seeking a slice of the billions of
dollars universities reap from football and basketball.

The case came amid mounting public pressure for colleges to give
athletes better benefits.  A California federal judge last year
had ruled against the NCAA, and said it should allow schools to
pay athletes up to $5,000 per year in compensation.

Critics say the NCAA's scholarship policy short-changes athletes
who risk injury and devote many hours to practice sessions, travel
and competition.  The majority of college athletes do not go on to
play professionally.

In its ruling on Sept. 30, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the NCAA must permit schools to provide student-
athletes sums covering up to their cost of attendance.  However,
it reversed the lower court's order providing for $5,000 per year.

In a statement, NCAA president Mark Emmert said the association
has allowed schools to provide up to the full cost of attendance
since Aug. 1, and does not think that should be mandated by the
courts.

An attorney for the athletes could not immediately be reached for
comment.

More than 20 current and former athletes filed an antitrust class
action against the NCAA.  The NCAA says it is defending amateurism
in college sports.

Broadcasters including Walt Disney Co and CBS Corp have rallied
behind the NCAA, arguing in court filings that the idea each
participant in a team sporting event has an individual right of
publicity, which entitles them to compensation, "is simply wrong."


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Defending Consolidated Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, 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
continues to defend a consolidated class action lawsuit.

On March 10, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court, for the Southern District of California,
captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following day, two
additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v.
Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims.

The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and March
5, 2015. It alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making
false and misleading statements regarding the interim results of
the Light Study. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of
damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or injunctive relief.

On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and
appointed a lead plaintiff. Plaintiff's deadline to file an
amended consolidated complaint was August 21, 2015.

Although management believes that the claims lack merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties
inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the
outcome. As this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible
losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal
proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with
such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney's fees.

It is possible that additional securities class action litigation
may be brought against the Company following stock price declines
related to the release of information regarding Contrave or
clinical trial results, including the Light Study or related to
the matters alleged in the May 2013 shareholder demand and/or the
Plan Amendment. Any adverse determination in such litigation could
subject the Company to significant liabilities.


PHARMERICA CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 12
------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica 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 court has scheduled a
final settlement approval hearing for November 12, 2015.

On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines
Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the
Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent
unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or
services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such
communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The
Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the
TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile
communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be
trebled in the event of a willful violation.

On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all
claims raised in the complaint.  The parties moved on September 8,
2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class
for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing
on that motion.

On June 26, 2015 the court granted the Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of the parties' settlement.  The court
scheduled the final approval hearing for November 12, 2015.


PLASTIC2OIL INC: Settlement in Stockholders' Suit Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted final approval of the settlement in a class
action involving Plastic2Oil, Inc., 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.

Certain of the Company's stockholders filed a class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") against the Company and Messrs. John
Bordynuik, founder and former chief of technology, and Ronald C.
Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer, former officers of the
Company on behalf of purchasers of its securities. In an amended
complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to
represent such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009
through January 4, 2012.

The original and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal
court in Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or
misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose material
information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that certain
media credits were substantially overvalued; (2) that the Company
improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that, as such, the
Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles; and (4) that the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial control.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was
appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The
defendants' answer to the amended complaint was filed during the
fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, the Company entered a stipulation agreement
(the "Stipulation Agreement") in potential settlement of the Class
Action. Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree
to issue shares of its common stock that will comprise a
settlement fund. The number of shares to be issued will be
dependent on the price per share of the Company's common stock
during a period preceding the date of the Court's entry of final
judgment in the case (the "Judgment Date"). If the price of the
Company's common stock is less than $0.50 per share based upon the
average closing price for the 90 trading days preceding the
Judgment Date, the Company would issue 3 million shares of its
common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is
between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based upon the same 90-day
average closing price, the Company would issue 2.5 million shares
of its common stock. If the price of the Company's common stock is
more than $0.70 per share based upon the same 90-day average
closing price the Company will issue 1.75 million shares of its
common stock. The shares will not be distributed to class members
in kind. At any time after final approval by the Court, class
counsel would have the option to sell all or any portion of such
shares for the benefit of class members, subject to certain volume
limitations. Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees, subject to
Court approval, would be paid out of the settlement fund. The
Company would also pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of
$200,000. The plaintiffs and each of the class members who
purchased the Company's common stock during the proposed class
period and alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully
released all claims against the Company and other defendants upon
entry of judgment.

On September 10, 2013, that agreement was submitted to the Court,
and class counsel moved for entry of an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement, including the mailing of a settlement
notice that will include, among other things, the general terms of
the settlement, proposed plan of allocation, and terms of
plaintiff's counsel's fee application.

On December 18, 2014, the Court granted that motion, and issued
its Order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. On
April 27, 2015, the Court held a hearing to determine if final
approval of the settlement should be granted, and on April 28,
2015, the Court issued its Order granting final approval of the
settlement and entering a Final Judgment in accordance therewith.
Pursuant to the Final Judgement, the Company will be issuing 3
million shares of its stock to the Class through a Settlement
Fund, and will be reimbursing the Class for its costs of
settlement to a maximum of $200,000.


SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Sued for Failing to Pay All Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blanca Castaneda, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. San Gabriel Transit, Inc., a California
Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC590907
(Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged failure to pay all compensation and to provide rest and
meal periods.

San Gabriel Transit, Inc., is a California corporation that
provides public para-transit services in Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
          Morgan E. Glynn, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  sblakely@mahoney-law.net
                  mglynn@mahoney-law.net


SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Brattain" Suit Over "Natural" Cigarettes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Brattain, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.,
Reynolds American, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, Civil Case No.:
15-4705 (N.D.Cal., October 9, 2015), seeks damages and equitable
relief on behalf of all persons in the State of California who
relied on the alleged misrepresentations and/or material omissions
of Defendants and were induced to purchase Natural American Spirit
Cigarettes as a result.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes
Natural American Spirit Cigarettes throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
     Jill T. Lin, Esq.
     EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
     2201 Market Street
     Suite H San Francisco, CA 94114
     Phone: (415) 324-8620
     Fax: (415) 520-2262
     E-mail: blopatin@elplawyers.com
             jlin@elplawyers.com


SEASONS HOSPICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rena Sutton, Marybell Masferrer-Hoyd, and Irena Pawlak,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of
California, Inc., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Case No. BC590870 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 10, 2015) alleges that
the Defendants failed and continues to fail to accurately
calculate and pay the Plaintiffs and class members for their
overtime wages.

Seasons Hospice & Palliative Care of California, Inc., is a
California corporation that provides hospice services on a 24-
hour, seven-days a week basis.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com
                  kyle@bamlawca.com
                  aj@bamlawlj.com


SEONG CHAN: Illegally Fired Female Employee, New York Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Clotsos v. Seong Chan Cho Physical Therapy, P.C., Case
No. 708969/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 26, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff was unlawfully terminated because of her gender and
perceived disability in clear and malicious violation of her
rights under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Seong Chan Cho Physical Therapy, P.C., is a New York professional
corporation headquartered in the County of Queens.  The Company
provides health care services and goes by the name "Seoul Pain
Clinic."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Heller, Esq.
          Matthew T. Schatz, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ & PERRY, LLP
          295 Madison A venue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 889-6565
          E-mail: mschatz@schwartzandperry.com
                  bheller@schwartzandperry.com

SNAKE RIVER: Recalls Horse Trailer 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Suspension
Units affected: 10
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015451TC
ID number: 2015451

On certain trailers, the torsion axles may have been improperly
welded by the axle manufacturer during the manufacturing process.
As a result, the welds could break and allow the torsion arm to
separate from the torsion bar/beam. A separated torsion arm could
cause a wheel to separate from the trailer and to strike a
vehicle, a stationary object or a bystander, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect welds and, if necessary, replace one or both
of the axles.

  Make    Model    Model year(s) affected
  ---     -----    ----------------------
  SRTC    HORSE    2015


SPENCER GIFTS: Recalls Feather Witch Hat Due to Noncompliance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Posting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety, Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55368

This recall involves the black feather witch women's hat, item #
00643569.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the feather witch women's hat does not meet the requirements
for textile flammability under the Canada Consumer Product Safety
Act.

If exposed to flame such as from candles, matches or lighters, the
feathers on the hat could catch fire and possibly cause burns to
consumers.

Neither Spirit Halloween nor Health Canada has received reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these products.

For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the
following Health Canada's publications: Halloween Safety and
Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween.

An unknown number of the recalled products were sold at Spirit
Halloween stores and on-line across Canada.

The recalled products were sold from August 2015 to October 2015
and during previous Halloween seasons.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Spencer Gifts, LLC
              Egg Harbour Township
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should not wear nor let their children wear the recalled
products and should either dispose of them or return them to
Spirit Halloween for a refund.

For additional information, consumers may contact Spirit Halloween
at toll-free at 1-866-586-0155 between 9:00 am to 5:30 pm, EST,
Monday to Friday or visit the firm's website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


TCC COOKING: Recalls Vertical Roaster Products Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
TCC Cooking Company, of Colorado Springs, Colo., announced a
voluntary recall of about 4,000 Vertical roasters. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The vertical roasters can break or shatter, posing burn and
laceration hazards.

This recall involves CHEFS-branded flameproof ceramic vertical
roasters. The black roasters consist of a round roasting pan with
handles and a removable insert. The roasting pan measures 11.75 in
diameter on the inside and 2.5 inches high and the removable
insert measures 7.5 inches in diameter at the base and 4.5 inches
high. The underside of the handles are slightly recessed for grip.
The CHEFS logo is at the center of the rimmed base.

TCC Cooking Company has received 25 reports of the roasters
breaking or shattering. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Uji1KC

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled roasters.
Consumers who purchased the roaster through Target.com should
return the product to any Target store for a full refund. All
other consumers should discard the product and contact TCC Cooking
Company to receive a gift card equal to the purchase price.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Chefscatalog.com, Cooking.com, Target.com and other online
retailers from April 2014 through May 2015 for between $35 and
$50.


TURTLE BEACH: Recalls Gaming Headsets Due to Infection Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Turtle Beach Corporation, of San Diego, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 59,500 Ear Force(R) XO FOUR Stealth
gaming headset. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Mold spores were found on the headsets, posing a risk of
respiratory or other infections in individuals with chronic health
problems.

This recall involves 2015 Ear Force XO FOUR Stealth gaming
headsets. They are multi-use but marketed for use with Xbox One
gaming systems. The headsets are black with green trim and have
soft ear-cups, an audio controller and a removable microphone.
They are packaged with an audio adapter. Recalled units have a 13-
character alphanumeric serial number that includes C16 through C25
and do not have a green dot under the windscreen of the
microphone. The serial number is printed on the inside of the
headband of the headset and on the bottom flap of the box.

Turtle Beach has received six reports of mold on the headsets. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Buy, GameStop, Target and Walmart nationwide and online at
Amazon.com from June 2015 to September 2015 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately place the recalled headset into a
plastic bag with the original box and any components, tie or tape
the bag closed, and contact Turtle Beach for instructions on how
to return the product for a free replacement gaming headset.


UBER: Drivers' Labor Dispute Ruling to Impact Other Tech Startups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rehman Tungekar, writing for WPR.org, reports that a federal judge
gave Uber drivers permission to go forward with a class-action
lawsuit against the ride-hailing service.  That was just the
latest decision in a long-standing labor dispute over whether the
company's drivers are employees -- and therefore, subject to
benefits and mileage reimbursements -- or, as Uber officials
insist, independent contractors.

The final verdict has wide implications for other tech startups
like Airbnb and Lyft, and highlights the changing nature of work
in the new digital economy.  As economist Guy Standing points out,
however, it's also the end result of a set of economic policies
that were set in motion more than three decades ago.

Standing, who teaches at the University of London, traces this all
back to the late 1970s when Western economies -- in an effort to
promote competition and boost productivity -- began a process of
labor deregulation, rolling back workplace protections that were
set up after World War II.  That, along with globalization and the
decline of unions, led to an erosion of workers rights over the
next 30 years that's created an entirely new class of worker who
are resigned to a life of job insecurity.  He calls them "the
precariat."

He said he believes the precariat is made up of a broad variety of
jobs that include adjunct professors, freelancers, substitute
teachers -- essentially any worker without long-term job
stability.  According to one estimate, at least one-third of the
U.S. workforce falls into the category.

Standing spoke with "To the Best of Our Knowledge" executive
producer Steve Paulson about this new insecure class, the changing
nature of work, and his proposed solution: A guaranteed basic
income for everyone.

Steve Paulson: What kind of work does the precariat do?

Guy Standing: The jobs jump around, are insecure, and they don't
lead anywhere.  But that is actually not the most important aspect
of the precariat.  More important is the fact that people in the
precariat have to do a hell of a lot of work that is not labor.
They have to network, they have to be trained, they have to search
for new jobs, they have to wait around, they have to do a lot of
form filling and things like that, which in a real way is work.
In addition, this is the first working class in history which has
a level of education which is on average above the labor they
expect to do.

Is the rise of the on-demand economy linked to the precariat in
any way?

Without a doubt.  What I think we should be talking about is that
people in the on-demand economy (or the sharing economy) have to
be seen as taskers.  One of the fastest growing phenomena in the
labor markets of the world is crowd labor, where you will find
labor brokers going online and listing the tasks they need done,
and then taking bids from people who are prepared to do these
tasks.  And this sort of thing is leading to competition between
workers in Manila, in Goa, in Wisconsin and in Manchester.
They're competing against one another to work for increasingly
lower wages.  That phenomenon is part of the on-demand economy.

I'm wondering if there's a silver lining with some of these kinds
of jobs, because it would seem that these workers no longer have
to be wholly dependent on a single job.

That's the upside of the growth of the precariat.  I don't see the
precariat solely as victims, and this sense of freedom goes with
the desire for combining different types of activity, doing
different sorts of work, and building your own sense of
occupation -- that's the upside.  The downside is that we're in a
situation where the old 20th century income distribution system
has broken down.  Real wages have been stagnant or dropping in the
U.S., Germany, France, Britain, and many other parts of the world.
I don't think they're going to be reversed.

Do we also need to redefine what we mean by work?

That's Article 1 of my proposed Precariat Charter -- that we need
to re-conceptualize what we mean by work.  Work includes things
like gardening, caring for your elderly mother, and searching for
jobs.  Also, people in the precariat have to apply to thousands of
jobs before they actually get an interview, let alone a job offer,

Are you saying we should get paid for this kind of work (i.e.
searching for jobs or caring for my mother)?

What we need to do is realize that we have an income distribution
crisis.  We want to encourage people like you and me to do
activities like volunteering, caring for relatives, and so on.
That's why I favor a basic income.  We've got to think out of the
box to address these issues.

You'll have to explain what you mean by a basic income.

A basic income would be to give every citizen a guaranteed minimum
income that's paid each month in cash without conditions, on which
they could survive.

How do we afford it? Who pays for this?

An example of a guaranteed income is the Alaska Permanent Fund,
which takes part of the profits from oil.  You could also finance
a basic income from patents, from high tech industries, or other
resources.  The money then goes into a capital fund and is
invested.  Then each year they pay each citizen a basic income.
Other countries are also moving in this direction.

How big of a basic income would people get?

What I'm proposing is a modest amount paid as a right, with
supplements used as automatic stabilizers.  In other words, if the
economy is going into recession, you would top the basic income
up.  If it's in a high employment situation, then you could cut it
back.

If people were guaranteed a certain income, you wouldn't worry
that they'd lose their incentive to find any job at all?

We've done pilots in India and Africa where, in fact, what happens
is that people who have basic security work more, not less.  When
they work, they're more productive, not less.  People who have
basic security tend to be more entrepreneurial in their approach.
They make longer term rational decisions and are more cooperative.
They also more tolerant of other people.

What about the politics of some of this? Don't you have to
convince the elites that your proposal -- a basic income -- is a
good idea?

That's exactly what is happening.  I was recently invited to
Silicon Valley to speak with a lot of high tech, affluent people
who are in the 0.001 percent, and they all saw the logic.  They
realized that if we don't go in that direction, the inequalities
and insecurities are going to become threatening to the whole
system, and we'll all be losers.

Do you think the days of the stable, permanent job are behind us?
Is that whole idea of staying with one job for years disappearing?

I think that it won't disappear, but we've got to deal with what
is going to be the majority.  In many countries, 40 percent of the
total adult population are people in the precariat or feel that
they are in it.  That is a growing number, not a shrinking one .
And it's not something to do just with the recession since 2008.
It's a structural phenomenon that's been taking place over the
last 30 years.


VALEANT PHARMA: Faces "Nilsen" Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Silvia Nilsen, and all others similarly-situated v. David M.
Hable, Lawrence C. Cardinale, Juanita H. Hinshaw, D. Graeme
Thomas, Robert H. Blankemeyer, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International and Blue Subsidiary Corp., Case No. 11552 (Del. Ch.,
September 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
breaches of fiduciary duty and for aiding and abetting the
Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff alleges that the shareholder class action arises
because Synergetics's President, CEO and Chairman of the Board
David M. Hable forced through a sale of the Company in order to
reap personal benefits he negotiated with Valeant and to the
detriment of Synergetics's public stockholders.

The Individual Defendants are members of Synergetic's board of
directors.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International operates as a research-
based, specialty pharmaceutical company. Valeant discovers,
develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical
products as well as focusing on products in the areas of
infectious disease, neurology, and dermatology. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals markets its products worldwide. Valeant is
headquartered at 7545 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA
92618 and its common stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "VRX." Valeant is incorporated in
Delaware. Following consummation of the Merger, Synergetics will
become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant.

Defendant Blue Subsidiary Corp. ("Merger Sub") is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed for the purpose of consummating the
Merger.  Merger Sub is incorporated in Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Fax: (302) 482-3612


VOLKSWAGEN: Bernstein Litowitz to Expand Emissions Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G"), representing
a proposed nationwide class of owners and lessees of vehicles
equipped with Volkswagen "TDI Clean Diesel" engines, is engaged in
an extensive and exhaustive investigation and is actively
consulting with top automotive industry experts concerning the
massive and deliberate emissions cheating scandal at leading
automaker Volkswagen AG.  Without question, Volkswagen's "diesel
deception" is one of the largest consumer fraud and public health
scandals in history.  BLB&G's Volkswagen Investigation Team, which
includes experienced attorneys who have successfully prosecuted
class action claims against the largest automobile manufacturers,
is interviewing knowledgeable industry insiders and consulting
with top auto software and control systems experts to investigate
who is responsible and how Volkswagen was able to conceal its
sophisticated emissions cheating system for nearly a decade.

BLBG Partner Blair A. Nicholas stated: "VW and its management have
admitted to deliberately cheating stringent federal and state
emissions standards all the while falsely promising consumers
environmentally friendly, high-performing and efficient cars.
What VW hasn't told the public is who gave the orders and how they
were able to deceive regulators and the public for so long.  This
was no 'honest mistake' at Volkswagen this was deliberate fraud
and deceit at its very core.  By combining BLB&G's Volkswagen
Investigation Team with our team of leading auto industry experts,
we will get to the bottom of this in order to right this egregious
wrong on behalf of consumers."

Anyone with information regarding the misconduct at Volkswagen is
encouraged to contact BLB&G confidentially.  Please contact
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (Rachel Felong, Esq.) at
(888) 924-1888 or (858) 720-3180, or via e-mail at
Rachel.Felong@blbglaw.com

BLB&G partners Blair Nicholas and Benjamin Galdston are leading
the firm's investigation and litigation team in the class action
against Volkswagen.  Additional information regarding the
Volkswagen case, including a copy of the class action complaint,
is available at www.blbglaw.com/volkswagen

BLB&G is plaintiffs' class action law firm.  It has recovered over
$28 billion on behalf of victims of corporate wrongdoing.


VOLKSWAGEN: Clean Air Act Loophole May Avert Criminal Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Hruska, writing for ExtremeTech.com, reports that ever since
the VW scandal broke, there've been ongoing questions as to the
types of penalties VW might face.  Not only did the company
deliberately include so-called "defeat devices," designed to allow
their diesel vehicles to spew up to 40x more pollutants than
allowed under US law, they lied to investigators and
misrepresented the nature of the problem, all while continuing to
market these vehicles as "clean diesel" and a practical
alternative to hybrids or electric cars.  Given that VW has
admitted that it lied and defrauded more than 11 million customers
(closer to 15 million if you include vehicles from Audi and
Skoda), it may not be possible to bring criminal charges against
the company.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the section of the Clean Air
Act of 1970 specifies criminal penalties for fixed sources of
emissions (power plants), but only specifies civil penalties for
automakers and other moving sources of air pollution.
ExtremeTech.com's own cursory investigation of the Clean Air Act
confirms this -- while an omission of this sort does not
automatically mean the government cannot bring a criminal charges
against a company, the law does not explicitly carve out criminal
penalties.

The WSJ reports that the government is looking to bring charges on
different counts, including lying to federal officials, but the
government may choose to pursue civil, rather than criminal
charges in any case. Civil charges would allow VW's staff to avoid
jail time, but could still carry staggering fines that could
bankrupt the company.  Pressure on VW has been growing from all
sides; the company recently declared that it had a plan in place
to bring all vehicles into proper compliance with both European
and US law.  The only way for VW to have developed that plan so
quickly is if it simply intends to update vehicle software to turn
the "test" mode feature on full-time.  While likely to work, it's
also likely to anger many VW drivers, who will see engine
performance, fuel economy, or maintenance costs increase as a
result of the changes.  The first class action lawsuits against
VW, needless to say, are already rolling forward.

At Slate, David Auerbach makes the argument that the man almost
certainly responsible for the VW scandal has, thus far, escaped
notice.  According to Auerbach, Ferdinand Piech, the grandson of
Ferdinand Porsche and chairman of VW's board until this past
spring, hand-selected the executives that ran the affected
businesses and presided over the culture that allowed to him to be
installed.  VW, unlike most ostensibly public companies, holds the
vast majority of its voting power in private hands and operates
with a rigid, top-down, hierarchical and dynastic power structure.
ExtremeTech.coms' Hruska said "We don't know yet which executives
knew about the defeat devices or who ordered them installed, but
given that problems are now cropping up across VW's various
product families, it seems obvious that this problem went deeper
than just the CEO."


VOLKSWAGEN: Emission Tests Scandal Costs May Reach $6.5 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Potter, writing for Reuters, reports that Volkswagen has
admitted to cheating diesel emissions tests in the United States,
sparking the biggest business crisis in its 78-year history.

Following are some of the costs the company could have to pay,
excluding any potential drop in car sales or prices:

CAR RECALLS

VW said on Sept. 29 it would recall up to 11 million vehicles
worldwide that were fitted with illegal software.  Some analysts
have said this could cost more than $6.5 billion.

REGULATORS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Sept. 18 VW faced
penalties of up to $18 billion, and Australia's competition
regulator said on Oct. 1 VW could face millions of dollars in
fines if it was found to have misled local consumers.

The German transport ministry has said the company manipulated
tests in Europe too and regulators across Europe and in parts of
Asia and central America are investigating, though none have so
far estimated likely penalties.

NATIONAL AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Analysts have said the company could face lawsuits under the U.S.
Clean Air Act, and penalties if it is found guilty of any criminal
wrongdoing.  California is preparing a major enforcement action
against VW, the state's top air official said on Sept. 24.

Harris County, Texas, on Sept. 30 sued VW, accusing it of
violating state environmental laws. It is seeking up to $25,000
per violation per day.

German prosecutors said on Sept. 23 they were conducting a
preliminary investigation into VW following a number of criminal
complaints from citizens.

Prosecutors in several other countries have followed suit.

DEALER/CONSUMER/INVESTOR LAWSUITS

Independent car dealerships sued VW in California on Sept. 24 over
losses they said they would incur following the company's
admission.  Attorneys at Keller Rohrback LLP said on Oct. 1 they
had filed seven nationwide class action lawsuits on behalf of
plaintiffs in 43 states and Washington DC against VW.

Italian consumer group Codacons said on Sept. 30 it had presented
a class action lawsuit against VW, accusing it of deceiving car
owners and potentially harming the environment.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action suit against
VW on Sept. 25 on behalf of an institutional investor.

Some European shareholders said they were also considering
claiming damages.

SUBSIDY CLAWBACKS

Spain said on Sept. 29 that VW had agreed to return state car
purchase subsidies on vehicles fitted with rigged engines.  The
country had offered subsidies of 1,000 euros ($1,120) for energy
efficient car purchases.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "G.T. Leasing" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
G.T. Leasing, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case 2:15-cv-07394-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., October 9, 2015), alleges violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, false advertising and
consumer fraud by the Defendants in relation to the installation
of so-called "defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

Volkswagen is in the business of leasing automobiles, including
Volkswagen diesel engine vehicles, on behalf of itself and all
similarly situated leasing businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
     DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
     5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
     Mariton, NJ 08053
     Phone:(856) 797-9951
     E-mail: Sdenittis@denittislaw.com

        - and -

     Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
     THE WILNER FIRM, P.A.
     444 E. Duval Street
     Jacksonville, Florida 32202
     Phone:(904) 446-9817
     E-mail: Rlantinberg@wi1nerfIrm.com

        - and -

     Eric J. Artrip Esq.
     D. Anthony Mastando Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
     301 Washington Street
     Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35801
     Tel.: (256) 532-2222
     E-mail: ArLrip@mastandoartrip.com
             Tony@mastandoartrip.com


VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2013 Model Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015453TC
ID number: 2015453
Manufacturer recall number: RVXX1506

On certain vehicles equipped with an Idle Free Model BA600
Electric Auxiliary Power Unit (APU), the mounting points on the
housing of the APU could crack or tear. This could cause the power
unit to possibly fail, or detach from the truck, creating a road
hazard and increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if
necessary, install a welded gusset upgrade kit and stronger
clamping brackets.

  Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----     ----------------------
  VOLVO    VNL       2013


VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2012 Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015456TC
ID number: 2015456
Manufacturer recall number: RVXX1507

On certain vehicles, the fifth wheel locking mechanisms could be
susceptible to damage and/or wear. This could cause the locking
mechanism to fail properly engage, potentially resulting in a
towed trailer unit separating from the truck tractor. As a result,
the trailer could strike another vehicle, stationary object, or
bystander, causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Fontaine dealers will replace all Ultra LT fifth wheel units with
Ultra NT model fifth wheel units.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  VOLVO     VNL        2012


WILLIAMS COS: Faces "Blystone" Suit Over Sale to Energy Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Blystone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Williams Companies, Inc., Alan S.
Armstrong, Joseph R. Cleveland, Kathleen B. Cooper, John A. Hagg,
Juanita H. Hinshaw, Ralph Izzo, Frank T. Macinnis, Eric W.
Mandelblatt, Keith A. Meister, Steven W. Nance, Murray D. Smith,
Janice D. Stoney, Laura A. Suff, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.,
Energy Transfer Corp. LP, Ete Corp. GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC, and
Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC, Case No. 11601 (Del.Ch., October
9, 2015), was filed against the members of Williams' Board of
Directors for their alleged breaches of fiduciary duties arising
out of their attempt to sell the Company to Energy Transfer Equity
L.P.

The Williams Companies, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company
focused on connecting North America's hydrocarbon resource plays
to markets for natural gas, natural gas liquids, and olefins.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 524-4290

        - and -

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


ZYNGA INC: Supplemental Briefing Required on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
Oct. 8 heard oral argument regarding the motion of Lead Plaintiff
David Fee for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in
the pre-certification securities litigation action, IN RE ZYNGA
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSC, Consolidated
with Case No. 12-CV-4048-JSC., 12-CV-4059-JSC.

The Court raised several questions with Lead Plaintiff:

     1. Lead Plaintiff's proposed Plan of Allocation provides for
a lower rate of recovery for shares of Zynga common stock
purchased between December 15, 2011 and the close of trading on
February 14, 2012 (the Earlier Period) than for shares purchased
after the close of trading on February 14, 2012 through the close
of trading on July 25, 2012 (the Class Period). In his motion,
Lead Plaintiff contends that the Settlement Class Members in the
Earlier Period receive a smaller per-share recovery because their
claims are weaker, evidenced by the fact that their claims were
dismissed from the initial consolidated complaint and are not part
of the operative pleading. But the district court's order
dismissed the entire initial consolidated complaint, not just
those from the Earlier Period. Lead Plaintiff chose not to replead
the Earlier Period claims. Lead Plaintiff must file a supplemental
submission that provides a more forthright and robust explanation
reflecting the procedural history and Lead Plaintiff's position on
why the Earlier Period claims are weaker. In addition, in the
supplemental submission Lead Plaintiff shall make clear when he
bought and sold his shares of Zynga common stock -- i.e., to the
extent his claims fall in the Earlier Period or the Class Period.
The Notice shall be amended to accurately reflect the procedural
history.

     2. The initial Stipulation and Notice required that all
Settlement Class Members submit their claim forms by mail. In
response to questioning from the Court, Lead Plaintiff agreed that
Settlement Class Members may submit their claim forms
electronically. The Stipulation and Notice should be amended to
reflect this change.

     3. The Notice is not entirely accurate regarding Settlement
Class Members' opportunity to object. The objection provision
reads in relevant part:

        "You can ask the Court to deny approval by filing an
        objection. You cannot ask the Court to order a larger
        settlement or otherwise modify the Settlement; the
        Court can only approve or deny the Settlement. If the
        Court denies approval, no Settlement payments will be
        sent out and the Action will continue. If this is what
        you want to happen, you must object."

While technically true, the parties' language as currently written
fails in this paragraph to notify Settlement Class Members that
they can object to the amount of attorneys' fees and costs sought.
The Notice should also include the deadline for Lead Counsel's
attorneys' fees motion and note that the motion and supporting
materials will be available for viewing on the Claims
Administrator's website. See In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec.
Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 993-94 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that under
Rule 23(h), class members must be given a full and fair
opportunity to examine and object to attorneys' fees motions);
see, e.g., Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-cv-00729-HSG, 2015 WL
4498083, at *9 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2015) (requiring the class
notice to state the deadline for a motion for attorneys' fees and
informing class members that the motion and supporting materials
would be available on the class website). Lastly, the Notice makes
no mention of any objections to the Plan of Allocation. The Notice
shall be amended to advise of the possibility of such objection or
Lead Plaintiff shall explain to the Court why such notice is not
required.

     4. Lead Plaintiff shall clarify that the relevant pleadings
will be available on the Claims Administrator's website and, of
course, shall make the pleadings so available.

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley directed the Lead
Plaintiff to submit an amended stipulation and Notice and other
filing that addresses these issues by October 15, 2015. Lead
Plaintiff also was required to submit a red-lined version of any
amended stipulation and proposed notice.

A copy of the Court's Oct. 9 Order is available at
http://is.gd/0PGwy1from Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Zynga 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
reached an agreement in principle to settle In re Zynga Inc.
Securities Litigation as to all defendants for $23.0 million.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class
action captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
04007-JSW, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain
of our current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW."

"On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint.

"The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees. On March 25, 2015, the Court issued an order
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. On April 28, 2015, the Court denied the defendants'
motion for leave to seek reconsideration of that order.

"On June 12, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling order setting
certain pretrial deadlines leading up to a hearing on any
dispositive motions scheduled for May 12, 2017. On June 24, 2015,
pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the consolidated
class actions were reassigned to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott
Corley for all further proceedings. On June 26, 2015, Magistrate
Judge Corley issued an order scheduling a case management
conference for August 20, 2015.

"Pursuant to court order, a mediation session was conducted before
the Honorable Edward Infante (Ret.) on August 4, 2015. The parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle In re Zynga Inc.
Securities Litigation as to all defendants for $23.0 million. The
settlement, which is subject to negotiation and execution of a
final settlement document, notice to the class and court approval,
would be funded entirely by insurance and lead to the dismissal of
all claims against the defendants. Accordingly there would be no
impact to Zynga's financial statements if the final settlement is
consistent with the current agreement. Given its preliminary
nature, it remains possible that the settlement in principle may
not result in a final settlement, and that the assessment of the
possibility of loss or adverse effect on our financial condition,
if any, could therefore change in the near term."


ZYNGA INC: "Reyes" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Reyes v. Zynga Inc., et al. has been voluntarily dismissed, Zynga
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.

A purported securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc.,
et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County
Superior Court. The action was removed to federal court, and was
later remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court. The
complaint alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements in
connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A common
stock. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of persons who
acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
secondary offering.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to stay the action
and a demurrer arguing that the complaint should be dismissed
because the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims. On August
26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling the demurrer and
granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the action pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal securities class
action.

On September 29, 2014, the court issued orders denying a motion to
continue the stay of the action and overruling a demurrer arguing
that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. On October
15, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the California Court
of Appeal seeking review of the denial of the motion to stay and
of the trial court's ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear the
claims.

On January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeal denied defendants'
petition. On February 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's
request for voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiff's claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of any other members of the proposed class.


ZYNGA INC: Hearing Date Has Not Been Set in Lee v. Pincus
---------------------------------------------------------
A hearing date has not been set in the case, Lee v. Pincus, et
al., Zynga 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.

The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action
captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering."

"On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint and a motion to stay discovery while the motions to
dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the court denied the
motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the directors and granted
the motion to dismiss brought by the underwriters who had been
named as defendants. The Court endorsed a stipulation setting a
briefing schedule for plaintiff's motion for class certification.

"Plaintiff's motion was filed on July 13, 2015. Defendants'
opposition is to be filed on or before September 4, 2015, and
plaintiff's reply is to be filed on or before October 5, 2015.

"On June 24, 2015, certain of the defendants filed a motion for
relief from the court's November 14, 2014 decision denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. An opposition to the
motion was filed on July 24, 2015. A hearing date has not been
set.

"Although it is reasonably possible that our assessment of the
possibility of loss could change in the near term due to one or
more confirming events, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses in the Lee v. Pincus class action and will vigorously
defend this action. Furthermore, given that we are in the early
stages of the litigation process, we are unable to estimate the
range of potential loss, if any."


* Competitive Enterprise Inst. & Class Action Fairness to Merge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan H. Adler, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
on Oct. 1 the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the
Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF) announced a merger.  CEI
is one of D.C.'s most aggressive and innovative free-market policy
shops.  CCAF aggressively polices the terms of class-action
settlements, which too often look like collusive arrangements that
enrich attorneys while doing little for the putative plaintiffs.

The most likely effect of this merger will be to enhance the two
groups' public interest litigation efforts, which are already
significant.  CEI has quarterbacked cases such as Free Enterprise
Fund v. PCAOB, King v. Burwell and challenges to the tobacco
Master Settlement Agreement, and regularly files amicus briefs in
regulatory cases.  Bringing CCAF's legal team aboard, led by CCAF
founder Ted Frank, will undoubtedly enhance these efforts.  The
combined organization will retain the CEI name, and Frank has been
named a CEI senior attorney and director of the Center for Class
Action Fairness within CEI.



* Predatory Class Action Trial Lawyers Target Food Companies
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Betancourt, writing for The Fresco Bee, reports that trial
lawyers looking to make a quick buck at the expense of productive
businesses have found a good business model California: find a
successful food product and sue its manufacturer.

The preferred vehicle for these lawyers is the class-action
lawsuit, in which consumers -- who are purportedly the "victims"
in these cases -- receive coupons or mere pennies while lawyers
walk away with millions of dollars.

The recent revelation that the manufacturers of almond milk have
been targeted by a new lawsuit is just one more indication that
our lawsuit system benefits lawyers more than ordinary people and
that reform is needed.  The primary complaint in this lawsuit is
that there are not enough almonds in almond milk, and that this
somehow has hurt consumers.  This line of reasoning fails to take
into account that all ingredients and nutritional information are
printed on product packaging, and that there is no evidence of any
consumer experiencing harm.

Look at the following products: Nutella, Ben & Jerry's ice cream,
Chobani yogurt, Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats, and Cap'n Crunch
with Crunchberries. What do they all have in common?

All have been the targets of class-action lawsuits.  In recent
years, California has seen a huge number of preposterous class-
action lawsuits from attorneys eager to profit from our lawsuit
system.  So many lawsuits have been filed here that the state has
become known nationally as the "food court."

This trend is part of a broader movement towards increased
litigation that benefits lawyers at the expense of everyone else.
Just look at the recent explosion of lawsuits against small
businesses alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities
Act or Proposition 65.

"Where I live in the Valley, these lawsuits have forced some small
businesses to lay off workers and others to shut down completely.
While the economically booming coastal areas may be able to afford
this kind of lawsuit abuse against employers, the inland areas of
California simply cannot," Frenso Bee's Betancourt said.

Other enterprising plaintiffs' lawyers have found a way to sue
small businesses under the Private Attorney General Act for minor
paycheck stub mistakes, such as not listing the complete
employer's name or address on pay stubs.  One small Central
California business was hit with one of these lawsuits and settled
for $1.5 million.  The company is now planning to move out of
California -- taking jobs with it.

"Trivial lawsuits like this do nothing for any of us except the
trial lawyers," Mr. Betancourt said.

"Of course, we want to protect consumers and employees.  But, the
continued abuse of the legal system with these pointless lawsuits
wastes money, increases the cynicism of citizens and makes
California a less friendly place for new businesses."

"What company in their right mind would invest in California
knowing it could be attacked by these types of lawsuits?

"As a family farmer, I know that my business can be targeted by
enterprising attorneys if I fill out regulatory forms improperly.
The resulting lawsuit will result in handsome profits for them,
and could force me to reduce my production or delay expansion,
costing jobs either way.

"The lawsuit arguing over the content of almond milk should be a
wake-up call for California's elected leaders. It is far past time
for our state to rein in the abuse of our lawsuit system that is
holding back economic growth and costing jobs."





                            *********

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  * * *