CAR_Public/151026.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 213


                            Headlines


ALL NATION: "Pampillo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AMAZON.COM INC: Background Check Summary Judgment Motion Denied
AMAZON: Files Suit Against Over 1,000 Unidentified Reviewers
BB&T CORP: Faces Suit in N.C. Over Alleged ERISA Violation
BIG WATER: Class Cert.  Bid in "Reed" Case Denied

BOFI HOLDING: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
BOFI HOLDING: Stull, Stull Files Securities Class Action in NY
CANAL MANAGEMENT: "Joseph" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation
COAST TO COAST: Faces "Rivera" Suit Alleging Labor Laws Breach
DEUTSCHE POST: Court Grants Final Approval of Marshall Suit Deal

DIRECTV GROUP: Defending Against NFL Sunday Ticket Litigation
DIRECTV GROUP: Trial Expected This Fall in MLB Litigation
DISNEY: Lack of Captioning Prompts Civil Rights Class Action
EMERGENT CAPITAL: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Miller" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations

FACEBOOK: Austrian Student Loses Appeal in Privacy Class Action
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Sports Website Operation
FERGUSON, MO: Mulls Settlement of Civil Rights Suit
FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit in Ga. Over FLSA "Violations"
GLAXOSMITKLINE: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "King Drug" Case

GLOBE ENERGY: Faces "Serrano" Suit Over FLSA Violations
GOLD FIELDS: Silicosis Class Action Bludgeons Gold Mining Sector
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants 2nd Cir. to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
GOODYEAR TIRE: French Workers' Class Action Can't Proceed in U.S.
GREATWIDE DEDICATED: Faces Suit for Unfair Business Practices

HELP AT HOME: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
HIGHER ONE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action
JK & T WINGS: Faces Suit in Mich. for Alleged FLSA Violation
JP MORGAN: To Pay Lion's Share of CDS Class Action Settlement
KING CABLE: "Nasufi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

MARINELLO SCHOOLS: Beauty School Students Lose Wage Class Action
MAVERICK FUND: Court Partially Grants Motion to Dismiss TAC
NAVY FEDERAL: "Munday" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
NBC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over NFL TV Rights
NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement

NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Deal in Wire Tap Case Under Consideration
NISKA GAS: Plaintiffs to Seek Consolidation of Class Action
O'FALLON, MO: May Face Class Action Over Towing Fees
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Motion in FDCPA Class Action
PRO'S SPORTSBAR: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Alleged Labor Law Breach

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Warren Police Class Action
RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Class Action Over Use of Nicotine in Vaping
ROCKET FUEL: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Securities Litigation
SAMARI LAKE: Faces "Mera" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
TAKATA CORP: Faces "Snyder's" Suit Over Defective Airbags

STERNE AGEE: Settles Two Class Actions Over Botched IPO
SUBWAY: Settles Class Action Over Footlong Sandwiches
T-MOBILE US: Faces "Leitner" Suit Over Postpaid Services
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit for Alleged Underpayment of Drivers
UBER: Judge Dismisses Driver's Data Breach Class Action

WILLBROS GROUP: Dismissal of Restatement Class Action Sought
VOLKSWAGEN: Center for Auto Safety Files Dirty Diesel Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mutari" Suit Over Fraud Allegations
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "O'Leary" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit in Cal. Over "Clean" Diesel Vehicles

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Killebrew" Suit Over "Defeat" Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lawhon" Suit Over "CleanDiesel" Engine
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lively" Suit Over "Defeat Device"
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Whitcomb" Suit Over Clean Diesel Cars
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Mullins" Suit Over Pork & Beans Product



                            *********


ALL NATION: "Pampillo" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Armando Pampillo, and all others similarly-situated v. All Nation
Event Services Corp, and Wilfredo V. Leonardo, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23795 (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants offer full service events planning, coordination,
consultation and management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Background Check Summary Judgment Motion Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Davis, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that the
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit accusing Amazon.com Inc. and
a staffing company of violating federal law because they did not
disclose the information found in a background check that was used
to deny employment filed a motion to certify the proposed Class.

In April, lead plaintiff Gregory Williams filed a class action
lawsuit in Washington state federal court alleging that Amazon and
Staff Management Solutions, which is also called SMX, violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  According to the Amazon
background check lawsuit, Williams was denied employment at an
Amazon warehouse based on an incorrect background check that was
not disclosed to him.

A summary judgment motion filed by Amazon.com, staffing agency SMX
LLC and its affiliate Staff Management Solutions LLC was recently
denied.  In their motion for summary judgment, Amazon argued that
the FCRA class action lawsuit should be dismissed because Amazon
had offered him the Fair Credit Reporting Act's $1,000 statutory
damages. U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman denied Amazon's motion
and noted that the plaintiff would be vulnerable to a "pick-off"
until a motion to certify the proposed Class was filed.

The attorney representing the plaintiff explained that the court
should certify two nationwide Classes in order to avoid being
"picked off" by a settlement offer.

"Defendants, through their unsuccessful motion for summary
judgment, have made clear that they will seek to decapitate the
class by picking off Mr. Williams as a class representative
through an offer of individual settlement," said the attorney for
the plaintiff.  "Plaintiff therefore submits this motion to remove
all doubt that he seeks to represent classes of consumers
subjected to defendants' common procedures."

Mr. Williams proposed one Class that would include all
unsuccessful Amazon applicants who were denied employment as a
result of background reports without receiving a copy of that
report, and another for those who applied through the staffing
agency, SMX.

According to the motion seeking certification of the Amazon class
action lawsuit, the Classes would consist of those who were not
offered jobs based on their background report over a five-year
period ending this past April, when the complaint was filed.  The
proposed Classes could include up to hundreds of thousands,
according to Mr. Williams, because SMX allegedly has a
standardized procedure subject to error.  Additionally, Amazon's
size and use of SMX to fill positions over the holidays means that
many job applicants were potentially affected by the alleged
practice.

Separate litigation has been initiated against Amazon and SMX over
allegedly failing to compensate employees for time they spend
passing through security checks.

Mr. Williams is represented by Christopher Green of GreenLawFirm
PS and James A. Francis and John Soumilas of Francis & Mailman PC.

The Amazon Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Gregory
Williams v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00542, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.


AMAZON: Files Suit Against Over 1,000 Unidentified Reviewers
------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Fedde, writing for The Christian Science Monitor, reports
that Amazon is taking another crack at eliminating fake reviews.
This time, through litigation aimed at individuals, not
businesses.

The online retail giant is taking legal action against over 1,000
unidentified reviewers, who Amazon says have been offering fake
review writing services for money -- some for as little as $5 per
review.

The lawsuit follows an investigation conducted by Amazon itself.
Undercover Amazon employees went to Fiverr, an online marketplace
for individuals seeking to sell services to others, and looked for
offers to write fake Amazon reviews.  The Amazon investigators
would contact the potential reviewers and even hired several of
them.

According to Geekwire, Fiverr user "bess98" offered to write from
various computers to avoid detection by Amazon.  "Verifiedboss,"
another user offered fake reviews for money, asked Amazon's
investigators to write reviews themselves and send them to him or
her.

"Defendants are misleading Amazon's customers and tarnishing
Amazon's brand for their own profit and the profit of a handful of
dishonest sellers and manufacturers," Amazon's complaint reads.

The lawsuit refers to the alleged reviewers as John Does, as their
identities are unknown outside of online usernames.  Fiverr.com,
the online market place where many of the review services were
offered, is not a target of the lawsuit.

"We have worked closely together to remove services that violate
our terms of use, and respond promptly to any reports of
inappropriate content," Fiverr Spokesman Channing Barringer told
Bloomberg.

This isn't the first legal action Amazon has taken against fake
reviews.  The company filed a similar lawsuit in April 2015
against "BuyAmazonReviews.com" and other similarly named sites,
seeking to shut them down.

Online reviews are now widely utilized throughout the online
retail and service industries.  Even physical stores and
restaurants are impacted by what customers and individuals post
about them online.  A Harvard study showed that an increase in a
rating on Yelp corresponded with an increase in revenue for a
company, according to Forbes.  A one-star increase resulted in a 5
to 9 percent increase in revenue.

The potential for such large financial impact from reviews has
given way various problems, including bogus online feedmack, and
prompted myriad lawsuits for false or negative reviews on Yelp!,
Angie's List, Amazon, blogs, Facebook, and Twitter.

In March, after an underwhelming experience with a dog obedience
class, Virginian Jennifer Ujimori posted negative reviews on Yelp
and Angie's List.  The company, Dog Tranquility, responded with a
defamation lawsuit for $65,000.

"I do not believe a customer imagines that typing out a review of
their experience followed by a few clicks can result in getting
slapped with a $65,000 lawsuit," said Jonathan Phillips,
Ms. Ujimori's attorney, to the Washington Post.

Still, there is somewhat of a cottage industry building around
online reviews that are bogus or, at minimum, a tad hyperbolic.  A
slew of Tumblrs and websites are dedicated to finding and
glorifying the best and funniest reviews online, for example.
Those, combined with users and sites profiting off fake posts, are
part of what Amazon called a thriving "unhealthy ecosystem" of
online reviews.

Host sites themselves, however, aren't free of accusations of foul
play when it comes to online reviews.  A class-action lawsuit from
August 2014 alleged that Yelp required small businesses to pay to
cover up negative reviews on its site.


BB&T CORP: Faces Suit in N.C. Over Alleged ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Brewster Smith, Jr., Doris Kirouac, Christina Hawks, Regina
Nickles, Deborah Riggs, and Patricia Wells, individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on
behalf of the BB&T Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan v. BB&T
Corporation, BB&T Corporation Employee Benefits Plan Committee,
BB&T Corporation Board of Directors, Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of BB&T Corporation, John A. Allison, IV,
Jennifer S. Banner, K. David Boyer, Jr., Anna R. Cablik, Nelle R.
Chilton, Ronald E. Deal, Tom D. Efird, James A. Faulkner, Barry J.
Fitzpatrick, J. Littleton Glover, Jr., L. Vincent Hackley, Jane P.
Helm, I. Patricia Henry, John P. Howe, III, Eric C. Kendrick,
Kelly S. King, Valeria Lynch Lee, Louis B. Lynn, James H. Maynard,
Albert O. McCauley, Edward C. Milligan, J. Holmes Morrison,
Charles A. Patton, Nido R. Qubein, William J. Reuter, Tollie W.
Rich, Jr., E. Rhone Sasser, Christine Sears, Thomas E. Skains,
Thomas N. Thompson, Edwin H. Welch, Stephen T. Williams, Steven L.
Reeder, Branch Banking and Trust Company, Sterling Capital
Management LLC, and John Does 1-20, Case No. 1:15-cv-00841
(M.D.N.C., October 8, 2015), arises from alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by BB&T Corporation and its Board of Directors in
the management of their employees' 401(k) plan (the BB&T
Corporation 401(k) Savings Plan in violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

BB&T Corporation is a financial holding company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David B. Puryear, Jr., Esq.
     PURYEAR & LINGLE, PLLC
     5501-E Adams Farm Lane
     Greensboro, NC 27407
     Phone: (336) 218-0227
     E-mail: puryear@puryearandlingle.com

        - and -

     Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq.
     Michael A. Wolff, Esq.
     Troy A. Doles, Esq.
     Heather Lea, Esq.
     Sean E. Soyars, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER, BOGARD & DENTON LLP
     100 South Fourth Street
     St. Louis, MO 63102
     Phone: (314) 621-6115
     E-mail: jschlichter@uselaws.com
             mwolff@uselaws.com
             tdoles@uselaws.com
             hlea@uselaws.com
             ssoyars@uselaws.com


BIG WATER: Class Cert.  Bid in "Reed" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the United States District Court
for District of South Carolina adopted in part and denied in part
the Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Mary Gordon Baker and denied Plaintiffs' motion
to certify class without prejudice in the case captioned, WILLIAM
REED, DONNA REED, BONNIE YOUMANS, JANE YATES, and PHILLIP CAULDER,
all individually and for the benefit and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BIG WATER RESORT, LLC; TLC
HOLDINGS, LLC; RICHARD CLARK; JAMES THIGPEN; JIMMY "STEVE" LOVELL;
and OCOEE, LLC, Defendants. BIG WATER RESORT, LLC; TLC HOLDINGS,
LLC; RICHARD CLARK; JAMES THIGPEN; JIMMY "STEVE" LOVELL; and
OCOEE, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. M.B. HUTSON, a/k/a M.B.
HUDSON, Third-Party Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-1583-DCN.

Plaintiffs all purchased memberships in the club known as Big
Water Resort for approximately $8,400.00 per membership and were
promised that they would have a membership in a private club
operated at the Big Water Resort for their lifetime plus the life
of one survivor.  Plaintiffs further allege that the membership
contract promised "hat the club would be members only" and that
members "would have access to the land owned by TLC for the lives
of each member and their survivor. Plaintiffs, taking issue with
the state of their memberships, filed suit on April 22, 2014. In
their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege the following causes of
action: (1) declaratory and injunctive relief; (2) breach of
contract; (3) tortious interference with contract; (4) fraudulent
conveyance; (5) violation of time share statutes; (6) negligence
per se; (7) negligence; (8) negligent misrepresentation; and (9)
piercing the corporate veil.

On January 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class,
seeking class certification of all of their claims, other than
their claim for negligent misrepresentation. Defendants filed a
response on March 13, 2015, to which plaintiffs replied on April
15, 2015. The magistrate judge issued an R&R on August 3, 2015,
denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).

Both parties object to the R&R. Plaintiffs argue that the
magistrate judge erred in: (1) denying plaintiffs' motion for
class certification; (2) "finding that common issues do not
predominate solely because of a potential statute of limitations
defense"; and (3) "finding that while the damages model presented
is reliable on a class-wide basis, it is inappropriate because it
omits too many relevant considerations to be a viable method."
Defendants argue that the magistrate judge erred in finding that:
(1) plaintiffs' proposed class is ascertainable; and (2)
plaintiffs complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).
In his Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zNU9Zufrom Leagle.com, Judge Norton found that
plaintiffs' proposed class is ascertainable and have met the
commonality requirement under Rule 23(a).  The Court found that
class certification is inappropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because
plaintiffs have admitted that their claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief seek to facilitate a monetary judgment.

The parties have 90 days from the issuance of the order to engage
in discovery limited to the statute of limitations issue. At the
close of discovery, if appropriate, plaintiffs may re-file their
motion to certify class under Rule 23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs are represented by Brady Ryan Thomas, Esq. --
bthomas@rpwb.com, Christopher James Moore, Esq. -- cmoore@rpwb.com
& Terry Edward Richardson, Jr., Esq. -- trichardson@rpwb.com --
RICHARDSON PATRICK WESTBROOK AND BRICKMAN

             - and -

William R. Padget, Esq.
Carl David Hiller, Esq.
Harry L. Goldberg, Esq.
FINKEL LAW FIRM
1201 Main St #1800,
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803)470-0118

Defendants are represented by Carlyle Richardson Cromer, Esq. --
ccromer@turnerpadget.com, John Smith Wilkerson, III, Esq. --
jwilkerson@turnerpadget.com, Jon Rene Josey, Esq. --
rjosey@turnerpadget.com, Richard S. Dukes, Jr., Esq. --
rdukes@turnerpadget.com & R. Wayne Byrd, Esq. --
wbyrd@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER PADGET GRAHAM AND LANEY


BOFI HOLDING: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Oct. 19
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against of BofI Holding, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between September 4, 2013 and October 13,
2015, inclusive.

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

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/bofi-holding-inc

BofI operates as the holding company for BofI Federal Bank, a
provider of consumer and business banking products through the
Internet in the United States.  BofI Federal Bank's most
significant business is providing mortgages to high-net worth
individuals for the purchase of expensive properties though BofI
Federal Bank's Bank of Internet USA brand.

The Complaint alleges that BOFI and certain of its executive
officers made a series of false and misleading statements during
the Class Period, and failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company's internal controls were frequently disregarded; (ii) Bank
of Internet's borrowers included foreign nationals who should have
been off-limits under federal anti-money-laundering laws; (iii)
many Bank of Internet accounts lacked required tax identification
numbers; (iv) Bank of Internet fired an internal auditor who
raised the foregoing issues to management and to federal
regulators; and (v) as a result, the Company's statements
regarding its internal controls and other financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

As detailed more fully in the Complaint, on October 13, 2015, The
New York Times reported that Matt Erhart, a former internal
auditor at Bank of Internet, filed a lawsuit against the Company
alleging that it violated federal laws designed to protect
whistleblowers.  The Ernhart Complaint alleged, among other
things, that (i) Bank of Internet's borrowers "included foreign
nationals who should have been off-limits under the federal anti-
money-laundering laws," (ii) Bank of Internet "at times failed to
provide full and timely information to regulators," and (iii)
Erhart "was fired after he revealed wrongdoing at Bank of Internet
to management and regulators."

On this news, shares of BofI's common stock declined $42.87 per
share, or 30.2%, to close on October 14, 2015 at $99.13 per share,
on heavy trading volume.

BOFI shareholders who purchased their securities during the Class
Period may, no later than December 14, 2015, petition the Court to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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


BOFI HOLDING: Stull, Stull Files Securities Class Action in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody on Oct. 19 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased
or acquired the shares of BofI Holding, Inc. between September 4,
2013 and October 13, 2015, inclusive.

If you purchased BofI Holding securities during the Class Period
you may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff by no later than
December 14, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in the class action
were also breaches of fiduciary duties by the officers and
directors of BofI Holding.  An action for breaches of fiduciary
duty can be brought as a derivative action by a shareholder who
held Company stock at the start of the Class Period and who
continues to hold Company stock until the derivative action has
concluded.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated securities laws
because the Company's subsidiary Bank of the Internet ("BofI")'s
internal controls were disregarded, loans were illegally made to
foreign nationals, accounts lacked required tax information, BofI
fired an internal auditor who raised these issues, and BofI's
statements, including regarding its internal controls, were
materially false and misleading.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael J. Klein, Esq. at Stull,
Stull & Brody by e-mail at BOFI@ssbny.com by calling toll-free 1-
800-337-4983 x147, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.  You
can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com

Stull, Stull & Brody -- http://www.ssbny.com-- has litigated many
class actions for violations of securities laws and breaches of
fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40
years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements
on numerous occasions.  Stull, Stull & Brody has offices in New
York and Beverly Hills.


CANAL MANAGEMENT: "Joseph" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Joseph, and other similarity situated individuals v. Canal
Management, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Anthony Askowitz,
individually, Case 1:15-cv-23775-PCH (S.D.Fla., October 8, 2015),
seeks damages exceeding $15,000, excluding attorneys' fees or
costs for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005
     E-mail:agp@rgpattorneys.com


COAST TO COAST: Faces "Rivera" Suit Alleging Labor Laws Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Rivera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Coast To Coast Computer Products, Inc., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case
No.BG 597535 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, October 9 2015),
alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern
of wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute
to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition.

Defendant Coast to Coast Computer Products, Inc. provides computer
and printing supplies to businesses and governmental agencies
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by

     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     SamuelA. Wong, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 379-6250
     Fax: (949) 379-6251

        - and -

     Michael C. Robinson, Esq.
     ROBINSON EMPLOYMENT LAW, PC
     17702 Mitchell N
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Phone: (949) 756-9050
     Fax: (949) 271-4700


DEUTSCHE POST: Court Grants Final Approval of Marshall Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of New York granted final approval of
the class settlement in the case captioned, DIONNE MARSHALL and
LUCIA GOMEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE POST DHL and DHL EXPRESS (USA)
INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1471(RJD)(JO).
Plaintiffs brought this action on March 20, 2013, on behalf of
similarly-situated current and former hourly paid and non-exempt
service agents of DHL at John F. Kennedy International Airport,
Los Angeles International Airport, and Miami International
Airport. According to the complaint, DHL undercompensated its
employees by configuring the time clocks to round down,
automatically reducing 30 minutes for meal breaks, and requiring
that employees perform work before clocking in or after clocking
out. Near the end of discovery, class counsel moved for
certification of the case as a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b). DHL opposed the motion. While the motion
was fully briefed, Judge Orenstein stayed its disposition so that
the parties could try to settle the case. The parties mediated,
and after a series of negotiations, settled the case on November
11, 2014.

The settlement releases the class's claims against DHL in exchange
for $1,500,000. Section 4.2 of the settlement agreement provides
that class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, services payments
to class representatives, DHL's portion of payroll taxes,
settlement administrative costs, and a payment to the California
Workforce Development Agency (a "PAGA" payment) will be deducted
from the total settlement amount. If the total sum of these
individual settlement payouts exceeds the remaining total of the
settlement then each claimant's payout is reduced on a pro rata
basis.

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
settlement, an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and an award of
service payments to the named plaintiffs. Counsel report that they
billed 1,325 hours on the case for a total lodestar of
$591,571.25. They request a fee award of $500,000, which
represents one third of the settlement amount. Counsel also seeks
to be reimbursed for $33,371.39 in costs, which were largely
incurred on travel, deposition transcripts, mediation fees, and
photocopy expenses. Plaintiffs seek service awards of $5,000 each
for a total of $15,000.
In his Memorandum and Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3y8xlFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dearie granted final
approval of the settlement finding it substantively fair and
adequate. The Court awarded $370,236.50 in fees to class counsel;
$33,371.39 in reimbursement for costs to class counsel; $5,000 to
each of the plaintiffs as a service award; and $5,000 as PAGA
payment.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brett Gallaway, Esq. --
bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com, Lee S. Shalov, Esq. --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com, Neil Barry Solomon, Esq. --
nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com & Wade Christopher Wilkinson, Esq. --
wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP

- and -

   Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
   Matthew Cohen, Esq.
   LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
   The Woolworth Building
   233 Broadway, Suite 2220
   New York, NY 10279
   Tel:(212) 406-3630

Defendants are represented by Christina Jane Fletcher, Esq. --
CJFletcher@duanemorris.com, Julie A. Vogelzang, Esq. --
Jvogelzang@duanemorris.com, Kevin E. Vance, Esq. --
Kvance@duanemorris.com & Michael Tiliakos, Esq. --
Mtiliakos@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP


DIRECTV GROUP: Defending Against NFL Sunday Ticket Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Group Holdings, LLC, (successor in interest to DIRECTV, is
defending against the NFL Sunday Ticket Litigation, 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.

DIRECTV has been served with three putative class actions filed in
the U.S.; District Court for the Central District of California
against DIRECTV and the NFL alleging among other things that the
agreement among the defendants for DIRECTV's exclusive
distribution of NFL Sunday Ticket violates Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Act and that plaintiffs have been overcharged for the
televised presentation of out-of-market NFL games. The complaint
in Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc., et al., was
served in June 2015, the complaint in Ninth Inning Inc. v.
National Football League, Inc., et al. was served in July 2015 and
the complaint in Rookie Sports Cafe, L.L.C., et al., was served in
August 2015. The complaints seek injunctions, unspecified treble
damages and attorneys' fees.

"We are confident that our agreement with the NFL does not violate
the Sherman Act and intend to vigorously defend the lawsuits," the
Company said.


DIRECTV GROUP: Trial Expected This Fall in MLB Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Group Holdings, LLC, (successor in interest to DIRECTV,
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 trial is expected in the fall of 2015 in
the Major League Baseball Litigation.

A class was certified by Judge Shira Scheindlin in the case Lerner
et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al. filed in
May 2015 in federal court for the Southern District of New York.
Judge Scheindlin ruled that the plaintiffs were entitled to seek
an injunction on behalf of a class of subscribers who had
purchased MLB Extra Innings from DIRECTV, Comcast and MLB, to
prevent MLB from enforcing league rules that grant member teams
exclusive home team territories. The Judge also ruled that the
plaintiffs were not entitled to seek damages on behalf of the
class. A trial is expected in the fall of 2015. The defendants
intend to defend the case and pursue appeals to reverse the
numerous errors of law that formed the bases of the trial court's
orders.


DISNEY: Lack of Captioning Prompts Civil Rights Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that both Captain
America films, X-Men, Selma, Skyfall, House Of Cards, and The
Godfather are among the movies and series accused of
discriminating against the deaf and hearing impaired.  They are at
the center of a multi-claim and civil rights violating potential
class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 19 against Disney, Fox, Warner
Bros, Paramount, Universal, Sony and Netflix over the lack of
captioning or subtitling for the films and shows in their home
entertainment versions -- or, to be more specific, the songs
performed or featured within in them.

"While the dialogue of some movies or shows are indeed fully
subtitled, the practice of not subtitling song/music lyrics is
frustratingly widespread," said the nine-plaintiff complaint filed
in L.A. Superior Court.  Seeking unspecified damages and
injunctive relief, the complaint seeks to have certification to
include all Americans "with any hearing loss and/or impairment" in
the proposed class.  Recent census data estimates that more 1
million people in the United States are deaf, with many more
suffering various stages of hearing loss.

Citing feelings of "frustration and anger" and ranging from
California to Virginia to the commonwealth of Massachusetts and
Maryland, the plaintiffs allege that such actions by the studios
and Netflix are a violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act.  "Defendants' acts and omissions as specified herein have
proximately caused Plaintiffs and class members; to suffer a loss
of their civil rights -- and their rights as a person with
physical disabilities to receive full and equal access to the
public facilities and accommodations produced and distributed by
Defendants," their attorney John A. Girardi of L.A.'s Girardi
Keese says in the class action complaint.  "Such movie or show
products were of lesser value to Plaintiffs and class members,
than to persons without hearing loss."

"Defendant produced and distributed several DVDs enclosed in
packaging with language advertising the DVDs were subtitled,
movies that were advertised as captioned, and movies or shows with
language, such as captioned, English subtitles, or subtitles for
the deaf and hard of hearing, indicating that the movie or show is
fully captioned or subtitled.  Captions and subtitles allow
Plaintiffs and class members, to follow the content of a film or
show visually if they are not able to do so aurally. The DVD
packaging does not indicate that the subtitles are limited in any
way."  And yet, often on the aforementioned projects plus many
more from Guardians Of The Galaxy -- which had a highly promoted
classic soundtrack -- to Minions and Interstellar to Orange Is The
New Black and the four-decade-old Rocky, the songs are left
untitled, like commercials on closed captioning on many TVs.

None of the studios or Netflix responded to requests for comment
on the matter.

Christine Anthony, Susan Boswell, Evan Brunell, Darby Leigh, Ken
Levinson, Catharine McNally, Pauline Newton, Jay Wyant And Kristin
Zlogar are the plaintiffs in the case.


EMERGENT CAPITAL: Shareholder Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Gardner F. Davis, Esq. -- gdavis@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that in
what is believed to be the first case nationwide seeking to strike
down a groundbreaking corporate bylaw aimed at combating frivolous
shareholder class actions, Emergent Capital, Inc., has secured the
dismissal with prejudice of a shareholder lawsuit challenging
Emergent's minimum-support-to-sue bylaw.

The bylaw, proposed by Emergent Chairman of the Board Phillip
Goldstein and approved by both Emergent's Board and its
shareholders, requires a shareholder to obtain the consent of
holders of at least three percent of Emergent's outstanding shares
before suing the company or its officers or directors on behalf of
other shareholders in a class action or on behalf of the company
in a derivative action.  The bylaw provides as follows:

"Except where a private right of action at a lower threshold than
that required by this bylaw is expressly authorized by applicable
statute, a current or prior shareholder or group of shareholders
may not initiate a claim in a court of law on behalf of (1) the
corporation and/or (2) any class of current and/or prior
shareholders against the corporation and/or against any director
and/or officer of the corporation in his or her official capacity,
unless the Claiming Shareholder, no later than the date the claim
is asserted, delivers to the Secretary written consents by
beneficial shareholders owning at least 3% of the outstanding
shares of the corporation as of (i) the date the claim was
discovered (or should have been discovered) by the Claiming
Shareholder or (ii), if on behalf of a class consisting only of
prior shareholders, the last date on which a shareholder must have
held shares to be included in the class."

The shareholder plaintiff had sued Emergent and its directors in
Florida state court and in federal court in the U. S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking to have the
minimum-support-to-sue bylaw struck down, among other claims.
Emergent moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the bylaw had not
injured the plaintiff in any way, and that in approving the bylaw,
both the Board and the shareholders were fully informed.

After Emergent and its directors filed their motion to dismiss,
the lead plaintiff dismissed all claims with prejudice, without
any compensation to him or his counsel.  In addition to the
dismissal with prejudice, the lead plaintiff made a public
statement that the defendants "acted in good faith and did not
engage in any improper behavior in adopting the bylaw at issue or
otherwise."

The dismissal leaves the bylaw in force, and it leaves the door
open for other companies to follow Emergent's lead in taking
action to protect shareholder value against what Emergent Chairman
Phillip Goldstein called "a disturbing trend of lawyer-driven
knee-jerk strike suits against directors and officers of public
companies."  Mr. Goldstein said that "we strongly believe this is
a very good bylaw that deters such suits without unduly impeding
meritorious representative lawsuits."


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Miller" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Miller Sr., on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, v. Enhanced Recovery Company LLC, a Florida
Corporation, individually, Case 3:15-cv-01203-TJC-PDB (M.D.Fla.,
October 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael N. Hanna, Esq
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Rd., 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954-318-0268
     Phone: 954-333-3515
     E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com


FACEBOOK: Austrian Student Loses Appeal in Privacy Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Price, writing for Business Insider, reports that Austrian law
student and privacy activist Max Schrems has reportedly lost his
appeal over a class-action lawsuit he brought against Facebook
over alleged privacy violations.

In July, a Viennese court had rejected Schrems class-action,
brought on behalf of 25,000 European Facebook-using claimants.
Schrems subsequently appealed this decision -- resulting in the
Oct. 20 verdict.

The court rejected the case in July because it said it didn't have
the necessary jurisdiction, The Wall Street Journal reported at
the time.


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Sports Website Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Johnson, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Fanduel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Draftkings,
Inc. a Delaware corporation, Case 1:15-cv-07963 (S.D.N.Y., October
9, 2015), alleges that Defendants operate daily fantasy sports
("DFS") websites in a manner that violates Kentucky, Massachusetts
and New York law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul C. Whalen
     LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
     768 Plandome Road
     Manhasset, NY 11030
     Phone: (516) 426-6870
     Fax: (212) 658-9685
     E-mail:pcwhalen@gmail.com

        - and -

     Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
     Alex C. Davis, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     Marion E. Taylor Building
     312 S. Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     Fax: (502) 587-2007
     E-mail:jasper@jonesward.com
            alex@jonesward.com


FERGUSON, MO: Mulls Settlement of Civil Rights Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Reilly and Mariah Stewart, writing for The Huffington
Post, report that lawyers representing the city of Ferguson,
Missouri, are considering settling a federal civil rights lawsuit
alleging widespread constitutional abuses in its municipal court
system, which -- along with the other municipal courts in
St. Louis County -- came under heavy scrutiny following the death
of Michael Brown in August 2014.

A filing on Oct. 19 indicated that lawyers representing Ferguson
and the civil rights attorneys representing poor defendants held
in Ferguson's jail had "been engaged in meaningful settlement
discussions" over the case.

The lawsuit was filed by ArchCity Defenders, as well as nonprofit
Equal Justice Under Law and the Saint Louis University School of
Law, on behalf of 11 poor individuals who had been held in
Ferguson's jail.

A lawyer for ArchCity Defenders, a local organization, which has
been heavily critical of the practices of municipal courts in St.
Louis County, asked a federal judge to extend the deadline to
argue for making it a class action. Lawyers for both sides did not
immediately respond to request for comment.

Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, operated a municipal court that
regularly violated the rights of black citizens to fill the city's
coffers, according to the Department of Justice's Civil Rights
Division.  The report, released earlier this year, said that many
officers and officials "appear to see some residents, especially
those who live in Ferguson's predominately African-American
neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as
potential offenders and sources of revenue."

The report found that the city, police and court officials have
"worked in concert to maximize revenue at every stage of the
enforcement process" for several years, and that black citizens
were disproportionately ticketed.

In August, the Ferguson City Council appeared to reject the DOJ's
first proposal to change and reform Ferguson's practices.

The Oct. 19 filing was the first indication that the city of
Ferguson had entered into negotiations over the lawsuit, which is
separate from the justice department probe.  The lawsuit at issue
alleged it was the practice of the city to "confine impoverished
people who cannot afford their release in grotesque, dangerous,
and inhumane conditions."

The lawsuit filed in February said that impoverished people
arrested in Ferguson are:

"kept in overcrowded cells; they are denied toothbrushes,
toothpaste, and soap; they are subjected to the constant stench of
excrement and refuse in their congested cells; they are surrounded
by walls smeared with mucus and blood; they are kept in the same
clothes for days and weeks without access to laundry or clean
underwear; they step on top of other inmates, whose bodies cover
nearly the entire uncleaned cell floor, in order to access a
single shared toilet that the City does not clean; they develop
untreated illnesses and infections in open wounds that spread to
other inmates; they endure days and weeks without being allowed to
use the moldy shower; their filthy bodies huddle in cold
temperatures with a single thin blanket even as they beg guards
for warm blankets; they are not given adequate hygiene products
for menstruation; they are routinely denied vital medical care and
prescription medication, even when their families beg to be
allowed to bring medication to the jail; they are provided food so
insufficient and lacking in nutrition that inmates lose
significant amounts of weight; they suffer from dehydration out of
fear of drinking foul smelling water that comes from an apparatus
on top of the toilet; and they must listen to the screams of other
inmates languishing from unattended medical issues as they sit in
their cells without access to books, legal materials, television,
or natural light."

The city of Jennings, which is near Ferguson, has already agreed
to settle a federal civil rights lawsuit that was filed at the
same time the lawsuit against Ferguson was filed.  Another nearby
town, the tiny municipality of Velda City, agreed to end its cash-
only fixed bail system that kept the poor imprisoned over low-
level charges.  Yet another town in St. Louis County, St. Ann, is
also under a federal court order to release those they arrest as
soon as practicable after booking unless they appear before a
judge within 24 hours.

Thomas Harvey, of ArchCity Defenders, said in an email that his
organization is working on details of the settlement with Ferguson
and that both sides had agreed to ask for a deadline extension.
He added that there was nothing to report publicly at this time.


FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit in Ga. Over FLSA "Violations"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antoaneta  Mintchev and Toriton Sellers, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Fleetcor Technologies
Operating Company, LLC, Case 1:15-cv-03586-CAP (N.D.Ga., October
8, 2015), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides fuel cards and workforce payment products to
businesses, commercial fleets, oil companies, petroleum marketers
and government entities throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


GLAXOSMITKLINE: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "King Drug" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Scirica of the United States Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court granting a
motion to dismiss the case captioned, KING DRUG COMPANY OF
FLORENCE, INC.; LOUISIANA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., INC., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Appellants, v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, doing business as GLAXOSMITHKLINE;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, Case
No. 14-1243 for failure to state a rule-of-reason claim under
Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  The Third Circuit remanded the case for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Plaintiffs, a putative class represented by King Drug Company of
Florence, Inc., and Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., sued GSK
and Teva in federal court in February 2012 and filed their
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint the following June.
They allege that defendants, by their no-AG agreement in effect --
a settlement in which the patentee drug manufacturer agrees to
relinquish its right to produce an "authorized generic" of the
drug, a "reverse payment" from GSK to Teva violated section 1 of
the Sherman Act by conspiring to delay generic competition for
Lamictal tablets and section 2 by conspiring to monopolize the
lamotrigine tablet market. In late January 2005, the parties tried
the patent case before Judge Bissell, who ruled that the patent's
main claim, for the invention of lamotrigine, was invalid.
Plaintiffs allege that "it was highly likely that Teva would
prevail with respect to the remaining patent claims," which "were
extremely weak in view of Judge Bissell's ruling that claim 1 was
invalid.

In February 2005, the parties settled their dispute before Judge
Bissell could rule on the validity of the '017 patent's remaining
claims. GSK agreed to allow Teva to market generic lamotrigine
chewables by no later than June 1, 2005, or 37 months before the
patent was to expire on July 22, 2008.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that under Actavis antitrust
scrutiny is not limited to reverse payments of cash. They assert
the antitrust laws may be violated when a brand-name drug
manufacturer induces a would-be generic competitor to delay market
entry by agreeing not to launch an authorized generic to compete
with the generic.

In the Opinion dated September 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/fAnO9xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Scirica concluded that
the no-AG agreement falls under Actavis's rule because it may
represent an unusual, unexplained reverse transfer of considerable
value from the patentee to the alleged infringer and may therefore
give rise to the inference that it is a payment to eliminate the
risk of competition and that the kind of settlements in the action
are subject to the rule of reason.

Plaintiffs are represented by Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. --
psp@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF
Defendants are represented by Jonathan D. Janow, Esq. --
jonathan.janow@kirkland.com, John C. O'Quinn, Esq. --
john.oquinn@kirkland.com & Karen N. Walker, Esq. --
kwalker@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS


GLOBE ENERGY: Faces "Serrano" Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Mario Serrano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Globe Energy Services, LLC, Case 7:15-cv-00170
(W.D.Tex., October 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages for Operators under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Globe is an oilfield service company with significant operations
in the southwest United States. Globe provides well servicing,
fishing and rental, fluid services, completion systems, production
chemicals, and artificial lift services through professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


GOLD FIELDS: Silicosis Class Action Bludgeons Gold Mining Sector
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franny Rabkin, writing for BusinessDay, reports that lawyers for
mine workers in the gold sector were trying to create the biggest
class of possible claimants in their silicosis class action,
bludgeoning the sector in the process, Gold Fields' counsel Jeremy
Gauntlett SC said on Oct. 19.

The landmark case, which began in the High Court in Johannesburg
on Oct. 12, has huge financial implications for gold mining
companies, with estimates that there are tens of thousands of
former gold miners who are suffering from silicosis. Compensation
claims could run to billions.

A big part of what the court must decide at this stage is how to
define the class of claimants, those people who would benefit from
the litigation if the class is certified.

Mr Gauntlett argued that if the applicants got their way on this
score, the number of potential claimants would remain obscure
"until late in the day" and could run to half-a-million people.
The approach taken by the applicants would make the case
unmanageable and turn it into "a very blunt weapon" to bludgeon
the gold mining companies, he said.

The applicants want the court to certify two classes of claimants:
one of former miners with silicosis and one of former miners who
do not have silicosis but have tuberculosis, arguing that there is
a relationship between high levels of silica dust, which
suppresses the immune system, and tuberculosis.

Willem van der Linde SC, also for Gold Fields, said that, unlike
silicosis, tuberculosis could be triggered by a range of factors,
making the link between high levels of silica dust and the disease
very complex.  Unlike silicosis, tuberculosis was also curable in
at least 80% of the cases. Based on these factors, only four out
of 100 might notionally benefit from a tuberculosis class
investigation, he said.

Mr. van der Linde also argued that there was no prima facie
evidence that exposure to silica dust resulted in tuberculosis.
The only reliable study referred to by the mine workers' legal
teams had been called "flimsy" by one of their own experts, he
said.

Mr. Gauntlett took issue with the applicants wanting the court to
order an "opt-out" approach to the litigation.  In such an
approach all those who fall within the class definition would
benefit, unless they decided to opt out.  Opting in would mean
that once the class was defined, only those who chose to
participate in the litigation were bound by its outcome.

Mr.  Gauntlett said, by going for an opt-out approach, the
applicants were trying to defer the moment of establishing how
many claims the gold companies would be facing, having earlier
said they could number anything between 250,000 and half-a-million
people.  This made the case a "blunt weapon".

The mine workers' lawyers have also asked the court to "develop
the common law" so that the families of those mine workers who
could die in the run-up to the trial could still benefit from
claims for pain and suffering.  Currently, the law states that if
a plaintiff dies a claim for pain and suffering -- one of the
claims the applicants plan to make -- dies with him, unless the
case has reached the point of "litis contestatio" or close of
pleadings.

Close of pleadings is the point in the run-up to a trial at which
all the allegations made on paper have been put before the court.

Mr. van der Linde said the original thinking was that pain and
suffering were viewed as highly personal and could not be
transferrable commodities (like other claims such as loss of
income).

The "litis contestatio" rule was an exception and a "line in the
sand". The courts could not simply change the line, as that was
the job of the legislature, he said.

But he faced a number of questions on this score from the bench
with Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo asking whether the
original line in the sand was drawn by the courts and pointing to
a number of earlier instances when the courts had scrapped
entitlements under the common law.

The hearing continues.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Wants 2nd Cir. to Hear Appeal in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that as the
securities class action bar continues to figure out exactly how
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Halliburton v. Erica P.
John Fund is going to impact shareholder fraud cases, Goldman
Sachs and its lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell want a say.

The bank has asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear
its appeal of a Sept. 24 opinion certifying a class of Goldman
investors to sue over statements in which the bank claimed to put
its clients' interests ahead of its own.  U.S. District Judge Paul
Crotty of Manhattan ruled shareholder lawyers from Labaton
Sucharow and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd showed Goldman's share
price dropped in response to four different events casting doubt
on those statements.  The so-called corrective disclosures
included the 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission's
announcement of an enforcement action against the bank for its
structuring of the infamous Abacus collateralized debt obligation,
which led to a nearly 13 percent stock drop; and a 2010 Wall
Street Journal report that Goldman was under criminal
investigation, which sent the share price down more than 9
percent.

The bank tried unsuccessfully to use the 2014 Halliburton decision
to block class certification.  In the Halliburton decision, as you
doubtless recall, the Supreme Court left in place the "fraud on
the market" framework that allows shareholders sue as a class
without proving individually that they relied on the defendant's
supposed misrepresentations.  But the court also said defendants
can attempt to rebut the presumption of investor reliance.

Goldman attempted to do just that, arguing that shareholders
didn't sell off the bank's stock because they suddenly realized
they'd placed unwarranted reliance on its conflict-of-interest
promises but because they were worried about fallout from
government investigations.  It provided Judge Crotty with expert
reports showing that Goldman's share price didn't increase when
the bank put out puffery about putting its clients' interests
ahead of its own and that investors didn't dump shares in response
to 34 different press reports about Goldman's alleged profiteering
at the expense of its clients.  The stock price only responded,
according to Goldman's experts, when the SEC and Justice
Department got involved.

Judge Crotty found that evidence wasn't good enough to rebut the
presumption of reliance.  "Defendants' attempt to demonstrate a
lack of price impact merely marshals evidence which suggests a
price decline for an alternate reason, but does not provide
conclusive evidence that no link exists between the price decline
and the misrepresentation," he wrote.  "Where defendants cannot
demonstrate a complete absence of price impact, and where
plaintiffs have demonstrated an efficient market, the presumption
(of reliance) applies, and plaintiffs have demonstrated classwide
reliance."

In its request for 2nd Circuit review of Judge Crotty's opinion,
Goldman contends the judge has set an impossible standard for
defendants, demanding they show a "complete absence of price
impact."  The bank argues that's not what the Supreme Court laid
out in Halliburton, and urged the appeals court to take the case
"to clarify and standardize the evidentiary showing required to
rebut the . . presumption" of reliance.

Goldman has backing in amicus briefs from the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and several securities law professors, including academics who
urged the Supreme Court in 2014 to do away with the presumption of
reliance.

Class counsel Thomas Dubbs of Labaton called Goldman's request for
2nd Circuit review "a brilliant, intellectually dishonest effort
to recast already decided non-class issues as class questions."
Even Goldman's experts, Mr. Dubbs said in an email, admitted that
the bank's share price dropped when its alleged client conflicts
came to light.  That alone, he said, means shareholders can be
presumed to have relied on Goldman's supposed misrepresentations.


GOODYEAR TIRE: French Workers' Class Action Can't Proceed in U.S.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed
class action alleging Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co failed to warn
French employees of the health risks posed by chemicals used to
make tires should be heard in France, a U.S. judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge John Adams in the Northern District of Ohio on
Oct. 15 agreed with Goodyear that the case should not move forward
in U.S. courts because France has tribunals focused on worker
safety, all of the witnesses in the case are in France and most of
the evidence submitted would be in French.


GREATWIDE DEDICATED: Faces Suit for Unfair Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nazal Sadiq, individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v.  Greatwide Dedicated Transport II, LLC; Larry Sharpe;
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, CASE No: RG15789114 (Cal. Super, County
of Alameda, October 9, 2015), alleges failure by the Defendant to
provide itemized wage statements, failure to provide meal periods,
failure to reimburse business expenses, waiting time penalties,
unfair business practices, racial discrimination, harassment.

Greatwide Dedicated is in the business of transporting goods from
one place to another throughout California and in various states
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hunter Pyle, Esq.
     Rachel Evans, Esq.
     SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYL-E
     428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 663-9240
     Fax: (510) 663-9241
     E-mail: hpylc@ssrplaw.com
             revans@ssrplaw.com


HELP AT HOME: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Phillips and Tonya Bush, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Help at Home, Inc., Help at
Home, LLC, Statewide Healthcare Services, Inc., Statewide
Healthcare Services, LLC, Hah Group Holding Company, LLC, and
Ronald Ford, Case: 1:15-cv-08954 (N.D.Ill., October 8, 2015),
seeks redress for Defendants' alleged wilful violations of several
federal and state wage and hour laws, including the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act, as well as for conversion.

Defendants HAH, Inc., HAH, LLC, Statewide, Inc., and Statewide,
LLC, are part of a multi-state business enterprise that provides
home healthcare services to customers. In many states, this
business enterprise does business as "Help at Home."  In other
states, this business enterprise does business as "Oxford
HealthCare."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Eleonora P. Khazanova, Esq.
     Amy E. Collins, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail:tom@attorneyzim.com
            ella@attorneyzim.com
            amy@attorneyzim.com
            matt@attorneyzim.com
            nick@attorneyzim.com


HIGHER ONE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc., continues to defend a securities class
action, 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 May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff.

On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an amended complaint. HOH
former shareholder Robert Lee was added as a named plaintiff in
the amended complaint. HOH and certain employees and board members
have been named as defendants. Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee generally
allege that HOH and the other named defendants made certain
misrepresentations in public filings and other public statements
in violation of the federal securities laws and seek an
unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee seek to
represent a class of any person who purchased HOH securities
between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. In response,
Plaintiffs have filed an opposition brief opposing dismissal. HOH
intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations.

HOH is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.


JK & T WINGS: Faces Suit in Mich. for Alleged FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Langlands And Melissa Montie, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, v.  JK &
T Wings, Inc., a Michigan for-profit corporation, Case No: 2:15-
cv-13551-VAR-MJH (E.D.Mich., October 8, 2015), seeks to recover
the benefits due to them from Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Act as a
result of Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum wages to
Plaintiffs.

Defendant owned and operated approximately 40 Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurant locations in the States of Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Louisiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
     Omar Badr, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
     23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
     Brownstown, MI 48134
     Phone: (734) 692-9200
     Fax: (734) 692-9201
     E-mail:bryan@yaldoulaw.com


JP MORGAN: To Pay Lion's Share of CDS Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller, writing for CFO, reports that JP Morgan Chase,
Morgan Stanley, and Barclays will pay the lion's share of a $1.86
billion settlement of a class-action lawsuit alleging 12 major
banks conspired to fix prices and restrain competition in the
credit default swap market.

The settlement was announced but details were only disclosed on
Oct. 16 in court papers.  Investors including hedge funds, pension
funds, and university endowments sued the banks in October 2013.

JPMorgan will pay $595 million of the settlement, while Morgan
Stanley and Barclays will pay $230 million and $178 million,
respectively.  According to Bloomberg, an individual defendant's
portion of the settlement is largely based on the plaintiffs'
measure of CDS market share.

Other banks that settled include Goldman Sachs ($164 million),
Bank of America ($90 million), Credit Suisse ($159 million),
Deutsche Bank ($120 million), Citigroup ($60 million), and BNP
Paribas ($89 million).

British banks HSBC and Royal Bank of Scotland will pay $25 million
and $33 million, respectively.

Credit default swaps allow investors to buy protection to hedge
against the risk that corporate or sovereign debt issuers will not
meet their payment obligations.  The market peaked at $58 trillion
in 2007, according to the Bank for International Settlements, but
shrank to $16 trillion seven years later as investors better
understood its risks.

In the class action, investors claimed the banks caused them to
pay unfair prices on CDS trades from late 2008 through the end of
2013, even though improved liquidity should have driven costs
down.

They also said the banks tried in late 2008 to thwart the launch
of a credit derivatives exchange being developed by CME Group Inc
by agreeing not to use new CDS platforms and pressuring the
International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) and Markit
not to provide licenses to the exchange.

The ISDA will pay $750,000, while Markit, which provides credit
derivative pricing services, will pay $45 million to settle the
investors' claims against them.

A lawyer for the investors has described the outcome of the case
as "one of the largest antitrust class-action settlements, and an
extraordinary result for the class."


KING CABLE: "Nasufi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Hamdija "Frank" Nasufi, and all others similarly situated v. King
Cable, Inc. and Manuel Gonzales, Case No. 3:15-cv-03273-B (N.D.
Tex., October 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Gonzales is the president of King Cable.

Defendant King Cable, Inc. provides cable/wire installation and is
an Illinois corporation actively doing business in the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry S. Hersch, Esq.
      HERSH LAW FIRM, PC
      3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
      Dallas, TX 75219-5133
      Tel. (214) 303-1022
      Fax (214) 550-8170
      E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com


MARINELLO SCHOOLS: Beauty School Students Lose Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for SFGate, reports that a federal judge has
denied wages to beauty-school students who did hair stylings
without pay at salons in San Francisco and Las Vegas while their
school collected the revenue from the customers.

The stylists-in-training at Marinello Schools of Beauty said the
school put them to work five days a week, with little supervision,
and encouraged them to sell salon products when they weren't
cutting and braiding hair.  The students filed a class-action suit
against the school, which has 57 locations in six states, seeking
reclassification as employees entitled to minimum wages and
overtime.

But U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of San Francisco said on
Oct. 16 that the trainees had presented little or no evidence that
they were working as employees -- that Marinello designed their
program mainly to benefit the school and not the students.

"Clinical work is an essential part of these students' training,"
Chhabria said in dismissing the lawsuit, noting that state
cosmetology boards require many hundreds of hours of training to
qualify for a license.  The fact that they "worked in a realistic
salon environment isn't enough to show that their work served a
business purpose over an educational purpose. . . . Working on
paying customers has obvious educational value in preparing
students for careers."

Judge Chhabria said the students offered only "vague and sparse"
evidence to back up their claim that Marinello failed to provide
supervision or training: One student, for example, said
instructors were present "sometimes," while another said
instructors were available six times out of 10.  Without more
specific evidence, he said, "no reasonable juror could conclude
that the schools subordinated the educational function of the
clinics for the purpose of making money."

Edward Cramp, a lawyer for the school, said three federal judges
elsewhere have dismissed similar suits against other beauty
schools.  At least two of those rulings are being appealed.
Leon Greenberg, a lawyer for the students, said anyone who works
for a for-profit business that competes in the marketplace, like
Marinello, should be considered an employee entitled to wages.
"They're selling the students' labor . . . in competition with
other salons," he said.


MAVERICK FUND: Court Partially Grants Motion to Dismiss TAC
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida granted in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the case
captioned, MAVERICK FUND, L.D.C., MAVERICK FUND USA, LTD.,
MAVERICK FUND II, LTD., MAVERICK NEUTRAL FUND, LTD., MAVERICK
NEUTRAL LEVERED FUND, LTD., MAVERICK LONG FUND, LTD., and MAVERICK
LONG ENHANCED FUND, LTD., Plaintiffs, v. LENDER PROCESSING
SERVICES INC., (n/k/a BLACK KNIGHT INFOSERV, LLC), JEFFREY S.
CARBIENER, FRANCIS K. CHAN, BLACK KNIGHT HOLDINGS, INC. (f/k/a
BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.), SERVICELINK HOLDINGS, LLC
(f/k/a BLACK KNIGHT FINANCIAL SERVICES II, LLC), BLACK KNIGHT
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-1585-J-32LRK.
The plaintiffs in the instant case, Maverick Fund, L.D.C.,
Maverick Fund USA, Ltd., Maverick Fund II, Ltd., Maverick Neutral
Fund, Ltd., Maverick Neutral Levered Fund, Ltd., Maverick Long
Fund, Ltd., and Maverick Long Enhanced Fund, Ltd. are all private
investment funds managed by the same registered investment
manager, non-party Maverick Capital, Ltd. Between October 23, 2009
and October 4, 2010, they allegedly purchased millions of shares
of a company then known as Lender Processing Services, Inc.
According to Maverick, during the period, LPS engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate its revenue and stock
price by relying on illicit business practices and Maverick was
damaged as a result. On November 23, 2010, LPS shareholders filed
a class action in the Court alleging violations of federal
securities fraud claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5, and state law claims for common law fraud,
civil RICO under Georgia and Florida law, and negligent
misrepresentation under Florida and New York law.

After hearing argument from the parties, the Court granted the
motion without prejudice to Maverick repleading the complaint. The
Court memorialized its ruling in a written order, gave Maverick
until September 5, 2014 to file a third amended complaint, and set
in place a briefing schedule on any new motion to dismiss.
In the motion, the defendants in the now-settled class action had
moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the lead plaintiff
had not adequately pleaded (1) that the individual defendants had
"made" the allegedly false statements, (2) that the statements
were materially false or misleading, (3) a strong inference of
scienter on the part of each defendant, and (4) that the class
actually sustained a loss as the result of the alleged fraud.

In his Order dated September 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/YkKqpqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corrigan found most of
the defendants' arguments not well-taken, except with respect to
scienter. Some but not all of Maverick's claims are due to be
dismissed with prejudice, and LPS is due to answer those claims
that remain. But what specific allegations in the lengthy Third
Amended Complaint remain to answer is unclear. The Court directed
Maverick to replead its complaint to include only those
allegations not foreclosed by the Order on or before October 30,
2015 and LPS to file its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
or before December 3, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by David A. Thorpe, Esq. --
david@dstlegal.com & Matthew P. Siben, Esq. --
matthew@dstlegal.com -- DIETRICH SIBEN THORPE LLP

-- and --

Stephen E. Walker, Esq.
BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP
303 Banyan Blvd #400,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Tel: (561)842-2820

Defendants are represented by Charles P. Pillans, III, Esq. -
cpp@bedellfirm.com -- BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE,
PA, George E. Anhang, Esq. -- ganhang@cooley.com & Lyle Roberts,
Esq. -- lroberts@cooley.com -- COOLEY, LLP


NAVY FEDERAL: "Munday" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Munday, and all others similarly situated v. Navy Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 8:15-cv-01629 (C.D. Calif., October 9,
2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is a credit union located in Vienna, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      10645 North Tatum Blvd., Suite 200-192
      Phoenix, AZ 85028
      Tel: (480) 247-9644
      Fax: (480) 717-4781
      E-mail: tkent@lemberglaw.com


NBC: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over NFL TV Rights
----------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline.com, reports that legal
actions against the NFL over anticompetitive practices have been
piling up of late like a 1-yard fight on any given Sunday. Now
there's a new player on the field with a sprawling new antitrust
class action lawsuit filed against not just every single team in
the NFL and Sunday Ticket package provider DirecTV but also NBC,
CBS, Fox and ESPN.

"The 32 professional football teams that compete in the National
Football League ('NFL') have agreed among themselves to eliminate
all competition in the broadcasting and sale of live video
presentations of professional football games," says the October 16
jury-seeking complaint filed by lawyers for New York City's Bounce
Sporting Club, other establishments, and Oakland resident Jonathan
Frantz.  "The AT&T DirecTVTeams have agreed not to avail
themselves of cable, satellite, or Internet distribution channels
individually," the 40-page injunction-seeking filing in federal
court adds.  "On information and belief, DirecTV's contracts with
the NFL include clauses mandating that the NFL and its Teams
retain that anticompetitive scheme," it also says of the weekly
package the satellite provider offers for more than $350 a season
to individual fans. And if you wonder why bars like Bounce are
taking on the NFL, DirecTV and the nets: "Limited to only one
source for the football programming that many of their customers
demand, commercial establishments pay anywhere from $1,458 a year
to more than $120,000 a year--as much as ten times more than they
pay for other sports packages."

Which means, like the upcoming January trial Major League Baseball
is facing over similar accusations -- and in which some of the
attorneys in this matter are also participating -- the NFL could
find itself facing potentially millions of class members if this
case gets its desired certification.  As for the broadcasters? A
shattering of the current system could see not only Sunday Ticket
lose its grip but the approximately $6 billion annually networks
pay to the NFL to show games on Sunday Night Football, Monday
Night Football and Thursday Night Football move to a whole new
more individualized and undoubtedly digital landscape -- one where
they potentially could not command the big ad bucks they presently
receive.

"The Teams have all forgone this option in favor of creating a
more lucrative monopoly.  The Teams have agreed to make an
offering called 'NFL Sunday Ticket' ('Sunday Ticket') the only way
to view games other than the limited selection of games broadcast
through sponsored telecasts, in any given area," notes the new
complaint regarding the rigid delivery and deals now in place.

"In addition to allowing Defendants to charge supracompetitive
prices for Sunday Ticket, this scheme protects the five networks
that currently contract with the NFL to broadcast regular season
NFL games: the cable channels ESPN and NFL Network, and the
terrestrial networks CBS, NBC, and Fox (collectively, the "Network
Defendants")," the filing notes.  "By limiting the availability of
competing products, the agreements drive up the market share and
value of the Network Defendants' broadcasts."

The nets had no response to the Oct. 16 filing, which is now in
front of Judge Alison Nathan, who oversaw the now close to settled
The Wendy Williams Show and Lionsgate intern lawsuit.

Jeffrey Dubner -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- Richard Koffman and
Daniel Rehns -- drehns@cohenmilstein.com -- of NYC's Cohen
Milstein; and Howard Langer, Edward Diver as well as Peter Leckman
of Langer Grogan -- iackelsberg@langergrogan.com -- and Mr. Diver
represent the plaintiffs in this case.


NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Awaits Approval of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC is waiting for preliminary approval by the
court of the settlement in a wage and hour action, 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.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars while on Property
for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform, alleged
improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other
claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada
State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.

In early April 2015, the Company commenced arms-length settlement
negotiations leading to an agreement in principle to resolve both
the Nevada State Court and the U.S. District Court lawsuits. The
proposed resolution includes an anticipated total net payment of
approximately $7.0 million inclusive of the opposing counsel fees
and all costs of administering the settlement. After such expenses
are paid, the remaining amount will comprise a settlement fund. Of
this amount the Company will pay out only that portion actually
claimed by putative class members. The proposed settlement is
subject to approval by the courts. The Company recorded the $7.0
million anticipated net settlement amount in the consolidated
financial statements during the period ended March 31, 2015.

As of June 30, 2015, a settlement agreement is in place. Agreement
documents were presented on July 16, 2015 and the Company is
waiting for preliminary approval by the court.


NEVADA PROPERTY 1: Deal in Wire Tap Case Under Consideration
------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 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 the settlement in the
case related to alleged unlawful taping/recording is presently
under consideration by the Court.

In September 2012, a purported class action lawsuit against the
Company was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, claiming violation of the California Penal Code
regarding the alleged unlawful taping or recording of telephone
calls to and from the Company. On August 31, 2012, the Company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Subsequently, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike the class
allegations. On July 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court issued an
order denying these motions.

The Company continues to deny all liability to the putative class
members but, at a mediation held on February 20, 2015, the Company
agreed to settle all of the claims against it in this matter for a
total payment of $14.5 million recorded in the period ended
December 31, 2014. The amount is inclusive of all attorneys' fees
to the putative class counsel and all costs of administering the
settlement. The Company, the plaintiff and the putative class
counsel have reached a settlement agreement and presented their
settlement agreement for preliminary approval by the U.S. District
Court on May 8, 2015. The matter is presently under consideration
by the Court. If the settlement agreement is preliminarily
approved, the Court will schedule a final fairness hearing to
determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate
and whether judgment should be entered.


NISKA GAS: Plaintiffs to Seek Consolidation of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Niska Gas Storage Partners 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 the Defendants'
date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the class
action litigation has not yet been set as Plaintiffs' counsel has
advised that Plaintiffs will be moving to consolidate the
Litigation into one action.

Between June 26 and July 2, 2015, alleged unitholders of Niska Gas
Storage Partners LLC (the "Plaintiffs") filed four class action
lawsuits against Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, Niska Gas Storage
Management LLC ("ManagementCo"), Niska Sponsor Holdings
Co‚ÄĚperatief U.A. ("Swan Sponsor") (collectively "Niska"),
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. ("Brookfield"), Swan
Holdings LP ("Parent"), Swan Merger Sub LLC ("Merger Sub"), and
the members of Niska's board of directors (collectively with
Niska, the "Defendants") in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. These lawsuits are styled (a) Eddie Barringer vs. Niska
Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al. (Case No. 11210); (b) David Raul
vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al. (Case No. 11220); (c)
Nathan Peterson vs. Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC, et al., (Case
No. 11234); and (d) Fred Pappey vs. William H. Shea, Jr. et al.,
(Case No. 11238) (collectively, the "Litigation").

The Plaintiffs allege causes of action challenging aspects of the
proposed acquisition of Niska Gas Storage Partners LLC by
Brookfield Infrastructure Partners L.P. and its institutional
partners (the "Brookfield Merger"), including that Niska's board
of directors breached their alleged fiduciary duties to Niska's
unitholders and that Niska and Brookfield aided and abetted the
board of director's breaches of alleged fiduciary duties. In
general, the Plaintiffs allege the Brookfield Merger (a) provides
inadequate consideration to Niska unitholders; (b) contains
contractual terms (e.g. the no-solicitation, information rights,
matching rights, and termination fee provisions) that dissuade
other potential merger partners from making competing proposals;
and (c) is not subject to a "majority of the minority" voting
requirement.

Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs request relief
enjoining Niska from proceeding with or consummating the
Brookfield Merger. To the extent that the Brookfield Merger is
consummated before injunctive relief is granted, the Plaintiffs
seek to have the Brookfield Merger rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek
damages and experts' and attorneys' fees.

The Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Litigation has not yet been set as Plaintiffs'
counsel has advised that Plaintiffs will be moving to consolidate
the Litigation into one action and file a consolidated amended
complaint. At that point, the parties will negotiate a schedule
for Defendants to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond.
The Defendants believe the Litigation is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against it.


O'FALLON, MO: May Face Class Action Over Towing Fees
----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Donald, writing for Belleville News-Democrat, reports
that a decision by the Illinois Supreme Court paves the way for a
class-action suit against multiple metro-east cities that have
been charging administrative towing fees, some of them reaching
$500 or more.

Earlier this year, Edwardsville attorney Brian Polinske filed
individual lawsuits against six metro-east cities alleging that
they are requiring unreasonable fees from people whose cars are
towed after an arrest.  Suits were filed against O'Fallon and
Fairview Heights in St. Clair County and against Alton,
Collinsville, Edwardsville and Granite City in Madison County.

But after multiple legal challenges, those suits may now be going
forward.  Recently, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal
of a lower court ruling, sending the suits back to Madison County
for trial.

When a defendant is arrested -- sometimes for minor infractions
like driving on a revoked license, other times for more serious
violations such as driving under the influence -- the car is often
towed away.  In addition to the court fines and fees, the
defendant must pay for the tow, and for the impound fee charged
for storing the car.

But before that can happen, he or she has to get a receipt from
City Hall stating that he's cleared to get his car back. In some
cities, that's an expensive receipt.  These so-called tow
redemption fees in the metro-east range from $100 for minor
offenses up to $500 or more for more serious offenses.

The statute says that cities may charge a reasonable fee to recoup
their administrative expenses.  But Mr. Polinske maintains that
$500 is not a reasonable fee for issuing a receipt.

"They are not going to be able to justify their costs,"
Mr. Polinske said.  "The statute reads 'reasonable fee.'
Presumably that means they can't overbill."

The lawsuits were filed in December 2011 with multiple plaintiffs,
alleging that the fees are excessive and violate due process of
law.  Among the plaintiffs was Allan Lewis of Edwardsville, who
was arrested on May 20, 2011.  The suit alleged that in addition
to his court fines, tow and storage fees, he had to pay another
$300 fee to the city of Edwardsville for the receipt that allowed
him to get his car back.

Another plaintiff, Rogelio Saladrigas of Mascoutah, was charged
with driving under the influence of alcohol in October 2011 and
was sentenced to a $3,000 fine, 100 hours of community service and
completion of an alcohol abuse treatment program.  Mr. Saladrigas
joined the lawsuit against O'Fallon regarding the $500 fee he had
to pay to get his car back.

The lawsuits were dismissed in 2012, amended and resubmitted, then
dismissed again in October 2013.  Mr. Polinske appealed to the 5th
District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon, which reversed the lower
court's decision and sent the suits back to Madison County.

Collinsville appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.  But on
Sept. 30, the high court declined to hear the case.  That
effectively affirms the appellate court decision.

Steve Giacoletto, attorney for Collinsville, said they intend to
continue defending the city as they did before, and declined
further comment.

Mr. Polinske said eventually he will file to combine the suits
into one class-action suit.  First, he said, they will go forward
with discovery motions.  He did not anticipate quick settlements.
"We're going to get ready for trial," he said.

In the last three fiscal years, the cities in question have
received anywhere from $250,000 to half a million dollars in tow
reception fees.  In Edwardsville, accurate records were not kept
until 2013.  In late 2012, then-police chief James Bedell was
found to be embezzling money garnered from the vehicle tow release
fees. Often paid in cash, Mr. Bedell stole nearly $140,000 over
three years to support a gambling habit and was sentenced to 18
months in federal prison.

A line item of $93,640 for impound fees is part of Collinsville's
2015 city budget.  Belleville's fiscal 2016 budget anticipates
$165,000 from vehicle tow release fees, up from $150,00 budgeted
the year before, and Granite City has budgeted $75,000.

In their pleadings, the cities maintained that the man-hours
required to process the paperwork for these crimes justify the
fees.  Earlier Edwardsville Police Chief Jay Keeven said he
considers is a "user fee."

"If you don't want to pay the fee, don't drive drunk," he said.

Alton Mayor Brant Walker agreed. "You have the right to choose not
to commit a felony," Walker said.

But Mr. Polinske said the cities already receive a $500 law
enforcement fee paid by everyone who pleads guilty to DUI, plus
federal and state grants for DUI enforcement costs.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Motion in FDCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Eidelman, writing for insideARm, reports that a class
action against Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) was certified
on February 5th of this year by Plaintiffs Nicola Magee and James
Peterson for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), and included approximately 400,000 people.  Specifically,
Magee and Peterson allege that PRA sent letters demanding payment
of time-barred debt without disclosing that the debt was time-
barred, and threatened to credit report the debt after a time that
the debt could no longer be reported.

During the process of discovery, Plaintiffs learned that PRA had
since modified and sent new notices to those affected, clarifying
that the debt at issue is time-barred.

As a result, the Plaintiffs have since filed a Motion to modify
the class definitions to include only those who actually paid in
response to the collection letters, those who have not received a
subsequent letter from PRA informing them that the debt is time-
barred or no longer can be reported on their credit report, and
those who have filed a lawsuit.  PRA filed a Motion to oppose the
modification, as well as a Motion to Decertify the Classes.  On
October 8, 2015 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois granted Plaintiffs' Motion and denied PRA's Motion.

PRA offered several arguments to support their opposing Motion,
all of which were rejected by the Court:

They argued that the class should be decertified because the
potential monetary would be de minimis.  The Plaintiffs argued,
however, that the modification would increase the amount paid to
each member [of the smaller group], which counters this claim.
They suggested that Plaintiff's counsel is inadequate, as they are
attempting to "abandon" class members.  Plaintiffs argued that the
revised notice itself represents the most substantial part of the
relief they would likely receive if they remained in the class,
therefore those original class members have indeed been well-
served.

They argued that changing the class definition would injure both
PRA and potential class members, as the modification would impact
the FDCPA claims of any member removed from the class.  PRA noted
that the Plaintiffs' claim stopped the statute of limitation
period for three years; an amended complaint instead of a motion
to modify the class would have caused more of the claimants' debts
to now be time-barred.  The Court rejected this argument, claiming
that PRA offered insufficient explanation.

They argued that narrowing the class to those who made a payment
as a result of an allegedly deceptive letter would require an
individualized determination for each person's motives.  In other
words, it's unclear whether they made payment because they were
deceived, or because of other reasons.  Citing two previous cases,
the Court held that "the fact that damages are not identical
across all class members should not preclude class certification,"
and "the need for individual damages determinations at [a] later
stage of the litigation does not itself justify the denial of
class certification."


PRO'S SPORTSBAR: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Alleged Labor Law Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Thomas, Cynthia Williams, and Sydney Doyal, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Case No. 15-cv-8945,
v. Pro's Sportsbar And Grill, Inc. and Tharon Bradley, Case: 1:15-
cv-08945 (N.D.Ill., October 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, interest, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act.

Pro's operated a restaurant and bar located at 18601 S. Cicero
Avenue, Country Club Hills, Illinois, 60478. Pro's has conducted
business in its own name and in the name of BR Steak Bar and
Steakhouse.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
     Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
     HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK &DYM, LTD.
     70 W. Madison St., Suite 4000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 580-0100


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Warren Police Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Revance 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 as of May 2015, the
Company became subject to a legal complaint, captioned City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics
Inc., et al, CIV 533635, which was filed on behalf of City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the Superior Court for
San Mateo County, California against the Company and certain of
its directors and executive officers at the time of the follow-on
public offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as
the underwriters in the follow-on public offering.

In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the then-present status of the RT001 clinical
program and made false and misleading statements regarding the
formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of its drug candidate,
RT001, for the treatment of lateral canthal lines at the time of
the follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a
purported class action on behalf of those who purchased common
stock in the follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is
probable that future expenditures will be made and such
expenditures can be reasonably estimated. At this time, neither
the outcome of this matter, nor an estimate of the maximum
potential exposure or the range of possible loss can be
determined. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
Nevertheless, this litigation, as any other litigation, is subject
to uncertainty and there can be no assurance that this litigation
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.


RJ REYNOLDS: Faces Class Action Over Use of Nicotine in Vaping
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chriss W. Street, writing for Breitbart, reports that looking to
form class action lawsuits under California's Proposition 65,
nominal plaintiff Jerod Harris filed a federal complaint against
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. claiming he didn't know vaping uses
nicotine.

Battery-powered vaporizers, known as e-cigs, simulate the feeling
of smoking without tobacco combustion.  Their use is commonly
referred to as "vaping."

Since its patenting by a Chinese pharmacist named Hon Lik, the use
of a high-frequency piezoelectric ultrasound-emitting element
combined with a pressurized jet of liquid containing nicotine has
ignited a major boom.  Vaping's inventor developed the device to
end lung cancer, emphysema and other deadly side effects of
traditional smoking.

The boom really took off after a federal court in 2010 overturned
a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2009 decision to
regulate e-cigs like cigarettes.  Since 2013, the number of vape
stores has jumped from 3,500 to 35,000.  RJR's "Vuse" is now
America's most popular e-cigarette, with about $400 million in
sales.

Cigarettes were once a spectacularly good business for retailers,
such as convenience stores.  According to the Association for
Convenience and Petroleum Retailing, cigarettes accounted for
nearly 36 percent of the sales revenue in convenience stores in
their peak year of 2009.  Average cigarette revenue per store was
$576,354 with an 18 percent gross profit of $89,923. In the last 6
years, cigarette smoking has declined.

But that is chump change compared to profits in the vape business.
Most accessories and vape products have a markup of between 200
and 400 percent.  Some electronic pens cost $250.  With total
sales up from $1 billion in 2013 to $2.5 billion in 2014, some
stores are bringing in $1.3 million a year.

Doctors state that vaporizers are safer than 7,000 chemicals in
cigarette smoking, but there haven't been any long-term studies to
suggest what years of vaping will do to a body.  The good news is
that cigarette smoking has fallen by 18 percent, according to the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  But e-cigs and
vape pipes usually use-candy type flavorings, which are extremely
attractive to teenagers, to deliver nicotine.

The combination of a booming industry, lack of information,
concerns about long-term effects on youth, and Reynolds Vapor Co.
as a deep pocket was bound to cause enterprising mass tort lawyers
to sue under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic
Enforcement Act of 1986, known as Prop 65.

The initiative was supposedly intended by its authors to protect
California citizens and the State's drinking water sources from
chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other
reproductive harm, and by requiring companies to disclose to
citizens what the effect of the exposures to such chemicals would
be.  But it was funded by mass tort lawyers.

PepsiCo was forced into a big settlement on September 15 under
Prop 65 because of its use of the scary sounding 4-Methylimidazole
for its distinct caramel coloring.  Despite the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and its Canadian and the European Union
counterparts saying the chemical poses no risk to human health for
ingestion of up to 1,000 cans of soda a day, California listed 4-
mei as a "known carcinogen" under its chemical labeling law.

Pepsi agreed to pay $385,000 to settle claims in Center for
Environmental.  Health v. Pepsi Beverages Co., No. 14711020,
admitting that its products contain levels of 4-methylimidazole
(4-MEI) that exceed the limits imposed by the Safe Drinking Water
and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.

The settlement paves the way for parties to a proposed class
action lawsuit alleging similar facts titled, No. 178953 to stay
proceedings until December 14, 2015, pending settlement
discussions.  The monetary numbers in that case are expected to be
huge.

The beauty of Prop 65, from a mass tort lawyer's point of view, is
that the law puts the onus on businesses to label their products
as carcinogens if rats given very large doses of a chemical
develop any cancerous tumors.

Just six days after just days after California's Health Department
on January 28 declared e-cigarettes are a public health threat,
the Oakland, CA nonprofit health watchdog Center for Environmental
Health (CEH) filed a complaint on February 5, 2015 against 19
companies that sell e-cigarettes and/or e-liquids without consumer
warnings, as required under Prop 65. CEH claims that the products
expose users to nicotine, a chemical known to pose serious
reproductive health hazards, and thus must carry warnings. The
named defendants are::

E-liquids

Ballistic Vape Inc.; Ballistic Vape TruNic USA Liquid Nicotine in
Praline Dream
Steam Distribution; Ballistic Vape TruNic USA Liquid Nicotine in
Praline Dream
Beard Vape Co; Beard Vape Co.Juice No. 5
Bodyrock Products; Hard Cocktails E-Liquid in Angel's Share
The Daily Vapes; The Daily Vapes Juice in Bake Sales
Exquisite E Liquid; Exquisite E-Liquid in Nature's Harvest
Five Pawns; Signature Vapor Liquid Mixology Edition in Perpetual
Check
Joyetech/Shenzhen Joyetech; Joyetech Cigar E-Liquid
Limitless Trading Co; Drip E-Liquid in Guava Nectar
Nicopure Labs; EVO E-Liquid Evolved in Maraschino
Tenacious 7 Vapor; Tenacious 7 E-Juice in Peach Fuzz
Throttle Vapor; Throttle Vapor E-Juice in Slow Ride
USVC, Inc.; Organic Premium Vape Juice in Nutty Chocolate
The Vape Kitchen; Epicurean E-Liquid in Thai Mango Sticky Rice
Vaporall; E-Liquid in Lusty Lychee
E-cigarettes and/or vaping kits

PHD Marketing; Xhale X MC Vapor Pen in Green
S & E Distributor; Tsunami Disposable E-Cigarette
Smoke Tokes; Green Man CE Series Vaporizer
Vapor Exotica; V-Exotica Vapor Pen


ROCKET FUEL: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Fuel 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 defendants have
moved to dismiss the Securities Litigation.

On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two
purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and its
secondary offering on February 5, 2013 (the "Secondary Offering")
are also named as defendants.

These actions were consolidated and a consolidated complaint, In
re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation, was filed on February 27,
2015. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the ability of the Company's
technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and
about Rocket Fuel's future prospects. The consolidated complaint
also alleges that the Company's registration statements and
prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained
false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated
complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and for violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock
between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well
as those who purchased stock in its initial public offering on
September 19, 2013, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering.

The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount. All defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on April 13, 2015.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this
purported class action.


SAMARI LAKE: Faces "Mera" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Agner Mera a/k/a "Narra" and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Samari Lake East Condominium Association,
Inc., Florida's Property Management Group Corp., Sunshine
Management Services, LLC, Rosendo Hernandez, Case 1:15-cv-23774-
MGC (S.D.Fla., October 8 2015), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail:zabogado@aol.com


TAKATA CORP: Faces "Snyder's" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Honda Motor
CO., LTD., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG, Bmw Of North America, LLC, Bmw Manufacturing CO., LLC,
Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., And Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North
America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor Of America,
Inc., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mitsubishi Motors North America,
Inc., Nissan Motor Co., LTD., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji
Heavy Industries, LTD., Subaru Of America, Inc., Case 5:15-cv-
00875-OLG (W.D.Tex., October 8, 2015), concerns alleged defective
airbags manufactured by Defendant Takata Corporation and its
related entities, and equipped in vehicles manufactured by Honda,
BMW, Ford, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota, and
their related entities, and in vehicles manufactured by Chrysler
and General Motors.

Defendant Takata is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs,
manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
     Mark J. Heise, Esq.
     James Lee, Esq.
     Tyler Ulrich, Esq.
     STUCKY & FIELDS LLC
     100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (305) 539-8400
     Fax: (305) 539-1307
     E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com
             mheise@bsfllp.com
             jlee@bsfllp.com
             tulrich@bsfllp.corm

        - and -

     R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
     Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
     Frank Ulmer, Esq.
     MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
     12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
     P.O. Box 505
     Charleston, SC 29451
     Phone: (205) 238-6757
     Fax: (904) 239-5388
     E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
             srnccluer@mccul1eymcc1uer.com
             fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com

        - and -

     Christopher J. Stucky, Esq.
     Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
     STUCKY & FIELDS LLC
     214W. 18th St., Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 659-9970
     Fax: (816) 659-9969
     E-mail: chris@2stuckyfields.com
             ben@stuckyfields.com


STERNE AGEE: Settles Two Class Actions Over Botched IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that a $2
million check and a bankruptcy creditor's claim for potentially
millions more are helping bring a resolution to lingering disputes
over the remains of a Richmond financial firm.

A pair of settlements has been reached in two lawsuits tied to the
now bankrupt shell of Anderson & Strudwick, a longtime downtown
investment banking firm that was acquired by an out-of-town buyer
in 2011.

In one settlement, Sterne Agee, an Alabama-based investment firm
that purchased the bulk of A&S' assets four years ago, agreed to
pay $2.25 million to resolve a dispute with the bankruptcy trustee
over whether Sterne should be on the hook for the debts and
liabilities of A&S.  Much of those liabilities stemmed from class-
action lawsuits filed over an apparently botched IPO of a Chinese
drug company that A&S was involved in in 2011.

The second settlement would set a cap of $14 million on the amount
of debt claims that could be made by a group of disgruntled
shareholders from that Chinese IPO for Tibet Pharmaceuticals.  A&S
served as the underwriter in the IPO and allegedly helped
disseminate untruthful prospectuses to investors.

That $14 million figure would be included on the list of claims
from A&S' unsecured creditors.  While collecting on that full
amount is unlikely, Tibet shareholders will receive the bulk of
any assets recovered down the road by the trustee.

The bankruptcy of the leftover shell of A&S goes back to May 2014,
when a former A&S executive petitioned to push the surviving post-
Sterne-acquisition entity into an involuntary bankruptcy.

The case was confirmed that June, and a Chapter 7 trustee was
appointed to search for other assets and debts.  The bulk of the
initial assets was the $1 million that was apparently set aside in
escrow as part of the deal with Sterne Agee.  The potential debts
were eventually found to be around $22 million, thanks to possible
damages from the pending class-action cases, which were eventually
rolled into one case.

A judge then ruled that Sterne could potentially have to cover
some of those liabilities as a "successor-in-liability," because
it bought A&S and thereby bought its obligations.

Complicating the matter was the fact that Sterne was itself in the
midst of being acquired by St. Louis-based Stifel.  That deal
closed this June to the tune of $150 million.

Ultimately, a federal bankruptcy judge in Richmond approved the
two settlements, ruling that they are in the best interest of the
A&S estate and its creditors.

The $2.25 million that Sterne agreed to pay is contingent upon
confirmation of the class-action settlement, which is expected
likely early next year after efforts to notify shareholders are
completed and a fairness hearing is held in federal court.

That $2.25 million will eventually be paid into the bankruptcy
estate to be divvied out to creditors.

The other settlement also prohibits the Tibet shareholders from
further filing suits against Sterne Agee.

The trustee in the case is Bruce Robinson.  He is represented by
LeClairRyan attorneys Vernon Inge -- vernon.inge@leclairryan.com
-- and Corey Simpson Booker -- corey.booker@leclairryan.com

Commenting on news of the settlements, Mr. Inge said: "While no
settlement leaves the parties completely happy, the trustee
believes that these settlements are good for the estate because
they should get some funds to creditors without the big risk of
the case being insolvent."


SUBWAY: Settles Class Action Over Footlong Sandwiches
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Maze, writing for Nation's Restaurant News, reports that
Subway will work more diligently to make sure its Footlong subs
are actually a foot long, according to a settlement proposal
announced on Oct. 19 between the Milford, Conn.-based sandwich
giant and customers who felt cheated out of an inch of bun.

The company, which has been working on a settlement over the
lawsuits for two years, said in a release on Oct. 19 that it has
agreed to certain practice changes and to pay attorneys' fees and
awards to plaintiffs.

According to court documents, the settlement deal includes
requirements that franchisees measure bread to ensure that
Footlong and 6-inch subs are the correct length.

The company also agreed to other enforcement and quality control
measures to ensure that operators are complying with the rules.

Attorneys' fees could be up to $525,000 in the case, and
plaintiffs could seek up to $1,000 in incentive awards.

The lawsuit dates back more than two years, when an Australian
teenager posted on Subway Australia's Facebook page a picture of a
Footlong sub with a tape measure showing the sandwich to be 11
inches.  The post went viral, and Subway quickly apologized and
vowed to work on operations to ensure consistency.

Still, attorneys began swirling. Numerous plaintiffs from various
courts filed lawsuits in state and federal courts in 2013.  The
cases were consolidated into one class-action lawsuit in a
Wisconsin federal court that year, and the two sides began
mediating a settlement.

Some settlement terms were first reached 18 months ago, but
attorneys spent months arguing over fees and payments to class
representatives.  The deal was signed in September, however, and a
judge gave preliminary approval on Oct. 2.  A hearing for final
approval has been set for January.


T-MOBILE US: Faces "Leitner" Suit Over Postpaid Services
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Leitner, on behalf of herself, and others similarly
situated, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and T-Mobile US,
Inc.,; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case 8:15-cv-01620-JLS-
KES (C.D., Cal., October 8, 2015), was filed on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated individuals who applied for T-
Mobile US, Inc. postpaid services or device financing between
September 1, 2013, and September 16, 2015.

The suit alleges willful violation of (1) The Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") 2. negligent violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act 3. Violation of the California Data Breach Act 4.
Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act 5. breach of contract
6. Breach of implied contract 7. Negligence 8. Bailment 9.
Violation of Business & Professions Code.

T-Mobile is a mobile cellular and data provider in the United
States with over 56.8 million subscribers as of March 31,
2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
     Sara D. Avila, Esq.
     MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
     2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
     Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Phone: (310) 396-9600
     Fax: (310) 396-9635
     E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
             savila@milsteinadelman.com

        - and -

     Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     30 North LaSalle Street
     Suite 3200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 782-4880
     Fax: (312) 782-7785
     E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

        - and -

     Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
     Kelly Tucker, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     1101 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 864-2800
     Fax: (215) 864-2810
     E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
             ktucker@caffertyclobes.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit for Alleged Underpayment of Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Tovmassian, Mercurios Hanna and Morad Hanna, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, BC
597341 (Cal. Super., Oct. 9, 2015) seeks monetary damages and
restitution arising out Defendants' alleged unfair practices
regarding underpayment and excessive charges to drivers.

The company has developed, markets and operates the Uber Mobile
App, which allows consumers with smart phones to submit a trip
request which is then routed to Uber drivers who use their own
cars.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
     K.L. Myles, Esq.
     KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
     550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
     Glendale, CA 91203-1922
     Phone: (818)547-5000
     Fax: (818)547-5329
     E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
             klm@kpclegal.com

        - and -

     Joseph S. Farzam, Esq.
     JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM
     11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 280
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 226-6890
     Fax: (310) 226-6891
     E-mail: joseph@farzamlaw.com


UBER: Judge Dismisses Driver's Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit filed by an Uber driver
against the ride service over a data breach disclosed by the
company, according to a ruling on Oct. 19.

In February, Uber revealed that as many as 50,000 of its drivers'
names and license numbers had been improperly downloaded.  One
driver, Sasha Antman, sued Uber alleging poor network security.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco ruled that
Antman had not plausibly alleged that Uber's conduct surrounding
the data breach caused injury.  Judge Beeler gave Antman's
attorneys 28 days to file an amended lawsuit to try to establish
legal standing.


WILLBROS GROUP: Dismissal of Restatement Class Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Willbros Group, 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 has filed a
motion to dismiss the case related to the Company's October 21,
2014 press release announcing the restatement of condensed
consolidated financial statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014.

After the Company announced it would be restating its Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on October 28, 2014
seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock and alleging damages on their behalf arising from
the matters that led to the restatement. The original defendants
in the case are the Company and its former chief executive officer
and current chief financial officer.

On January 31, 2015, the court named two employee retirement
systems as Lead Plaintiffs. On March 31, 2015, a consolidated
complaint was filed in which the current chief executive officer
of the Company was added as a defendant.

On June 15, 2015, a second amended consolidated complaint was
filed. The complaint in the case, now entitled In re Willbros
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, arising out of the restatements of the Company's first
and second quarter 2014 financial statements, its statements
regarding debt compliance and liquidity, the decision to shut down
the regional business, the delay in filing the 2014 10-K, and the
determination that a material weakness existed as of December 31,
2014, and seeks undisclosed damages.

On July 27, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
As this matter is at a very early stage, the Company is not able
at this time to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising
from this matter. The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.


VOLKSWAGEN: Center for Auto Safety Files Dirty Diesel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that
Volkswagen already faces more than 400 lawsuits filed by U.S.
consumers over its use of sophisticated computer software to cheat
on emission tests as well as investigations by government
agencies, but the latest lawsuit, if successful, may produce
results that actually benefit the general public.

It was filed on Oct. 19 by the Center for Auto Safety (CAS), a
Washington, D.C. non-profit that has been battling the auto
industry for 45 years.  Unlike the private lawsuits which seek
monetary damages for VW and Audi owners, the center's suit seeks
action to clean up the damage from VW's actions and ensure the
violations are not repeated.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks an injunction ordering VW:

   -- To remediate the environmental harm caused by VW's emissions
      relief;

   -- To appoint an independent organization to monitor VW's
      compliance with state and federal laws as well as other
      relief granted in this lawsuit; and

   -- To order VW to pay a portion of its annual net profits into
      an independent fund administered by third parties to a non
      profit organization to offset the environmental damage.

"Unprecedented corporate crime"

"CAS has sued VW and Audi because they committed an unprecedented
corporate crime and fraud on the public that requires injunctive
relief to remedy the harm caused by their violations of state and
federal environmental and consumer protection laws," said Clarence
Ditlow, executive director of the center. "Class actions and
government enforcement actions result in headlines, penalties and
settlements that do nothing to change underlying corporate
behavior or remediate the underlying damage caused by illegal
behavior."

Mr. Ditlow said other sanctions commonly imposed on automakers
also fall short.

"The independent monitors and auditors sanctioned by the Justice
Department and federal agencies are nothing more than corporate
law firms and employees who are all too willing to sign off on the
behavior of their employers in documents filled with withheld
redactions.  When so-called independent funds are set up as was
done in the Toyota Unintended Acceleration class action, they go
to auto company designed programs that benefit the auto maker, not
the consumer," Mr. Ditlow said, vowing that his group will get
results.

"CAS will use its integrity and skills acquired through 45 years
of battling the auto industry to ensure that this litigation will
reform VW and Audi once and for all and set a precedent for all
other auto companies in the future," Mr. Ditlow said in an email
to ConsumerAffairs.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mutari" Suit Over Fraud Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Mutari, Deborah M. Figart, and all others similarly-situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and
Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07408 (D.N.J., October 9,
2015), seeks compensatory, exemplary, and punitive remedies and
damages and statutory penalties, including interest against the
Defendants for alleged fraud and violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

The Plaintiffs alleges that the Defendants, including Volkswagen
AG and Audi AG, and/or their agents designed the Clean Diesel
engines and cars, as well as the "defeat device," for distribution
in the United States.  These same Defendants and/or their agents
developed and disseminated the (fraudulent) advertisements,
warranties, and promotional materials related to the Clean Diesel
cars throughout the United States.

Defendant Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation of Defendants
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America,
Inc. The Defendants designed, manufactured, imported, and sold
vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert A. Magnanini, Esq.
      STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
      100 Connell Drive, Suite 2200
      Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
      Tel: (973) 218-1111
      Fax: (908) 464-3010
      E-mail: rmagnanini@stonemagnalaw.com

          - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Tel: (914) 749-8200
      Fax: (202) 749-8300


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "O'Leary" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen O'Leary, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07377 (D.N.J., October 9,
2015), seeks damages against the Defendant for common law fraud
and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff alleges that Volkswagen has falsely marketed its so-
called "clean diesel" vehicles as high performing, fuel efficient,
and environmentally-friendly.

Volkswagen is a corporation doing business in all 50 states and is
organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with its
principal place of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche
Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171. As such, Volkswagen is a citizen
of New Jersey and Virginia. At all times relevant to this action,
Volkswagen was involved in designing, engineering, manufacturing,
assembling, testing, marketing, distributing and selling the
Affected Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 584-0700


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit in Cal. Over "Clean" Diesel Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Khedr, Barry Wong, Doris Lee, Christina Capone, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. Volkswagen
Group Of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and AUDI AG, Case 5:15-cv-
04702 (N.D.Cal., October 9, 2015), arises out of a grand scheme by
Defendants to commit fraud on the U.S. automobile market regarding
its allegedly "clean" diesel vehicles.

The suit alleges (1) Violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act (2) Fraud by Concealment or Misrepresentation (3) Fraud
California Law, (4) Negligent Misrepresentation (5) Violations Of
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (6) Violations Of The
False Advertising Law, (7) Unlawful Business Practices In
Violation Of The Unfair Competition Law (8) Unfair Business
Practices In Violation Of The Unfair Competition Law, California
Business & Professional Code (9) Fraudulent Business Practices In
Violation Of The Unfair Competition Law (10) Breach Of Express
Warranty, California Commercial Code (11) Violations Of The Song-
Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Breach Of Implied Warranty,
Calif. Civil Code (12) Breach Of Contract (13) Breach Of Implied
Warranty Of Merchantability, Calif. Commercial Code (14) Unjust
Enrichment.

Volkswagen designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and
warrants vehicles in the United States under the Volkswagen and
Audi brand names.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher D. Banys, Esq.
     Richard C. Lin, Esq.
     Jennifer L. Gilbert, Esq.
     BANYS, P.C.
     1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100
     Palo Alto, California 94303
     Phone: (650) 308-8505
     Fax: (650) 353-2202
     E-mail:cdb@banyspc.com
            rcl@banyspc.com
            jlg@banyspc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Killebrew" Suit Over "Defeat" Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly L. Killebrew, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., A New
Jersey Corporation, Case 1:15-cv-03604-MHC (N.D.Ga., October 9,
2015), arose because Volkswagen allegedly purposefully and
intentionally breached the laws of the United States and the rules
and regulations of various states and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by selling in the United States Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles that purposefully evaded federal and state laws.

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lawhon" Suit Over "CleanDiesel" Engine
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Lawhon, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., a New
Jersey Corporation, Case 8:15-cv-02377-MSS-JSS, (M.D.Fla., October
8, 2015), arises out of Volkswagen's alleged deceptive marketing
of its new breed of diesel cars powered by TDI (Turbo-charged
Direct Injection) "CleanDiesel" engine.  The suit alleges that the
Defendants violated the federal Clean Air Act as well as the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations, and it
violated Florida statutory and common law including the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It breached express and
implied warranties under Florida law.

Volkswagen designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and
warrants vehicles in the United States under the Volkswagen and
Audi brand names. Volkswagen is the world's largest automaker with
diesel engines accounting for over 20 percent of its sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Phone: 304-345-6555
     Fax: 304-342-1110
     E-mail: jboggs@baileyglasser.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lively" Suit Over "Defeat Device"
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ray Lively, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarity situated, v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc.;
Volkswagen AG & Audi AG, Case 2:15-cv-13773 (S.D.W.Va., October 8,
2015), alleges that Volkswagen deliberately installed
sophisticated "defeat device" software in certain Volkswagen
"Clean Diesel" vehicles identified by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency for the purpose of manipulating emissions
testing.

Volkswagen designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and
warrants vehicles in the United States under the Volkswagen and
Audi brand names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, VA 25311
     Phone: (304) 343-4401
     Fax: (3040 343-4405
     E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
             drbaneywv@gmail.com

        - and -

     Mark F. Underwood, Esq.
     UNDERWOOD LAW OFFICE
     923 Third Avenue
     Huntington, VA 25701
     Phone: (304) 522-0508
     Fax: (304) 399-5449
     E-mail: markunderwood@underwoodlawoffice.com

        - and -

     Rodney P. Jackson, Esq.
     401 Fifth Third Center
     700 Virginia Street, East
     Charleston, VA 25301
     Phone: (843) 870-6879
     Fax: (304)344-9566
     E-mail: prodjackson27@yahoo.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Whitcomb" Suit Over Clean Diesel Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Whitcomb, on behalf himself and all others similarly
situated, V. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG,
Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-01315-LO-MSN
(E.D.Va., October 8, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and equitable relief, including but not
limited to, the return of the purchase price of their cars with
TDI CleanDiesel engines, return of the premium they paid for the
Clean Diesel cars, compensation for the diminution in value of
their cars, and compensation for the additional expenses (such as
additional fuel costs) they incur as a result of Defendants' yet-
to-be made modifications to the Class Vehicles.

Volkswagen designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and
warrants vehicles in the United States under the Volkswagen and
Audi brand names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Boies, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     333 Main Street
     Armonk, NY 10504
     Phone: (914) 749-8200
     Fax: (202) 749-8300

        - and -

     Scott E. Gant, Esq.
     Melissa Felder Zappala, Esq.
     Stacey K. Grigsby, Esq.
     Wells Harrell, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Phone: 202-237-2727
     Fax: 202-237-6131
     E-mail: sgant@bsfllD.com
             mzappala@bsfllp.com
             sgrigsbv@.bsfllp.com
             wharreli@bsfllp.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Mullins" Suit Over Pork & Beans Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Thompson Mullins, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case: 1:15-cv-08946
(N.D.Ill., October 8 2015), was brought on behalf of a proposed
sub-class, composed of all those who purchased Wal-Mart's "store
brand," "Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce," at a Wal-Mart
store located in Illinois between October 8, 2012 and the present,
who were allegedly deceived into believing the product contains
pork.

Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is the owner and operator of
various Wal-Mart stores throughout the United States, including
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 545-4653
     E-mail: pollack@whafh.com

        - and -

     Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
     THE WILNER FIRM
     444 E. Duval Street
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone: (904) 446-9817
     Fax: (904) 446-9825
     E-mail: rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com




                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *