CAR_Public/151103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 219


                            Headlines


ABC CORP: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ADOLF'S MEAT: Recalls Assorted Meat Products Due to Listeria
ALBEMARLE CORP: Delaware Chancery Court Terminating Class Action
ALLIED OIL: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
ALPHA & OMEGA: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMERIANA BANCORP: Faces "Stein" Class Action in Indiana
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kellam" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Harvey" Securities Class Suit in N.J.
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismiss "Montalbano" Case

ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Tsantes" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss New Complaint
BARRETT BUSINESS: No Discovery Yet in W.D. Wash. Class Actions
BEST LUCK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
BIOSCRIP INC: Chancery Court Approves Settlement, Atty. Fees

BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Heath" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Stuffed Animals Due to Choking Hazard
BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
CALISTA SUPERFOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CANADA: Nov. 30 Day Scholar Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

CINEMARK USA: "Amey" Case in Pretrial Discovery
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces "Bethell" Class Action in Florida
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Lawsuit Involving Opt-Out Plaintiff Continues
CLIFTON AVE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Espinoza" Suit Says
CMPC TISSUE: Faces Suit Over Alleged Tissue Paper Price Collusion

CONCREATIONS OF COLORADO: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Hoff Complaint Withdrawn
DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Parties in Reiferson Suit Inks MOU
DS SERVICES: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ENCORE CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending

EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Harger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Shareholder Actions Sought
GENCO SHIPPING: Plaintiffs Withdrew Appeal in Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Cal. Over Sierra Vehicle Design Defects
GFI GROUP: Oral Argument in "Gross" Case Held
H2S HOLDINGS: "Cortes-Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HC2 HOLDINGS: Class Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Pending
HARVEST NATURAL: Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action Sought

HOWARD SOLOCHEK: "Gibeau" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Still Pending
IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Oral Argument Yet on Opana Case Dismissal
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Aruliah Case Awaits Final OK

INFOCISION MANAGEMENT: "Wajert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss Van Noppen Complaint Pending
INNOPOWER INC: Recalls Climbing Sticks Due to Fall Hazard
J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Case
J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed

J2 GLOBAL: Discovery on Case filed by LEO and Dancel Ongoing
JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
JAY-JAY CABARET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Racey" Suit Says
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: "Tesch" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
JOSEPH EPSTEIN: Recalls Meatball Products Due to Misbranding

KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Removers Due to Noncompliance
L.L. BEAN: Recalls Hunting Knives Due to Laceration Hazard
LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Flying Ace Toys Due to Choking Hazard
LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard
LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control System Due to Injury Risk

LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Related to Ticketing Fee Settlement
LONESTAR RESOURCES: "Gonzales" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 25 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Notice Sent to Class Members
MAELI ROSE: Recalls Girl's Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard

MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automated Calls
MARTEL'S FAMILY: Faces "Escobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXLINEAR INC: Entropic Merger Case Subject to Negotiation
MDC PARTNERS: Faces Class Suit by Firefighters Pension Plan
MICHAEL KORS: Faces "Hyseni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

MINNESOTA: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over FLSA Violation
MODEL N: Discovery in Securities Action Ongoing
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Action Remains Subject to Court Approval
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cases by Foam Products Purchasers Still Open
MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settles Claims by Canadian Plaintiffs

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, "McCoy" Suit Claims
NEW ENGLAND FITNESS: Sued in New Jersey Over TCCWNA Violation
PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Unit Dismissed from "Baker" Class Action
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
PATRICK W. LAWLOR: Sui Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

PELMEN FOODS: Recalls Dumpling Products Due to Non-Inspection
PHL VARIABLE: Court Granted Preliminary Approval of Settlement
PLY GEM: Deal Reached with Objectors to Vinyl Clad Settlement
PLY GEM: "Memari" Case in South Carolina Court Dismissed
PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling in "Pagliaroni" Case

PLY GEM: Court Has Not Yet Rule on Appeal in "Muhler" Case
PLY GEM: Strathclyde Securities Litigation Dismissed
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Lead
PRA GROUP: Court Lifted Stay in TCPA Litigation
QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles & Cranksets Due to Fall Hazard

QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Action Seeks $21MM for Damages, Fees
REDBACK ENERGY: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ROVINI CONCRETE: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RUSTICO FOODS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Non-Inspection
SAM'S WEST: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Costumer Refund

SHAN NAMKEEN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHULER MEATS: Recalls Turkey Products Due Non-Inspection
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Lawsuits on Premature Corrosion Resolved
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid in "Nishimura" Pending
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trials Expected in Early to Mid-2016

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trial Dates Set for First 2 Bellwether Cases
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Jan. 4 Trial Set in Missouri State Court Case
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlements Being Negotiated with Several Groups
SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Grabowski" Deal to Resolve 2 Other Suits
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Distribution of Funds to "Angell" Class Pending

SOLAZYME INC: Norfolk County Retirement System Case Filed
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Cohen Entered Appearance as Co-Counsel
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Proceedings in "Perry" Action Stayed
STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Certification Bid Remains Under Advisement
SUPREME SERVICE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

SYATT FRANCHISING: "Fuller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Turkey Meatloaf Products Due to Misbranding
TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration to Settle Labor Rift
TMCD CORPORATION: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Baltimore Circuit Court

TRE AMICI: Faces "Carrillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
UGI CORPORATION: Notice of Appeal Filed by Direct Customers
UNITED STATES STOVE: Recalls Pellet Heater/Stove Products
USPACK LOGISTICS: Faces "Easterday" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

VERSACE USA: Sued in New York Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Rochford" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brown" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clark" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gentry" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Henderson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hoag" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Landau" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Levy" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Linnee" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Fraud by Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Breach of Contract

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gibson" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Representation
W2007 GRACE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
WALTER INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit
WELLS FARGO: January 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Curry Chicken Salad Products Due to Listeria

WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Settlement Approved for Immaterial Amount
XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Claims in Initial Stages
XPO LOGISTICS: "Molina" Action in Initial Stages of Discovery


                            *********


ABC CORP: "Romero" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Jose Romero, and all others similarly-situated v. ABC Corp. dba
Nassau Fire Apparatus, ABC Corp. dba North Eastern Fire & Rescue,
Andrew M. Buglione, Robert Buglione and John Does 1-2, Case No.
2:15-cv-05861 (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid wages for overtime work performed, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants is a rescue vehicle and equipment distributor
specializing in a wide variety of rescue products for companies in
New York & Vermont.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Tel: (516) 280-4600
      Fax: (516) 280-4530
      Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


ADOLF'S MEAT: Recalls Assorted Meat Products Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Adolf's Meat Products, a Hartford, Conn. establishment, is
recalling approximately 224 pounds of assorted meat that may be
adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following items, produced on Oct. 20, 2015, are subject to
recall:

  --- 14-lb. of Smoked Kielbasa
  --- 100-lb. of Hams
  --- 40-lb. of Canadian Bacon
  --- 30-lb. of Bone-In Pork Loins
  --- 50-lb. of Liverwurst

The smoked kielbasa products bear establishment number "EST.
34651" inside the USDA mark of inspection, while other products
were sold without labels from behind a deli counter. All recalled
products were sold at the company's store, Adolf's Meat & Sausage
Kitchen, located in Hartford, Connecticut.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS sample testing.
There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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

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

FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Joseph Gorski, President, at (860) 522-1588.

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


ALBEMARLE CORP: Delaware Chancery Court Terminating Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Chancery
Court has issued an Order dismissing with prejudice the Delaware
consolidated action, thereby terminating the shareholder class
action litigation.

On July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County ("Superior Court of New Jersey") relating to the Merger. On
July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey relating to the Merger.
Both suits named the same plaintiff but were filed by different
law firms.

On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative
class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") relating to the
Merger. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and the lawsuits filed in
Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et
al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami
Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al., each named Rockwood, its former directors,
and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in
Delaware also named Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Albemarle, as a defendant. The lawsuits, which
contained substantially similar allegations, included allegations
that Rockwood's former board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger by failing to ensure that
Rockwood shareholders would receive the maximum value for their
shares, failing to conduct an appropriate sale process and putting
their own interests ahead of those of Rockwood shareholders.
Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have aided and abetted the
alleged fiduciary breaches. The lawsuits sought a variety of
equitable relief, including enjoining the former Rockwood board of
directors from proceeding with the proposed Merger unless they
acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize
shareholder value and rescission of the Merger to the extent
implemented, in addition to damages arising from the defendants'
alleged breaches and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On
August 27, 2014, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered the three
Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The
court also ordered that no response to the complaints would be due
until after plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On
September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended
complaint which included allegations that the registration
statement failed to disclose material information.

Plaintiffs in Thwaites II and in the Delaware consolidated action
subsequently coordinated their litigation efforts, and the
Delaware consolidated action was stayed pending the outcome of the
Thwaites II litigation. In Thwaites II, the parties (including the
Delaware plaintiffs) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on
November 6, 2014, provisionally settling all claims in the pending
actions and declaring the parties' intent to submit a settlement
agreement for the court's approval within 90 days.

On December 2, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to
extend the defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint in
Thwaites II until February 4, 2015. The parties executed a final
Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") on February
4, 2015. In addition to extinguishing the current claims, the
Stipulation contemplates broad releases of any and all actual and
potential claims, whether known or unknown, by any member of the
putative shareholder class against the defendants relating to or
arising out of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the
registration statement.

On February 26, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was unopposed. The Superior
Court of New Jersey granted the motion on March 31, 2015, and
scheduled the final settlement hearing for July 30, 2015.

In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation and the Court's
Order preliminarily approving the settlement, notice of the
settlement and final hearing date was provided to former Rockwood
stockholders on April 14, 2015.

On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of
the settlement. On July 16, 2015, defendants filed a letter with
the Court in support of the pending motion for final approval
filed by plaintiffs' counsel and requested that the proposed
settlement be approved by the Court. The deadline for objections
to the settlement to be postmarked and filed with the Court was
also July 16, 2015. No such objections were filed.

On July 20, 2015, defendants filed an Affidavit of Mailing and
Posting of Class Notice prepared by Donlin, Recano & Company,
Inc., ("DRC") with the Court, delineating the steps taken by
defendants and DRC to disseminate the Notice of Pendency of Class
Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing and confirming
that notice had in fact been provided to the class members.

On July 30, 2015, the final settlement hearing was held before the
Superior Court of New Jersey, which issued a Final Order and
Judgment approving the settlement.

On August 4, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation,
plaintiffs in the Delaware actions filed a notice of dismissal of
the pending consolidated action with prejudice. On August 5, 2015,
the Delaware Chancery Court issued an Order dismissing with
prejudice the Delaware consolidated action, thereby terminating
the shareholder class action litigation.


ALLIED OIL: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
Larry Gonzales, and all others similarly-situated v. Allied Oil &
Gas Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00883 (W.D. Tex., October 13,
2015), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants provide products and services in the oil and gas
industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which
fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ALPHA & OMEGA: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Marshall, Lawrence Gates and Earl Hensley, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. Alpha & Omega
Transit Network, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-09243 (N.D. Ill., October
19, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Alpha & Omega Transit Network, Inc. operates a medical service
transportation company in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY, & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive
      Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-220929
      E-mail: info@touhylaw.com

         - and -

      Peter Lubin, Esq.
      Vincent DiTommaso, Esq.
      DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
      The Oak Brook Terrace Atrium
      17W220 22d Street, Suite 200
      Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181
      E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
              vdt@ditommasolaw.com


AMERIANA BANCORP: Faces "Stein" Class Action in Indiana
-------------------------------------------------------
Ameriana Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action
complaint, captioned Shiva Stein v. Ameriana Bancorp, et al., was
filed on July 8, 2015, under Case No. 49D01-1507-PL-022566 in the
Marion Circuit Court, Indiana, against the Company, its directors
and First Merchants Corporation challenging the merger of the
Company with and into First Merchants. The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by agreeing
to the proposed merger at an unfair price and by agreeing with
First Merchants to unreasonable deal protection provisions that
discourage other bidders. The plaintiff further alleges that the
Company's directors and officers were not independent or
disinterested with respect to the merger. The plaintiff also
alleges that First Merchants aided and abetted the Company
directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks,
among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees
and certain other damages. The Company, its directors, and First
Merchants believe this action is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kellam" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Kellam, and Andrew Nemit, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc.,
American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01725 (D. Colo., October 19, 2015) arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for
Domestic Airfare in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig Briskin, Esq.
      MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com

         - and -

      Barbara Hart, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601-2301
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: bhart@lowey.com


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Harvey" Securities Class Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Harvey, and all others similarly-situated v. Amicus
Therapeutics, Inc. and John F. Crowley, Case No. 3:15-cv-07448
(D.N.J., October 13, 2015), seeks damages for Defendants' alleged
violation of the Exchange Act.

This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Defendant Amicus
Therapeutics, Inc. common stock between September 15, 2015 through
October 1, 2015.

The Plaintiff alleged that on the same day that Amicus met with
the United States Food and Drug Administration to discuss the
development of its new drug, migalastat, Amicus and its
Chief Executive Officer, John F. Crowley, and together with
Amicus, issued a false and misleading press release describing
that meeting and its outcome to Amicus investors.

Defendant Amicus Therapeutics, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation
with its principal place of business in Cranbury, New Jersey.
Amicus trades on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the ticker symbol
"FOLD," and claims that it is a "biotechnology company at the
forefront of therapies for rare and orphan diseases," with "a
robust pipeline of advanced therapies for a broad range of human
genetic diseases."

Defendant John F. Crowley is the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Amicus.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000
      Fax: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal Case Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a
shareholder litigation filed an appeal with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from a district court
decision granting motions to dismiss.

On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and
December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled
Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch
v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits
allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for
Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December
12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order
of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class
period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30,
2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's
officers, directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the
Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common
stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10,
2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the
defendants' and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint in these consolidated actions.

On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Dismiss "Montalbano" Case
------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted, in part, a motion to dismiss a product
liability lawsuit involving ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the
Company revealed 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 March 11, 2015, a product liability lawsuit, styled Thomas
Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
naming the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company's cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and
lacked adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to
August 2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages,
punitive damages and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees.

On May 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in this action. On July 31, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida heard oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On
August 4, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with respect to the plaintiff's cause of action for punitive
damages and denied the remainder of the Company's motion to
dismiss.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Tsantes" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Tsantes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Atmel Corporation, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-286958
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
the public stockholders of Atmel Corporation to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Atmel by Dialog Semiconductor PLC, through
a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Atmel Corporation designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
semiconductor integrated circuit products primarily in the United
States, Asia, Europe, South Africa, and Central and South America.

Dialog Semiconductor PLC is a company incorporated in England and
Wales, which creates and markets mixed signal integrated circuits
for personal portable, short-range wireless connectivity, LED
solid state lighting, and automotive applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss New Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has filed a new motion to dismiss a new
complaint in the securities litigation, Aveo said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Two purported shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against AVEO and certain of our former officers and present and
former directors (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho). The cases were consolidated as In
re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:13-cv-
11157-DJC, and in an amended complaint filed on February 3, 2014
the lead plaintiffs alleged that AVEO made false and/or misleading
statements concerning the development of the drug tivozanib and
its prospects for FDA approval. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

"We moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and after briefing and
oral argument, on March 20, 2015, the Court granted our motion and
dismissed the case without prejudice," the Company said. "The lead
plaintiffs were allowed to amend and refile their complaint, and
they filed a second amended complaint bringing similar
allegations.  We filed a new motion to dismiss this new complaint
on July 17, 2015, and the plaintiffs filed an opposition to that
motion on July 31, 2015."

"We intend to continue to deny any allegations of wrongdoing and
to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there is no
assurance that we will be successful in our defense or that
insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or
judgment or the litigation costs of the action. Moreover, we are
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss at this time."


BARRETT BUSINESS: No Discovery Yet in W.D. Wash. Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery has not
been undertaken in the consolidated class actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller,
BBSI's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the
market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a
charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The
lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined
at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including
attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims
for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also
appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35
Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint that asserts the same legal claims
as the original lawsuits. On June 12, 2015, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. A hearing on
the motion to dismiss the lawsuits was scheduled for early
September 2015. Discovery has not been undertaken as it is
automatically stayed under the federal Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.


BEST LUCK: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Juarez and Maria Villagran, on behalf of themselves and
others similar1y situated v. Best Luck BNY Laundry Inc. d/b/a B.N.
Y. Cleaners, and Chong Zhang, Case No. 1:15-cv-08210 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a laundry shop with a principal
place of business at 272 East Third Street, New York, New York
10009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER PLLC
      708 Third A venue - 61th floor
      New York NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


BIOSCRIP INC: Chancery Court Approves Settlement, Atty. Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery has issued an order approving a class action settlement
and awarded $750,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to
Plaintiff's counsel.

On April 9, 2015, two separate putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Court") by
purported stockholders Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin
("Plaintiffs"), respectively, in connection with the Purchase
Agreement with the PIPE Investors, against the Company, Directors
of the Company and the PIPE Investors. Pursuant to the Purchase
Agreement, the Company issued and sold to the PIPE Investors in a
private placement (as defined above, the "PIPE Transaction") an
aggregate of (a) 625,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, (b)
1,800,000 PIPE Class A Warrants, and (c) 1,800,000 PIPE Class B
Warrants.

As disclosed in the Company's definitive proxy materials relating
to the 2015 Annual Meeting, the Company sought Stockholder
Approval to remove certain conversion and voting restrictions
affecting the Series A Preferred Stock and exercise restrictions
affecting the PIPE Warrants (as defined above, the "Stockholder
Approval"). Until Stockholder Approval was obtained, the terms of
the Series A Preferred Stock and the PIPE Warrants contained caps
on the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock into Common
Stock and on the exercise of the PIPE Warrants to purchase Common
Stock (the "Conversion Caps") and a cap on voting power (the
"Voting Cap" and, together with the Conversion Caps, the "Caps")
that prevented the issuance of Common Stock if a single holder
would own or vote more than 19.99% of the Common Stock or have
more than 19.99% of the voting power. If the Company did not
receive Stockholder Approval before September 30, 2015, then the
Caps would have remained in effect and the dividend rates on the
Series A Preferred Stock would have increased (the "Dividend Rate
Adjustment").

The Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the Dividend
Rate Adjustment was invalid, that the Board had breached their
fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote on the Stockholder
Approval scheduled for the 2015 Annual Meeting was coercive and
based on inadequate disclosure. The Plaintiffs' complaint sought a
preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the vote on
Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting, additional
disclosures, certain declaratory relief, and costs and
disbursements, including attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

On April 17, 2015, the two separate class action lawsuits were
consolidated by order of the Delaware Court as In re BioScrip,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the "Delaware
Action").

On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") to settle the
Delaware Action. The parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement on May 11, 2015 (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). In
consideration for the full settlement and release of the Delaware
Action (the "Settlement"), the Stipulation of Settlement provided
for, among other things, agreement that if Stockholder Approval
was obtained, causing the Caps to be removed and the Dividend Rate
Adjustment to never go into effect, the Delaware Action will be
dismissed with prejudice, subject to court approval. The
Stipulation of Settlement also provided for an award of no more
than $750,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to Plaintiffs'
counsel, subject to court approval.

Stockholder Approval was obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting on
May 11, 2015, and, therefore, subject to court approval of the
Settlement, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice
by the Delaware Court in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement. The Delaware Court held a hearing on
July 29, 2015, to consider the fairness of the Settlement and
award of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The order approving the
Settlement and award of $750,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses
to Plaintiff's counsel was issued on July 29, 2015.

"The Company carries insurance coverage in such amounts as we
believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, which will cover
a certain percentage of the attorneys' fees award," the Company
said. "We believe the action may implicate one or more
indemnification agreements between the Company and certain
defendants, for which there may be no insurance coverage. While no
assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter,
we believe that the final resolution of this action is not likely
to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources."


BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Heath" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Heath v. Brothers Entertainment Group, LLC d/b/a
Teasers, Case No. 2:15-cv-00530 (S.D. Ala., October 19, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked over 40 hours per week.

The Defendant owns and operates an adult entertainment lounge
featuring dancers at 14634 W U.S., Newton, Alabama 36352.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas
      Robert J. Camp
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER, & GOLDFARB LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              rcamp@wigginschilds.com


BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Stuffed Animals Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc, of St. Louis, Mo., announced a
voluntary recall of about 33,600 Starbrights Dragon stuffed
animals (an additional 1,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The satin seam of the stuffed animal can open, allowing the
stuffing material to be exposed, posing a choking hazard for young
children.

Starbrights Dragon is covered in a blue furry fabric with silver
satin tummy, feet pads, wings and horns. The horns light up and
the toy makes a musical sound when the hand is squeezed. The
stuffed animal is about 17 inches high. The tracking label ending
with 9333 or 9334 for USA and 9337 or 9459 for Canada can be found
on the label sewn on the backside of the leg.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6z8qYw

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Build-A-Bear Workshop stores and online at www.buildabear.com
between April 2015 and August 2015 for about $25.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled stuffed animal away
from children and return it to any Build-A-Bear Workshop store to
receive a coupon for any Build-A-Bear stuffed animal.


BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Burley Design LLC, of Eugene, Ore., announced a voluntary recall
of about 34,000 Child bicycle trailers (in addition about 820 were
sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Trailers with black plastic tow bar receivers can separate from
the tow bar when they appear to be connected, posing a crash
hazard to the child in the trailer.

This recall involves seven models of Burley Design child bicycle
trailers manufactured from 2009 to 2015. The trailers allow
cyclists to tow children behind their bicycles while riding. The
trailers are connected to the bicycle by a tow bar, which attaches
to the rear axle of the bicycle on one end and to a tow bar
receiver on the trailer at the other end. The tow bar receiver is
on the front left side of the trailer as it faces the rear wheel
of the bicycle. Recalled trailers have a black plastic tow bar
receiver with an integrated wheel guard. Recalled trailers can be
identified by the first four characters of the serial numbers on
the trailer. The serial number is on a sticker in the rear cargo
area behind the seat of the trailer on the left inside frame bar.
The following seven trailer models and serial numbers are being
recalled:

  Model                     Serial Numbers
  ----                      --------------
  Cub                       K943
  Rental Cub                K943
  D'Lite and D'Lite ST      D948 and K948
  Encore                    K942
  Solo and Solo ST          D939, K939 and KK939

Trailers with aluminum tow bar receivers are not included in the
recall.

Burley Design has received 35 reports of trailers with black
plastic tow bar receivers separating from the tow bar, including
two incidents that resulted in abrasions to a child.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1IPlA8

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Burley Design LLC, of Eugene, Ore.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle
trailers and contact Burley for a free safety strap kit with tools
and instructions for installation and a coupon for a 20 percent
discount on the purchase of any Burley accessory. Consumers should
also inspect the black plastic tow bar receiver. If it appears to
be cracked or damaged, consumers should also request a free
replacement tow bar receiver.


CALISTA SUPERFOODS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Callejas, on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated employees v. Calista Superfoods, Inc., or any other
business entity doing business as "Calista Superfoods", Case No.
1:15-cv-08217 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Calista Superfoods, Inc. operates a restaurant/gourmet and healthy
foods located at 1217 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10028.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third A venue - 61st Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


CANADA: Nov. 30 Day Scholar Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE (SURVIVOR AND DESCENDENT CLASSES)

To Anyone Who Attended an Indian Residential School
or is the Child of Someone Who Did

A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights.
A court authorized this notice. You are not being sued.

You could be affected by a class action lawsuit involving the
Kamloops and Sechelt Indian Residential Schools and additional
Indian Residential Schools (the "Schools") (see attached list at
Appendix 'A' for the additional Schools).

A Court has approved the lawsuit as a class  action that includes
anyone who attended at any  Indian Residential School, for any
times they attended as a "Day Scholar" (i.e. non-resident
student), as well as their children and potentially the bands
within communities that contained a Residential School.  The
Plaintiffs in the class action are suing the Government of Canada
("Canada") claiming that it is responsible for damages
arising from attendance at the Schools.  Attached to this Notice
is a copy of the June 18, 2015 Court Order of Justice Harrington.
This Order, and all other decisions related to this lawsuit can
also be found on the Federal Court website at: http://is.gd/aSr990

This claim is different from the Residential Schools Class Action
Settlement entered into by Canada.  In that settlement, only
those who lived at an Indian Residential School were compensated
for the fact of having gone to the Schools.  This claim is for
compensation relating to time spent attending, but not living  in,
the Schools.

The Court has not decided whether Canada did anything unlawful,
and the case is currently planned to go to a trial.  There is no
money available now and no guarantee there will be.  However, your
rights are affected, and you have a choice to make now.

YOUR OPTIONS AT THIS STAGE

Do Nothing
Stay in this lawsuit. Await the outcome. Share in possible money
and benefits. Give up certain rights.

By doing nothing, you keep the possibility of getting money or
other benefits that may come from a trial or settlement.  But, you
give up any rights to sue Canada, or any religious organizations,
on your own about the same legal claims in this lawsuit.

Remove Yourself
(Opt Out)

Get out of this lawsuit. Get no money or benefits from it. Keep
rights.

If you ask to be removed (opt out) and money or benefits are later
awarded, you won't share in that money or benefits.  But, you keep
any rights to sue Canada, or any religious organization, on your
own about the same legal claims in this lawsuit.

Lawyers must prove the claims against Canada at a trial.  If money
or benefits are obtained you will be notified about how to ask for
a share.

Your options are explained in this notice.  To be removed, you
must act by November 30, 2015.

QUESTIONS? CALL TOLL-FREE 1-844-558-5538 OR VISIT
WWW.JUSTICEFORDAYSCHOLARS.COM


CINEMARK USA: "Amey" Case in Pretrial Discovery
-----------------------------------------------
The case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No.
3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, is in pretrial
discovery, Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified,
and no representative action has been quantified or recognized.

The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims. The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss, if any;
however, the Company believes that its potential liability with
respect to such proceeding is not material, in the aggregate, to
its financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Accordingly, the Company has not established a reserve for loss in
connection with this proceeding.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Faces "Bethell" Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Bethell filed a putative class action against Citrix Systems,
Inc., its directors, and Bank of America in Florida state court.

Citrix Systems, 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 complaint, filed in
June 2015, alleges that "the director-defendants breached their
fiduciary duties when we entered into a credit agreement with Bank
of America, N.A., as administrative agent, and the other lenders
party thereto from time to time that included an allegedly
improper change of control provision. The complaint seeks to void
the change of control provision, and seeks an award of attorney's
fees and costs. We believe that there are meritorious defenses to
these allegations and that it is not reasonably possible that the
ultimate outcome of this suit will materially and adversely affect
our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Lawsuit Involving Opt-Out Plaintiff Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Williams Energy, 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 lawsuit
involving a single plaintiff who opted out of a class action
settlement will continue in 2015.

Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR"), a wholly owned subsidiary of
CWEI, is a defendant in a suit filed in April 2011 in the Circuit
Court of Union County, Arkansas, where the plaintiffs initially
sought in excess of $8 million for the costs of environmental
remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced in the
1930s.  In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining
defendants agreed to a settlement of $0.8 million, of which SWR
would pay $0.7 million. To accomplish the settlement, the case was
converted to a class action, and each member of the class was
offered the right to either participate or opt out of the class
and continue a separate action for damages. One plaintiff opted
out and will be subject to all previous rulings of the court,
including an order dismissing certain claims on the basis that
such claims were time barred. A loss on settlement of $0.7 million
was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2013 in connection
with this proposed settlement.  The settlement was entered by the
Court on December 19, 2014, and all settlement funds were paid to
plaintiffs' counsel in January 2015. The case against the single
plaintiff will continue in 2015.


CLIFTON AVE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Espinoza" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Espinoza, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Clifton Ave. Bagels, Inc. d/b/a Hot Bagels Abroad, and
Anthony Dimarco, Case No. 2:15-cv-07560-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., October
19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate Hot Bagels restaurant located at
849 Clifton Avenue, Clifton, New Jersey 07013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


CMPC TISSUE: Faces Suit Over Alleged Tissue Paper Price Collusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Andres Henao, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
two forestry companies colluded for more than a decade to control
the prices of toilet paper and other products following a meeting
at a golf course to end a price war, according to Chile's
competitive practices regulator.

Economy Minister Luis Felipe Cespedes said on Oct. 29 that the
collusion between the market's biggest players was outrageous and
affected the poorest Chileans the most.

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet called the alleged collusion
by companies that control 90 percent of the toilet paper market
"extremely serious."

The regulator said on Oct. 28 that an antitrust court accepted its
filing accusing the companies of colluding to control prices of
toilet paper, napkins, absorbent towels and other products from
2000 to 2011.

"It's one of the biggest collusion cases ever uncovered in the
country," the agency said in a statement, adding that the
companies have combined annual sales of about $400 million.

CMPC Tissue SA, however, will not be fined because the company
acknowledged the anticompetitive conduct earlier this year.  The
regulation agency asked the court to sanction SCA Chile SA, but
the company is expected to get a reduced fine because it also
acknowledged wrongdoing.

CMPC Chile said that it had fired the general manager of its
tissue division and other company executives involved in the
collusion scheme.

"The fact that some of our executives carried out acts that go
against free competition is illegal and also deeply affects our
way of acting as a company, our corporate policies and our
organizational culture," CMPC said in a statement.

Swedish-owned SCA could not be reached for comment.

The regulator said that a price war for toilet paper broke out
between the competing paper giants in 2000.  The collusion
apparently began with the then-manager of CMPC began meeting with
the owner of PISA -- a company that was bought in 2012 by SCA --
at a Golf Club in the Chilean capital.  In the following years,
other executives were involved in the scheme using fake email
accounts and pre-paid phones.

"This sort of abuse harms people, the economy and the image of our
country," Ms. Bachelet said.


CONCREATIONS OF COLORADO: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Irigoyen-Morales, and all others similarly-situated v.
Concreations of Colorado, Inc. and Eddie Romero, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02272 (D. Colo., October 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a concrete construction business in
Firestone, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
      BUSECHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
      600 Grant Street - Suite 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303) 333-7751
      Fax: (303) 333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Hoff Complaint Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------
Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Hoff
complaint related to the pending Cox Automotive acquisition has
been withdrawn.

Following the announcement that the company had entered into the
Merger Agreement on June 12, 2015, on July 6, 2015, Jeremy Hoff, a
purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative stockholder
class action complaint (Hoff Complaint) in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the members of the Board of
Directors, the company, Cox Automotive and Runway. The Hoff
Complaint alleges that, among other things, (i) each member of the
Board of Directors breached his or her fiduciary duties to the
company's stockholders in connection with the Merger and related
transactions and (ii) Runway and Cox Automotive allegedly aided
and abetted those breaches. The suit seeks, among other things,
declaration as a class action, an order enjoining the Offer,
rescission of the Offer if it has already been consummated or the
award of rescissory damages, an accounting by defendants to
plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages allegedly
caused by them and an award of the costs related to the action,
including attorneys' and experts' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Hoff
Complaint was withdrawn.


DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Parties in Reiferson Suit Inks MOU
------------------------------------------------------------
Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Henry L.
Reiferson, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a
putative stockholder class action complaint (Reiferson Complaint)
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the
members of the Board of Directors, the company, Cox Automotive and
Runway. The substantive allegations contained in the Reiferson
Complaint are identical to those set forth in the Hoff Complaint.
On July 18, 2015, the parties named in the Reiferson Complaint
entered into a memorandum of understanding (Memorandum of
Understanding) to settle the Reiferson Complaint. The Memorandum
of Understanding provides that, among other things, the company
would make supplemental disclosures concerning the circumstances
leading up to the Offer. Such additional disclosures are contained
in Amendment No. 3 to the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 filed by the Company with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015.


DS SERVICES: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Hamilton, and all others similarly-situated v. DS Services
of America, Inc., Costco Wholesale Corporation; and Does 1-10,
Case No. 3:15-cv-04735 (N.D. Calif., October 13, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate in interstate commerce by, among other
things, selling water and other products in multiple states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENCORE CAPITAL: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit remains pending.

On November 2, 2010 and December 17, 2010, two national class
actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v.
Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California. The
complaints allege that certain of the Company's subsidiaries
violated the TCPA by calling consumers' cellular phones without
their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages
under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including
attorney fees.

On May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011 two class actions entitled
Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC
and Encore Capital Group, Inc. and Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege on behalf
of a putative class of Illinois consumers that certain of the
Company's subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers'
cellular phones without their prior express consent. The
complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief, including attorney fees.

On July 28, 2011, the Company filed a motion to transfer the
Scardina and Martin cases to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the
Tovar and Robinson cases. On October 11, 2011, the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company's
motion to transfer.

All four of these cases, along with a number of additional cases
brought against the Company that allege violations of the TCPA,
are now pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in a multi-district litigation
titled In re Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 11, 2012.

The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it
in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed class settlement to
avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. The proposed
class settlement is intended to resolve all cases involved in
multi-district litigation, and all claims against the Company for
alleged violations of the TCPA that occurred before August 31,
2014, other than those of persons who exclude themselves from
class settlement. The settlement agreement, which is subject to
court approval, would require the Company to contribute $2.0
million to a settlement fund, to be disbursed among eligible class
members, and to set aside $13.0 million in debt forgiveness to be
allocated among eligible class members. In addition, the
settlement agreement provides that the Company will pay
plaintiffs' attorney fees in an amount to be determined by the
court, and not to exceed $2.4 million, and for the costs
associated with administering the class relief.


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Davis and Adam Matschullat, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Experian Holdings, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-02371-JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) arises out of
the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the
sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied
for credit with T-Mobile.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
      Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      750 B Street, Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com
              livesay@whafh.com
              dejong@whafh.com

         - and -

      Thomas Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: burt@whafh.com

         - and -

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com


FAIRWAY MANAGEMENT: Faces "Harger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanna Harger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fairway Management, Inc., FWM Payroll Clearing, Inc.,
and Bear Holdings, Inc., d/b/a JES Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-04232-NKL (W.D. Mo., October 19, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a national property management company with
its principal place of business in Columbia, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hodgson, Esq.
      Kristi L. Kingston, Esq.
      GROUP OF KANSAS CITY, LLC
      3699 SW Pryor Road
      Lee's Summit, MO 64082
      Telephone: (816) 945-2122


FANDUEL INC: "Genchanok" Suit Alleges Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------
Artem Genchanok, and all others similarly-situated v. FanDuel,
Inc. and DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05127 (E.D. La.,
October 13, 2015), seeks compensatory, punitive and statutory
damages, injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violation of
the consumer fraud and protection statutes and deceptive trade
practices statutes.

The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a
non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other
individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. Defendant DraftKings, Inc., is incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 648-0180
      Fax: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com

          - and -

      Jeremy Schafer, Esq.
      MILLER LEGAL, LLP
      1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 600
      Washington, DC 20004
      Tel: (202) 769-0007


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Dismissal of Shareholder Actions Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the shareholder class actions.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014.

By order entered August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court
consolidated the three cases, relieved the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints then on file, and provided
that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended complaint to
be filed following appointment of a lead plaintiff(s) pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

By order dated January 5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted
the defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
(the "Court").

On March 24, 2015, the Court appointed Glyn Hotz as the lead
plaintiff ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff filed his Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Complaint") on May 8, 2015. The Complaint
asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
October 25, 2013 and July 28, 2014. The Complaint alleges that the
Company and certain of its officers and directors (the "Class
Action Individual Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 through allegedly false or misleading statements in certain
SEC filings, press releases and other public statements. The
Complaint further alleges that the Class Action Individual
Defendants and one of the Company's shareholders face liability
for the alleged Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 violations pursuant
to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys'
fees. The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint on June 26, 2015.


GENCO SHIPPING: Plaintiffs Withdrew Appeal in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that
Plaintiffs have withdrawn an appeal from a class action ruling.

In April 2015, six class action complaints were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, styled
Erol Sarikaya v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No.
651244/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and
refiled as Joshua Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index
No. 651429/2015, filed on April 28, 2015, Justin Wilson v. Baltic
Trading Ltd., et al., Index No. 651241/2015, filed on April 15,
2015, Sangeetha Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index
No. 651279/2015, filed on April 17, 2015, Edward Braunstein v.
Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651368/2015, filed on
April 23, 2015, Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al.,
Index No. 651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and Larry
Goldstein and Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C. Wobensmith et al.,
Index No. 651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015.

All six complaints purport to be brought by and on behalf of the
Baltic Trading's shareholders. The plaintiff in each action
alleges the proposed merger does not fairly compensate Baltic
Trading's shareholders and undervalues Baltic Trading. Each
lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the Company, Baltic
Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, the
Company's and Baltic Trading's President, and the Company's merger
subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary
duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and
loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and
(ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages.  On May 26, 2015, the six above described actions were
consolidated under the caption In Re Baltic Trading Ltd.
Stockholder Litigation, Index No. 651241/2015, and a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on June 10, 2015 (the
"Consolidated Complaint").

On June 30, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety; that motion is pending.  On July 9,
2015, plaintiffs in that action moved to enjoin the merger vote,
scheduled to take place on July 17, 2015.  The motion was
thereafter fully briefed and argued on July 15, 2015.  The motion
to enjoin the vote was denied.  Plaintiffs sought an emergency
injunction and temporary restraining order from the New York State
Appellate Division, First Department the following day, on July
16, 2015.  The Appellate Division denied the request, and the
vote, and subsequent merger, proceeded as scheduled on July 17,
2015.  Plaintiffs thereafter withdrew the appeal.


GENERAL MOTORS: Sued in Cal. Over Sierra Vehicle Design Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Armando J. Becerra, and Guillermo Ruelas, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated v. General Motors LLC and Does 1
through 100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02365-WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., October
19, 2015) is brought on behalf of similarly situated persons or
entities, who purchased, own or leased GMC Sierra 1500, model
year 2014 and 2015 and GMC Sierra 2500HD and 3500HD, model year
2015, with safety design defect that causes the vehicles to
generate insufficient light for safe night-time travel.

General Motors LLC is a limited liability company organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of
business in Detroit, Michigan. GM is in the business of designing,
engineering, manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying,
selling, and distributing Vehicles in the United States, including
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Bonner Walsh, Esq.
      Walsh PLLC
      21810 Pine Crest Dr.
      Bly, Oregon 97622
      Telephone: (541) 359-2827
      Facsimile: (866) 503-8206
      Email: bonner@walshpllc.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Marchbanks, Esq.
      PREMIER LEGAL CENTER, A.P.C.
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1095
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 235-3200
      Facsimile: (619) 235-3300
      E-mail: steve@premierlegalcenter.com

         - and -

      Craig M. Patrick, Esq.
      PATRICK LAW FIRM, P.C.
      6244 E. Lovers Lane
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 390-3343
      Facsimile: (469) 914-6565
      E-mail: craigpatrick@att.net


GFI GROUP: Oral Argument in "Gross" Case Held
---------------------------------------------
GFI Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument in the
"Gross" case was scheduled for October 30, 2015.

Following the announcement of the CME Merger, nine putative class
action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf
of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to
be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Index
No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014), Suprina
v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014), Hughes
v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-VCL (Del. Ch.,
filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action
No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014), Giardalas v.
GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del. Ch., filed
September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v.
Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch., filed
September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil Action No.
10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and Szarek v. GFI
Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y., filed October
14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted
voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action.

On October 6, 2014, a consolidation order was entered by Vice
Chancellor Laster, consolidating the Delaware cases into the
Consolidated Delaware Action.  The consolidation order designated
the complaint filed in City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v.
Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the
operative complaint in the Consolidated Delaware Action.

The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the
Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of the
Company's board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown,
CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New
JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally alleged, among
other things, that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger
Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New
JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaints further alleged, among other things, (i) that the
merger consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement
undervalued the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to
the CME Merger was flawed due to the members of the Company's
board of directors' and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and
(iii) that certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement
inappropriately favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties
from submitting potentially superior proposals.

In addition, the Hughes complaint asserted a derivative claim on
behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's board
of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger
and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate
opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleged that the CME Merger is
not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions
and further alleged that the IDB Transaction must be approved by
an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms
of the Charter.

The complaints sought, among other relief: (i) certification of
the class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii)
a declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the
CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members
of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the
Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the
extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages
and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of
the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs.
The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demanded a jury trial.

Certain Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay
the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i)
the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina
actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for
consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii)
Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and
expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the
Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re
GFI Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In
another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff
Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery.  On March 26,
2015, the Court issued a decision and order granting the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Coyne and Suprina actions on
forum non conveniens grounds and in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action.  The decision and order were entered in the
office of the Clerk of the County of New York on March 27, 2015.
The Court's judgment dismissing the Coyne and Suprina complaints
was entered in the office of the Clerk of the County of New York
on April 29, 2015.

On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order
Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware
Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised
Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for
January 16, 2015.  On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin
enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and
preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until
(i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) the
Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on
the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January
8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction
hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15,
2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January
20) was taken off the court's calendar.

On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint.
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the
Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support
thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing
for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint,
seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief. On
February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties,
moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015)
to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March
4, 2015.

On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that an
expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary.  On February 26,
2015, March 17, 2015, and March 18, 2015, the Court granted
stipulations and orders extending the time for certain Defendants
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the operative complaint.
On April 16, 2015, the Court granted a stipulation and order
pursuant to which certain of the Defendants did not need to
respond to the operative complaint or the supplements thereto and
would have thirty days from the filing of an amended complaint to
answer, move against, or otherwise respond to it. On May 20, 2015,
the Court entered a third scheduling order, pursuant to which
Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by June 26, 2015; fact
depositions will be completed by July 31, 2015; expert discovery
will be completed by September 11, 2015; pre-trial briefs will be
filed on October 30, 2015; a pre-trial conference will be held on
November 2, 2015; and a trial will be held on November 9, 10, 12,
and 13, 2015.

By agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on July 13, 2015.  The amended complaint asserts causes of action
against Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, Ms. Cassoni, and CME, but not
Messrs. Brown, Fanzilli, and Magee, the Company, IDB Buyer,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, Cheetah
Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, or New JPI.
Plaintiffs allege Messrs. Gooch and Heffron breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by, among other things, (i)
placing their interests ahead of stockholders' interests, (ii)
rejecting BGC's offer to acquire the Company for $6.20 per share,
(iii) entering into certain employment and non-competition
agreements with BGC, (iv) delaying Board meetings to discuss
recommendations made by the Special Committee concerning BGC's
offer, (v) disparaging BGC, and (vi) issuing false and misleading
statements to stockholders.  Plaintiffs allege Ms. Cassoni favored
the interests of Messrs. Gooch and Heffron over stockholders'
interests and that CME aided and abetted the individual
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.

In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial
pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court
adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and
adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015.
On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his action
without prejudice.

In addition to the foregoing litigation, on November 26, 2014, a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint named the Company, Colin
Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants.  The
complaint sought, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) compensatory damages for Defendants purported
wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs and expenses.

On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc.
granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class.  The Court also extended Defendants' time
to respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25,
2015; granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by
March 16, 2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference
to March 27, 2015.  On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff requested
additional time to file his amended complaint.  On March 13, 2015,
the Court extended Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended
complaint from March 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015; set a June 5, 2015
deadline for Defendants to respond to the amended complaint; and
rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference for June 19, 2015.

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint named GFI Group Inc. and Messrs. Gooch and
Heffron -- but not Mr. Brown -- as defendants.  On June 5, 2015,
the remaining Defendants requested a pre-motion conference in
anticipation of a motion to dismiss.  On June 15, 2015, the Court
granted Defendants' request and added Defendants' proposed motion
to dismiss to the agenda for the pre-trial conference on June 19,
2015.  At the pre-trial conference, the Court gave Plaintiff
permission to file a second amended complaint and gave Defendants
permission to file a motion to dismiss.  On June 22, 2015, the
Court entered a scheduling order, pursuant to which Plaintiff was
to file his second amended complaint by July 8, 2015; Defendants
shall file their motion to dismiss by August 19, 2015; Plaintiff's
motion to dismiss opposition papers were due on September 30,
2015; Defendants' reply papers in further support of their motion
to dismiss were due on October 14, 2015; and oral argument will be
held on October 30, 2015, at 11:00 a.m.

Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on July 8, 2015.
Like Plaintiff's first amended complaint, the second amended
complaint alleges certain violations of the federal securities
laws against GFI Group Inc. and Messrs. Gooch and Heffron.

Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously.


H2S HOLDINGS: "Cortes-Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Cortes-Mendoza, and all others similarly-situated v. H2S
Holdings, LLC, Here to Serve Restaurants, Inc., Big Fish
Enterprises, Inc., Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., Leigh Catherall, and
Thomas Catherall, Case No. 1:15-cv-03623 (N.D. Ga., October 13,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
      HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
      1230 Peachtree St. NE
      Suite 950
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 876-8100
      Fax: (404) 876-3477
      E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com

          - and -

      Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
      THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
      Post Office Drawer 3103
      Mobile, AL 36602
      Tel: (251) 433-8100
      Fax: (251) 433-8181


HC2 HOLDINGS: Class Suit Over Tender Offer Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
HC2 Holdings, Inc. continues to defend a putative stockholder
class action complaint challenging the tender offer by which HC2
Holdings, Inc. acquired approximately 721,000 of the issued and
outstanding common shares of Schuff International, Inc., HC2
disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the tender offer by which HC2 Holdings, Inc. acquired
approximately 721,000 of the issued and outstanding common shares
of Schuff International, Inc. ("Schuff International") was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Mark
Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael
R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2
Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil Action No.
10323 (the "Complaint").

On November 17, 2014, a second lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v.
Schuff International, Inc. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek,
Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda,
Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel.  The currently operative
complaint is the November 6, 2014 Complaint filed by Mark Jacobs.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
the tender offer, the individual members of the Schuff
International board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling
stockholder of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members
of the plaintiff class.  The Complaint also purports to challenge
a potential short-form merger based upon plaintiff's expectation
that the Company would cash out the remaining public stockholders
of Schuff International following the completion of the tender
offer.  Such a short-form merger has never been formally proposed
or acted upon and as of June 30, 2015, approximately 342 thousand
shares of Schuff International remain in public hands,
representing approximately 9% of the outstanding shares of Schuff
International.  The Complaint seeks rescission of the tender offer
and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other
relief.  The defendants filed answers to the Complaint on July 30,
2015.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously,"
the Company said.


HARVEST NATURAL: Dismissal of Consolidated Class Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. have filed a motion to dismiss
consolidated class action lawsuits, Harvest Natural said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013)
("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor
Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J.
Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April
11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W.
Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013).

"The complaints allege that the Company made certain false or
misleading public statements and demand that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs based on stock
price declines. All of these actions have been consolidated into
the Phillips case. The Company and the other named defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the
consolidated lawsuits," the Company said.


HOWARD SOLOCHEK: "Gibeau" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Gibeau, and all others similarly-situated v. Howard,
Solochek & Weber, S.C. and Liberty Credit Services, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-01224 (E.D. Wis., October 13, 2015), seek damages for
Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Defendant Howard, Solochek & Weber, S.C. is a Wisconsin law firm
with a principal place of business located at 1845 N Farwell Ave,
Ste 301, Milwaukee, WI 53202.

Howard collects debts, allegedly owed to Liberty Credit Services,
Inc. Defendant Liberty is a foreign corporation with its principal
place of business located at 15010 Glazier Ave #200, Apple Valley,
MN 55124.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Denise L. Morris, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: dmorris@ademilaw.com


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions remains under
submission.

From July 2013 to April 2015, 15 class action complaints were
filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its
generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Oral argument on defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints took place on March
12, 2015, and the motion remains under submission.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: No Oral Argument Yet on Opana Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that oral argument on the
motions to dismiss the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class Actions has not
been scheduled.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 class action complaints were
filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and
the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaints on July 3, 2015. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motions
to dismiss were due August 14, 2015. Oral argument on the motions
to dismiss has not been scheduled.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has granted
final approval of the settlement in the securities class actions.

On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class
Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and
directors violated the federal securities law by making materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing
deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility,
including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would
have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for
the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) and its generic
version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions were
subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead
plaintiff has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended
complaint was filed on September 13, 2013.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this consolidated securities class action, without any admission
or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the
other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay
$8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted against the Company or other
defendants in this action.

On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and on July 23, 2015, the Court granted final approval
of the settlement. The Company did not take any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount was paid for and covered by
the Company's insurance policies. The settlement does not resolve
the related shareholder derivative litigations.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Aruliah Case Awaits Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the
Aruliah class action remains subject to final court approval and
certain other conditions.

On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated ("Aruliah Class Action").
The complaint alleged that the Company and those named officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with
manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing
facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies
would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA
for the Company's then branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) (which
was subsequently approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015).

On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this securities class action, without any admission or concession
of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this
action.

On June 22, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The Company will not be taking any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered
by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains
subject to final court approval and certain other conditions and
does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations.


INFOCISION MANAGEMENT: "Wajert" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Wajert, and all others similarly-situated v. InfoCision
Management Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01325 (W.D. Pa., October
12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.

The Defendant is a privately held teleservices company. In this
capacity, it operates call centers in Ohio, West Virginia, and
Pennsylvania. One of these call centers is located in New Castle,
PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twinning Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491


INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss Van Noppen Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the Van Noppen complaint
is currently pending.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of
its intention to restate certain historical financial statements,
an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual
defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously defend the
matter.

On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim,
and this motion is currently pending.


INNOPOWER INC: Recalls Climbing Sticks Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Innopower, Inc. (owner of the Hawk brand), of Frankenmuth, Mich.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 730 Climbing Sticks.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Folding steps can bend or break during use, posing a fall hazard.

This recall includes 2014 and 2015 Hawk 2085 RAZOR 3PK (32 inches
long), the 2085-1 RAZOR 1PK (32 inches long), and the 2015 Hawk
2084 RAZOR SHORTMAX 4PK (20 inches long) and 2084-1 RAZOR SHORTMAX
1PK (20 inches long) climbing sticks. The aluminum sticks, which
have a gray finish, tie with nylon strap to tree trunks and
provide steps for consumers to climb. Recalled steps have three
rectangular holes cut in the bottom of them, which differentiate
them from non-recalled steps, which have circular holes. Model
2085 and 2085-1 have two 32-inch long metal poles with steps and a
tree V-bracket to contact the tree.  Model 2084 and 2084-1 have
two 20-inch long metal poles with steps and a tree V-bracket to
contact the tree. The model number is on the black and gray
sticker located on the back side of the vertical post.

The firm has received reports of five incidents of steps breaking.
Only minor injuries, including scratches and bruises, have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1c2jvD

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at A-1
Archery, Camofire LLC, Cinnamon Creek Ranch Archery, DNW Outdoors,
Eunice Archery Range, Franks Great Outdoors, GameMasters, Grabow
Archers, Hunter's Refuge, & Gear, Innovations of Home, Jay's
Sporting Goods, Jon's Sports Shop, Long Range Archery, Mack's
Sport Shop, RackFan Addicts, Simmons Sporting Goods and Woodbury
Outfitters from June 2014 to August 2015 for between $38 and $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the climbing sticks and
contact Innopower for information on returning the folding steps
for a free replacement.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Case
-----------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the case filed by Paldo Sign and Display
Co., j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former
employee as additional defendants in an existing purported class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896). The amended complaint alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common
law conversion, arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of
the j2 Global affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile
transmissions. On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc.
("Sabon"), was added. The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to
dismiss the ICFA and conversion claims, which was granted. The
Northern District of Illinois also dismissed the former employee
for lack of personal jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing.


J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing on the appeal
in a multi-district litigation has been stayed.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit. On December 20, 2013, the Northern
District of Illinois issued a claim construction opinion and, on
June 13, 2014, entered a final judgment of non-infringement for
the remaining defendants based on that claim construction.

UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014
(No. 14-1611). Briefing on the appeal has been stayed, pending the
Northern District of Illinois's resolution of the defendants'
motion to declare the case exceptional.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery on Case filed by LEO and Dancel Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery on the case filed by LEO and Dancel is ongoing, j2
Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court") (No. BC549422). The complaint
alleges two California statutory violations relating to late fees
levied in certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking,
among other things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of
himself and a purported nationwide class of similarly situated
persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. ("LEO") and IV
Pit Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate purported class
action against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles
Superior Court (No. BC555721). The complaint alleges three
California statutory violations, negligence, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and various other common
law claims relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global
affiliate's customers, including those with eVoice(R) and
Onebox(R) accounts. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
a purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered both
cases related and consolidated for discovery purposes. On March
13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in this action,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel ("Dancel") as a plaintiff. On or around June
26, 2015, the case filed by Free-Vychine was dismissed pursuant to
a settlement agreement. Discovery on the case filed by LEO and
Dancel is ongoing.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a class action has been taken on submission and a decision
will be issued.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On July 30, 2013, a second purported
class action lawsuit was filed containing similar allegations
against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et
al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases (collectively, the
"Class Action") were consolidated on December 2, 2013 under Case
No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and lead counsel
appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to
replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8,
2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First
Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections
and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the
claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company
allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with
leave to replead.

A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on March 23, 2015 with
similar allegations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the TAC
and that motion was argued on July 22, 2015; after argument it was
taken on submission and a decision will be issued.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because
the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you
as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.


JAY-JAY CABARET: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Racey" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Racey, Kevin McDonald, Gary Williams and Alex Abreu,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Jay-Jay Cabaret Inc. d/b/a Flash Dancers, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-08228 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime premium pay for hours
worked over 40 hours in a given workweek.

Jay-Jay Cabaret Inc. owns and operates an adult entertainment club
located at 1674 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: "Tesch" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Tesch, and all others similarly-situated v. Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01208 (E.D. Wis., October
12, 2015), seeks damages for the Defendant's alleged violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant is a collection agency, using the mails and
telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Denise L. Morris, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Tel: (414) 482-8000
      Fax: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: dmorris@ademilaw.com


JOSEPH EPSTEIN: Recalls Meatball Products Due to Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Epstein Food Enterprises, Inc., an East Rutherford, N.J.
establishment, is recalling approximately 190 pounds of turkey
meatball products due to misbranding, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The label declares the product as "gluten-free," a false negative
claim.

The Mama Mancini's gluten-free turkey meatball items were produced
on Oct. 19, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 22-oz. cartons of "Mama Mancini's Slow Cooked Italian Style
      Sauce and Turkey Meatballs - Gluten Free."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-21734"
inside the USDA mark of inspection, product code 4740 and
expiration date "Use by 12/10/15." These items were shipped to
retail locations in New Jersey.

The problem was discovered during the establishment's third party
laboratory testing; the product was found to contain an excess of
the maximum allowable 20 ppm of gluten. The establishment notified
FSIS of the problem.

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

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

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

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Mr. Matt
Brown, President, at (917) 705-7514. Media with questions about
the recall can contact Mr. Carl Wolf at (973) 985-0280.

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xzUmE6


KRUD KUTTER: Recalls Adhesive Removers Due to Noncompliance
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Krud Kutter Inc. of Cumming, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 85,000 Adhesive removers. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child resistant as required by the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act and the labeling on the product violates
the Federal Hazardous Substances Act because it does not warn of
the hazard presented. The adhesive remover contains petroleum
distillates, which pose aspiration and poisoning hazards if
swallowed.

This recall involves Krud Kutter Decal & Adhesive Remover and Krud
Kutter Ultra Power Specialty Adhesive Remover.

The decal adhesive remover came in a clear plastic eight-ounce
bottle with a purple flip-open top. The front of the bottle has a
yellow and purple label with the Krud Kutter Earth Friendly logo
and the words "Safe on Clearcoats!," "Removes adhesive, asphalt,
decals, road tar & more," "Decal & Adhesive Remover" and
"Biodegradable." An image of a black sports car with a flame decal
on it are also on the label.

The specialty adhesive remover came in 8-ounce, 16-ounce and 32-
ounce clear plastic bottles. The 8-ounce bottle has a purple flip-
open top. The two larger bottles have purple trigger spray tops.
The front of the bottles have a purple and yellow label with the
Krud Kutter Earth Friendly logo and the words "Professional
Strength," "Krud Kutter," Ultra Power Special Adhesive Remover,"
"Removes Adhesive, Caulk, Foam, Mastic, Silicone, Roofing Tar &
More" and "Biodegradable."

The recalled adhesive removers have product numbers PU08, UP08,
UP16 and UP32 and were manufactured from October 2014 to July
2015. The product numbers can be found on the product label on the
back of the product under the Krud Kutter Inc. contact
information. The date codes are printed on the back of the bottle
in black ink above the label.

Krud Kutter adhesive removers with the following product numbers
and date codes are being recalled:

  Product Name         Product Numbers     Date Code(s)
  -----------          ---------------     ------------
  Krud Kutter(R)       PU08                PW4O271 001,
  Decal & Adhesive                         PW4O281 001,
  Remover                                  PW4N181 002,
  (8 oz flip-top)                          PW54111 002,
                                           PW5413 003
  Krud Kutter(R)       UP08                PW4N191 002,
  Ultra Power                              PW4N201 002,
  Specialty Adhesive                       PW57141 005,
  Remover                                  PW57151 006,
  (8 oz. flip-top)                         PW57161 006,
                                           PW57171 006
  Krud Kutter(R)       UP16                PW4O231 001,
  Ultra Power                              PW4N181 002,
  Specialty Adhesive                       PW4D091 004,
  Remover                                  PW56151 004,
  (16 oz. spray)                           PW56161 004,
                                           PW57141 005
  Krud Kutter(R)       UP32                PW55041 003,
  Ultra Power                              PW55051 003
  Specialty Adhesive
  Remover
  (32 oz. spray)

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at The Home Depot and other paint and hardware stores nationwide
and online at krudkutter.com between October 2014 and September
2015 for $5 to $20 each.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled adhesive
removers and return them to the store where purchased for a full
refund.


L.L. BEAN: Recalls Hunting Knives Due to Laceration Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L.L. Bean Inc., of Freeport, Maine, announced a voluntary recall
of about 300 Hunting Knives with Sheath. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The knife can cut through the sheath, posing a laceration hazard.

The recall includes the L.L. Bean GTO Hunting Knife with Sheath
with product identification number 296435 printed on the product's
packaging. The knife measures 8 inches long including a 4 inch
blade. The handle is made of G10 synthetic. L.L. Bean is printed
on the blade and an outline of a mountain is printed on the blade.
The sheath is made of black ballistic cloth, embroidered with
"L.L. Bean" and an outline of mountains.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Xq4oIL

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at L.L.
Bean retail stores nationwide, catalog and online at
www.LLBean.com  from June 2015 through September 2015 for about
$90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the knife sheath and
contact the firm to receive a free replacement sheath.


LAROSE INDUSTRIES: Recalls Flying Ace Toys Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
LaRose Industries, of Randolph, N.J., announced a voluntary recall
of about 11,000 Peanuts Flying Ace Ride-On Toys. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The toy's blue hubcaps can detach from the wheel's axle, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

This recall involves Peanuts Flying Ace ride-on toys modeled after
older style airplanes. The toys are intended for children ages 12
months to 2 years. The body of the plane is red, the steering
wheel, propeller and wings are yellow and the hubcaps are blue.
"Snoopy Flying Ace" is printed on the front of the toy airplane
and Snoopy characters are printed on each wing and on the front.
The ride-on toys measure 19 inches long by 19 « inches wide (wing
span) by 13 inches high. A hang tag attached to the product at
purchase has "#38126" printed on it and one of the following date
codes:

  --- BCHTAR616A13-0515
  --- BCHTAR614A13-0515
  --- BCHTAR615A11-0515
  --- BCHTAR684A20-0515
  --- BCHTAR682A05-0615
  --- BCHTAR683A05-0615

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target stores nationwide from July 2015 through August 2015 for
about $40.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled ride-on toys away
from children and return the product to any Target store for a
full refund.


LIGHTHOUSE CHRISTIAN: Recalls Ceramic Mugs Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lighthouse Christian Products Co., of Schaumburg, Ill., announced
a voluntary recall of about 4,400 Ceramic Mugs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Hot liquids can seep through hairline cracks, posing a burn
hazard.

The two recalled ceramic mugs are the Pastor's Wife model #18208,
and the Serve with Gladness model #18209. The Pastor's Wife mug is
cream color on the outside and teal on the inside with the phrase
"Pastor's Wife" on one side and "We Always Thank God and Pray For
You" on the other side. The Serve with Gladness mug is cream color
inside and outside with the phrase "Serve with Gladness" on one
side and "Anyone who loves is a child of God" inside a
multicolored floral arrangement on the other side. Model number
18208 or 18209 is printed on a UPC sticker on the bottom of the
mug.

The firm received a report of one incident. No injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/94UPDL

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Family Christian Stores, Lifeway Christian Stores, Mardel, many
smaller Christian bookstores and online at www.christianbook.com
from July 2015 through October 2015 for between $10 and $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs and
return them to the store where they were purchased or call
Lighthouse for a full refund.


LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control System Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Liquid Force, of Encinitas, Calif., announced a voluntary recall
of about 2,050 Liquid Force Response Kiteboard control systems (in
addition, about 40 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chicken loop release system, which is used to depower the
kite, can stick and fail to open, posing a risk of injury to the
kiteboarder.

This recall involves Liquid Force Response kiteboard control
systems from model year 2015.  The control systems are comprised
of a light-weight control bar to control and depower the kite, a
set of flying lines and a harness loop (chicken loop)/quick
release mechanism.  Recalled units have a solid orange release
hood and the words "RESPONSE RELEASE SYSTEM" are printed on the
black loop. The release hood on replacement systems is orange and
black or yellow and black.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Surf
and specialty stores nationwide and by independent sales
representatives from December 2014 through February 2015 for about
$500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kiteboard
control systems and contact Liquid Force for a free replacement
chicken loop release mechanism. The firm is contacting all owners
of the kiteboard control systems directly.


LIVE NATION: Accrued $34.9MM Related to Ticketing Fee Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that as of June 30,
2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its best estimate of
the probable costs associated with the settlement in the Ticketing
Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.

In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the
claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its
ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in
violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new
claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of
the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster
during the applicable period.

In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a)
Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the
UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further
violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs
later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed
a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's
demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.

In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate
with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class
certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied
plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's
Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal
granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered
the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new
order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on
the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed
its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the
Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion
for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted
by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
to Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form.

Litigation continued, and later that same month, the Court granted
in part and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary
Judgment. The parties reached a new settlement in September 2011,
which was preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court
declined to grant final approval.

In June 2013, the parties reached a revised settlement, which was
preliminarily approved by the Court in April 2014. In February
2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for final approval of
the settlement. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter.

As of June 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million, its
best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. The calculation of this liability is based in part
upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference between the
Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual redemption rate
it experiences will impact the final settlement amount; however,
the Company does not expect this difference to be material.


LONESTAR RESOURCES: "Gonzales" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Gonzales, and all others similarly-situated v. Lonestar
Resources America, Inc., Amadeus Petroleum, Inc., and Lonestar
Resources, Inc. dba Lonestar Resources, Case No. 5:15-cv-00882
(W.D. Tex., October 13, 2015), seeks declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide products and services in the oil and gas
industry, throughout the United States in those areas in which
fracking is a viable business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Feb. 25 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT - SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A CASH TELEPHONE TAX REFUND

If you paid for telephone service utilized any time between
October 19, 2005 and March 15, 2008, and you had a billing or
service address within the City of Los Angeles you may be eligible
to receive a refund of telephone tax.

WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT?

This class action lawsuit was filed by a Los Angeles resident
seeking refunds of telephone taxes paid to the City of Los Angeles
for telephone services utilized between October 19, 2005 and
March 15, 2008.  The City denied any wrongdoing and still denies
any liability in this case.  However, the parties have agreed to a
settlement that provides for telephone tax refunds to eligible
claimants.

WHO IS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT?

You must submit a valid claim by February 20, 2016 to receive
payment.  If you paid for landline telephone service with a
service address in the City of Los Angeles, or if you paid for a
mobile/cellular telephone account with a billing address in the
City of Los Angeles (does not including pre-paid mobile service),
and those services were utilized at any time from October 19,
20105 until March 15, 2008, you are entitled to claim a monetary
refund for the utility users' tax ("UUT") paid.

To submit a Claim Form, visit the settlement website at
www.LATaxRefund.com or contact the Claim Administrator at
1-888-643-6490 to request one be mailed to you.

YOUR OPTIONS

You may take any of the following actions:

If you:
Complete and Submit a valid Claim Form by
DEADLINE: February 20, 2016

Then you will:
Receive a payment in the mail for one or more of the following
amounts: $50-Mobile Telephone Service;$30-Residential Landline
Service; $50-Business Landline Service; and/or Actual UUT Refund
Amount Or you may direct that such a payment be instead donated to
one of four designated funds that support City services.

If you:
Do Nothing

Then you will:
You do not receive any money from the lawsuit, any claim you have
for a refund will be released, and you will no longer have such a
claim.

If you:
Exclude Yourself
DEADLINE: February 11, 2016

Then you will:
Get out of the lawsuit. Get no payment. Keep your right to sue
separately with your own lawyer.

If you:
Object
DEADLINE: January 26, 2016

Then you will:
Write to the Court about why you do not like the settlement.

If you:
Go To A Court Hearing

Then you will:
Ask to speak to the Court about the fairness of the settlement.
You do not have to attend the hearing to receive payment.  The
Final Approval Hearing is on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. in
Department 307, Los Angeles Superior Court, Central Civil West
Courthouse

EXCLUDING YOURSELF

If you don't want a payment from the settlement, but you want to
keep the right to sue the City of Los Angeles on your own over the
UUT, then you must exclude yourself from the settlement. To do
that, you must submit online at www.LATaxRefund.com or send in the
mail a letter by February 11, 2016 saying that you want to be
excluded from the settlement to: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles,
Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 30196, College Station, TX 77842-
3196.  If you ask to be excluded, you cannot object to the
settlement and cannot receive payment.  You will not be bound by
anything that happens in this lawsuit.

OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT

You can tell the Court that you don't agree with the settlement or
some part of it.  You may only object if you are a Class Member
and you do not exclude yourself from the settlement.  You can
object yourself or hire a lawyer at your own expense.  The Court
will consider your objection.  Your objection must be in writing,
and should include your name, address, telephone number,
signature, and the reasons you object.  You must also provide
evidence of membership in the Class, such as a copy of a phone
bill from the Class period.  If your objection is mailed in time,
you do not have to attend the fairness hearing described below.
You must mail your written objection before January 26, 2016 to:
Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
30196, College Station, TX 77842-3196.

What You Are Giving Up To Receive Payment

In exchange for payment of the refund, you are agreeing not to sue
the City for any claims that relate to this lawsuit or could have
been brought in this lawsuit.  Signing the Claim Form will prevent
you from being able to sue the City of Los Angeles for any
disputes you may have over the UUT collected for telephone
services utilized from October 19, 2005 through March 15, 2008.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU

As a Class Member, you are represented by four law firms:

Francis M. Gregorek
Rachele R. Rickert
Marisa C. Livesay
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2770
San Diego, CA 92101

Nicholas E. Chimicles
Timothy N. Mathews
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041

Jonathan W. Cuneo
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
507 C Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Jon Tostrud
Tostrud Law Group PC
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
Los Angeles, CA 90067

This Publication Notice summarizes the proposed settlement.  More
details are in the Settlement Agreement.  All court records in
this litigation, including complete copies of the Settlement
Agreement, may be examined during regular court hours at the
office of the Clerk of the Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue,
Los Angeles, CA 90005.

If you have questions about the settlement or this Notice, please
contact the Claims Administrator at 1-888-643-6490 or visit
www.LATaxRefund.com, www.whafh.com or www.chimicles.com

Do not contact the Court directly with any questions about the
settlement.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Notice Sent to Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that notice of
the action as a class action has been sent to class members.

On May 30, 2014, a class action lawsuit was commenced in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of
Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as
defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the Company's
directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC,
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities
Master Fund LP, together the "Parties". The suit alleged the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
a breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with the Company's
Merger with MabVax Therapeutics. In support of their purported
claims, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board has historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary
duty to its stockholders, and claiming with respect to the Series
B Private Placement and the Merger, that such transactions
involved an inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal
protection devices, and that the Company's board of directors
would receive personal benefits not available to its public
stockholders as a result of the Merger. The plaintiff sought to
enjoin the Merger and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and
expert fees and costs.

On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement (the "Settlement"), pursuant to which the Company
agreed to file with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the Merger. The Settlement is subject to certain
confirmatory discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to
the Parties' agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, will
settle the litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Among many
other terms, under the Proposed Settlement the Company and all
defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims
pertaining to the Series B Private Placement, the Merger, the
prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The Proposed
Settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other stockholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the Proposed Settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly
denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any
other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any
respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated Series
B Private Placement and Merger. Finally, under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed
to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the
Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any
such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for
resolution.

On April 20, 2015, the Parties made an application for an Order
for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing of Settlement in accordance
with a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of April 20, 2015 (the
"Action"), which sets forth the terms and conditions for
settlement and which provides for dismissal of the Action with
prejudice.  The Order after Hearing on June 12, 2015, provided
preliminary approval of the settlement that was agreed to by the
Parties, in which the Company provided supplemental disclosures in
the definitive proxy filed with the SEC on June 30, 2014.  Notice
of the action as a class action was sent to class members in July
2015.  The Company believes that any additional expenses that
could be incurred related to the Action after June 30, 2015, will
be offset by insurance co-payments covering expenses previously
incurred or expected to be incurred in the Stipulation of
Settlement.


MAELI ROSE: Recalls Girl's Hoodies Due to Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Maeli Rose, of Arcadia, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,200 Girl's Hoodies. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The hoodies have a drawstring inside the lining of the hood that
surrounds the face which poses a strangulation hazard to children.
Drawstrings can become entangled or caught on playground slides,
hand rails, school bus doors or other moving objects, posing a
significant strangulation and/or entanglement hazard to children.
In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in
children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were
incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based
on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal
regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help
prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and
waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and
sweatshirts.

This recall involves the girls' blush hoodie sizes 2T-6X, made of
62% polyester, 35% cotton and 3% spandex. The garment comes in
blush/pink and has a lace decoration strip around the hood
opening. There is a white drawstring inside the hood lining that
surrounds the face. There is a zipper on the front with a pocket
on each side. The pocket openings and sleeves are decorated with a
lace strip. The name Just Fab Girls is sewn into the label of the
neck. There is also a label sewn into the side seam that reads "RN
#137339" and "Made in China."

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Children's boutiques and other specialty retail stores nationwide
from July 2013 through December 2013 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled hoodie away from
children and remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard or
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.


MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Fober, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Management and Technology Consultants, L.L.C., and
Does 1 through 10, Case No. 8:15-cv-01673 (C.D. Cal., October 19,
2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of placing calls on
consumers' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Management and Technology Consultants, L.L.C. owns and operates a
marketing company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARTEL'S FAMILY: Faces "Escobar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Honorio Escobar individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Martel's Family Restaurant, Inc. and Marina
Pappas, Case No. 3:15-cv-50269 (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 350
Northwest Highway, Cary, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


MAXLINEAR INC: Entropic Merger Case Subject to Negotiation
----------------------------------------------------------
MaxLinear, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the
Entropic Communications Merger Litigation is subject to
negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject
to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is
provided to the proposed settlement class.

Beginning on February 9, 2015, eleven stockholder class action
complaints (captioned Langholz v. Entropic Communications, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 10631-VCP (filed Feb. 9, 2015); Tomblin v.
Entropic Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10632-VCP (filed Feb. 9,
2015); Crill v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10640-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Wohl v. Entropic Communications,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10644-VCP (filed Feb. 11, 2015); Parshall
v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10652-VCP
(filed Feb. 12, 2015); Saggar v. Padval, et al., C.A. No. 10661-
VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Iyer v. Tewksbury, et al., C.A. No.
10665-VCP (filed Feb. 13, 2015); Respler v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10669-VCP (filed Feb. 17,
2015); Gal v. Entropic Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10671-VCP (filed Feb. 17, 2015); Werbowsky v. Padval, et al., C.A.
No. 10673-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015); and Agosti v. Entropic
Communications, Inc., C.A. No. 10676-VCP (filed Feb. 18, 2015))
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on
behalf of a putative class of Entropic Communications, Inc.
stockholders. The complaints name Entropic, the board of directors
of Entropic, MaxLinear, Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, and
Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC as defendants. The complaints generally
allege that, in connection with the proposed acquisition of
Entropic by MaxLinear, the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among other things,
purportedly failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders and agreeing to allegedly preclusive
deal protection devices in the merger agreement. The complaints
further allege that Entropic, MaxLinear, and/or the merger
subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaints seek,
among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
consummating the proposed transaction, an order declaring the
merger agreement unlawful and unenforceable, in the event that the
proposed transaction is consummated, an order rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages to the class,
imposition of a constructive trust, damages, and/or attorneys'
fees and costs.

On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Ankur Saggar, Jon Werbowsky, and
Angelo Agosti filed an amended class action complaint. Also on
March 27, 2015, plaintiffs Martin Wohl and Jeffrey Park filed an
amended class action complaint. On April 1, 2015, plaintiff Mark
Respler filed an amended class action complaint.
On April 16, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Delaware actions, captioned In re Entropic Communications, Inc.
Consolidated Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10631-VCP (the
"Consolidated Action"). The April 16, 2015 order appointed
plaintiffs Rama Iyer and Jon Werbowsky as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
designated the amended complaint filed by plaintiffs Ankur Saggar,
Jon Werbowsky, and Angelo Agosti as the operative complaint (the
"Amended Complaint").

The Amended Complaint names as defendants Entropic, the board of
directors of Entropic, the Company, Excalibur Acquisition
Corporation, and Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC. The Amended Complaint
generally alleges that, in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Entropic by the Company, the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Entropic stockholders by, among
other things, purportedly failing to maximize the value of
Entropic to its stockholders, engaging in a purportedly unfair and
conflicted sale process, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protection devices in the merger agreement, and allegedly
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose all material
information in connection with the proposed transaction. The
Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company and the merger
subsidiaries aided and abetted the individual defendants in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Amended Complaint
seeks, among other things: an order declaring the merger agreement
unlawful and unenforceable, an order rescinding, to the extent
already implemented, the merger agreement, an order enjoining
defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, imposition
of a constructive trust, and attorneys' and experts' fees and
costs.

On April 24, 2015, the parties to the Consolidated Action entered
into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed settlement
of the Delaware actions. The proposed settlement is subject to
negotiation of the settlement papers by the parties and is subject
to court approval after notice and an opportunity to object is
provided to the proposed settlement class. There can be no
assurance that the parties will reach agreement regarding the
final terms of the settlement agreement or that the Court of
Chancery will approve the settlement.


MDC PARTNERS: Faces Class Suit by Firefighters Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
The North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter
Pension Plan filed on July 31, 2015, a putative class action suit
in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants MDC
Partners Inc., CFO David Doft, Mr. Nadal, and Mr. Sabatino. The
plaintiff alleges violations of Sec. 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Sec.
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on allegedly
materially false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC
filings and other public statements regarding executive
compensation, goodwill accounting, and the Company's internal
controls. The Company intends to vigorously defend this suit.

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


MICHAEL KORS: Faces "Hyseni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enxhi Hyseni, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc., Michael Kors,
L.L.C., Michael Kors Stores, L.L.C., Michael Kors Retail, Inc.,
Case No. 160628/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a fashion company with its
headquarters and principal place of business located at 11 West
42nd Street, New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212)943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


MINNESOTA: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Abu Kamara, and all others similarly-situated v. the State of
Minnesota, Case No. 0:15-cv-03846 (D. Minn., October 13, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minnesota Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff has worked as a "security counselor" for 33 years
within Defendant's Department of Health and Human Services at its
St. Peter Regional Treatment Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      Fax: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: lukas@nka.com

          - and -

      Randall Knutson, Esq.
      KNUTSON + CASEY, PLLP
      196 St. Andrews Dr., Suite 100
      Mankato, MN 56001
      Tel: (507) 344-8888
      Fax: (507) 344-8616
      E-mail: randy@knutsoncasey.com


MODEL N: Discovery in Securities Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Model N, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that discovery in the
securities class action case is ongoing.

On September 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015, purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
executive officers and underwriters of the initial public offering
("IPO"). The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of
the Company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those
who purchased the Company's stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the IPO. The lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages
and other relief. On March 2, 2015, the Court entered an order
consolidating the two class action lawsuits. Discovery in the case
is ongoing.

The Company believes that the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain and an adverse result could have a material effect on
its financial statements. However, based on currently available
information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome
of these unresolved matters will have a material adverse effect on
its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Class Action Remains Subject to Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement in a class action involving Mohawk Industries, Inc.
remains subject to court approval, according to the Company's Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints (the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers). All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant were filed in or transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result
of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products
from at least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at
trial are subject to being tripled under U.S. antitrust laws.

On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and on April
30, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle all
claims brought by the class of indirect purchasers. Both
settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which the
Company expects to receive. The Company denies all allegations of
wrongdoing but settled the class actions to avoid the uncertainty,
risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Cases by Foam Products Purchasers Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. remains a defendant in a number of cases
involving other purchasers of polyurethane foam products not sold
by the Company, 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 July 4, 2015.

On April 23, 2015, the Court consolidated twelve of these lawsuits
involving non-class claims filed against the Company by direct
purchasers of polyurethane foam. These consolidated cases had been
scheduled for trial to begin August 18, 2015.

The Company has agreements to settle all of the cases set for
trial in August. In addition, the Company has executed agreements
to settle nine additional individual cases.

Five individual cases remain pending against the Company, all of
which were brought by purchasers of polyurethane foam products not
sold by the Company.

The amount of the damages in the remaining cases varies or has not
yet been specified by the plaintiffs. Each plaintiff also seeks
attorney fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court
costs and injunctive relief against future violations.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Settles Claims by Canadian Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company on June 12,
2015, entered into an agreement to settle all claims brought by
the class of Canadian plaintiffs.

In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v.
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege
similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions
and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages.

On June 12, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
all claims brought by the class of Canadian plaintiffs. The
Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing but is
settling to avoid the uncertainty, risk, expense and distraction
of protracted litigation.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, "McCoy" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McCoy on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02366-DMS-RBB (S.D. Cal., October 19, 2015) seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of collecting interest, fees, and
expenses incidental to the principal obligation of the alleged
debt that were not authorized by the original mortgage and, in any
event, were charges that were unauthorized by law because the
alleged debt did not exist at any time that Nationstar allegedly
owned it.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC operates a mortgage company with a
principal place of business in Coppell, Texas 75019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael W. Vivoli, Esq.
      Jason P. Saccuzzo, Esq.
      Michael L. Federici, Esq.
      VIVOLI SACCUZZO, LLP
      2550 Fifth Avenue, Suite 709
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 744-9992
      Facsimile: (619) 744-9994


NEW ENGLAND FITNESS: Sued in New Jersey Over TCCWNA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Kauffman, Jr. and Krystal Kauffman, on behalf of themselves
and other persons similarly situated v. New England Fitness South,
Inc. d/b/a Planet Fitness, Case No. CAM-L-3936-15 (N.J. Super.
Ct., October 18, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of using a standard form Membership Agreement that
contains terms which violate the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

New England Fitness South, Inc. operates a fitness facility
located at 1468 Blackwood-Clementon Road in Clementon, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
      James A. Barry, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
      801 N. Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 663-8200
      E-mail: info@lockslaw.com

         - and -

      Charles N. Riley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES N. RILEY, LLC
      900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 308
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 667-4666


PACIFIC PREMIER: Bank Unit Dismissed from "Baker" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The banking unit of Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. has been
dismissed from a class action lawsuit, James Baker v. Century
Financial, et al, with prejudice, Pacific Premier said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

In February 2004, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit entitled "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al,"
which alleged violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act
(the "MSMLA") by the Bank's predecessor, Life Bank.  The lawsuit
alleged that Missouri homeowners were charged closing costs and
related fees exceeding the amount permitted by the MSMLA.  While
Life Bank did not originate these mortgages, it did ultimately own
and service them for a period of time, which plaintiffs allege
creates potential liability under the MSMLA.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri in
2000.

After a lengthy period of inactivity, the Bank was contacted by
plaintiffs' counsel to schedule depositions and discovery, and
prepare the case to go to trial in 2015.  The Board of Directors
of the Company established a $1.7 million reserve related to the
lawsuit during the fourth quarter of 2014, which the Board of
Directors believed to be a reasonable estimate of the Company's
exposure as of December 31, 2014.

In March and April 2015, the Company entered into a proposed
settlement agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the litigation as
to the Company.  In June, the court granted approval for the
settlement and the Bank remitted the final settlement amount of
$1,764,693.87.  The Bank has been dismissed from the lawsuit with
prejudice.


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linkitz Systems, Inc., and all others similarly-situated v.
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Panasonic Industrial Devices Sales Company of America, KOA
Corporation,KOA Speer Electronics, Inc., Murata Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd., Murata Electronics North America, Inc., ROHM Co. Ltd., ROHM
Semiconductor U.S.A., LLC, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., Yageo
Corporation, and Yageo America Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-04724
(N.D. Calif., October 13, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief,
and all other relief available under the federal antitrust laws
and the relevant laws of California and New York.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants along with other co-
conspirators agreed, combined, and conspired to inflate, fix,
raise, maintain or artificially stabilize prices of linear
resistors sold in the United States.

The Defendants are leading manufacturers of linear resistors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
      ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 421-3400
      Fax: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com


PATRICK W. LAWLOR: Sui Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Depasquale, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Patrick W. Lawlor, P.A., Lawlor & Zigler, LLC, and
Patrick W. Lawlor, Case No. 9:15-cv-81455-KLR (S.D. Fla., October
19, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a law firm based at 1877 South Federal
Highway, Suite 110, Boca Raton, Florida 33432-7466.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, Florida 33431
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


PELMEN FOODS: Recalls Dumpling Products Due to Non-Inspection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pelmen Foods, an Ontario, Canada, establishment, is recalling
approximately 332 pounds of beef, chicken and pork dumpling
products that were not presented at the U.S. point of entry for
inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full
inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The dumpling products were imported on Oct. 8, 2015. The following
products, sold between Oct. 8, 2015 and Oct. 30, 2015, are subject
to recall:

12.4 lb. cases containing 12 bags of "Pelmen Foods PELMENI
Siberian Recipe (Pork & Beef)" with "EXP Oct 02' 16" and Lot 5275
on the bags

12.4 lb. cases containing 12 bags of "Pelmen Foods PELMENI
Chicken" with "EXP Oct 02' 16" and Lot 5275 on the bags

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "721"
inside Canada's mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
distributors in Illinois and Wisconsin.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS surveillance
activities of imported products.

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

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Svetlana Minos, Quality Assurance and HACCP Coordinator, at (416)
661-9600 Ext 205.

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


PHL VARIABLE: Court Granted Preliminary Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
PHL Variable Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has
granted preliminary approval of the settlement of a class action.

On November 18, 2011, Martin Fleisher and another plaintiff (the
"Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed suit against Phoenix Life in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (C.A.
No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) challenging
cost of insurance ("COI") rate adjustments implemented by Phoenix
Life in 2010 and 2011 in certain universal life insurance
policies. The complaint seeks damages for breach of contract. The
class certified by the court is limited to holders of Phoenix Life
policies issued in New York subject to New York law and subject to
Phoenix Life's 2011 COI rate adjustment.

The Company has been named as a defendant in six actions
challenging its COI rate adjustments in certain universal life
insurance policies implemented concurrently with the Phoenix Life
adjustments. Phoenix Life and the Company are referred to as the
"Phoenix Life Companies." Five cases have been brought against the
Company, while one case has been brought against the Company and
Phoenix Life. These six cases, only one of which is styled as a
class action, have been brought by (1) Tiger Capital LLC (C.A. No.
1:12-cv- 02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on
March 14, 2012; the "Tiger Capital Litigation"); (2-5) U.S. Bank
National Association, as securities intermediary for Lima
Acquisition LP ((2: C.A. No. 1:12-cv-06811-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct;
S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on November 16, 2011; 3: C.A. No. 1:13-
cv-01580-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on March
8, 2013; collectively, the "U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations"); (4: C.A.
No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE; U.S. Dist. Ct; D. Conn., complaint
originally filed on March 6, 2013, in the District of Delaware and
transferred by order dated April 22, 2014, to the District of
Connecticut; and 5: C.A. No. 3:14-cv-01398-WWE, U.S. Dist. Ct; D.
Conn., complaint filed on September 23, 2014, and amended on
October 16, 2014, to add Phoenix Life as a defendant, and
consolidated with No. 3:14-cv-00555-WWE (collectively the "U.S.
Bank Conn. Litigations")); and (6) SPRR LLC (C.A. No. 1:14-cv-
8714-CM; U.S. Dist. Ct.; S.D.N.Y., complaint filed on October 31,
2014; the "SPRR Litigation"). SPRR LLC filed suit against the
Company, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated,
challenging COI rate adjustments implemented by the Company in
2011.

The Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations were assigned to the same judge as the Fleisher
Litigation. Plaintiff in the Tiger Capital Litigation seeks
damages for breach of contract. Plaintiff in the U.S. Bank N.Y.
Litigations and the U.S. Bank Conn. Litigations seeks damages and
attorneys' fees for breach of contract and other common law and
statutory claims. The plaintiff in the SPRR Litigation, which has
been reassigned to the same judge as the Fleisher Litigation,
Tiger Capital Litigation and the two U.S. Bank N.Y. Litigations,
seeks damages for breach of contract for a nationwide class of
policyholders.

The Phoenix Life Companies reached a definitive agreement to
settle a COI case, the Tiger Capital Litigation (Tiger Capital LLC
(C.A. No. 1:12-cv-02939-CM-JCF; U.S. Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) on a
basis that will not have a material impact on the Company's
financial statements. On June 3, 2015, the parties to the Tiger
Capital Litigation advised the court of the settlement, which
includes Tiger Capital, LLC's participation in the class
Settlement.

The Phoenix Life Companies reached an agreement as of April 30,
2015, memorialized in a formal settlement agreement executed on
May 29, 2015, with SPRR, LLC, Martin Fleisher, as trustee of the
Michael Moss Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan
Berck, as trustee of the John L. Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust
(collectively, the SPRR Litigation and the Fleisher Litigation
plaintiffs referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), to resolve the
Fleisher Litigation and SPRR Litigation (the "Settlement").

A motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement was filed with
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on May 29, 2015. On June 3, 2015, the court granted
preliminary approval of the Settlement, ordered notice be given to
class members, and set a hearing on September 9, 2015 to address,
among other things, final approval of the Settlement. The proposed
Settlement class consists of all policyholders that were subject
to the 2010 or 2011 COI rate adjustments (collectively, the
"Settlement Class"), including the policies within the above-named
COI cases, and will be structured to allow members of the
Settlement Class to opt out of the Settlement.

The Phoenix Life Companies will establish a Settlement fund, which
may be reduced proportionally for any opt-outs, and will pay a
class counsel fee if the Settlement is approved. The Phoenix Life
Companies will be released by all participating members of the
Settlement Class, and the COI rate adjustment for policies
participating in the Settlement Class will remain in effect.

The Phoenix Life Companies agreed to pay a total of $48.5 million,
as reduced for any opt-outs, in connection with the Settlement.
The Phoenix Life Companies agreed not to impose additional
increases to COI rates on policies participating in the Settlement
Class through the end of 2020, and not to challenge the validity
of policies participating in the Settlement Class for lack of
insurable interest or misrepresentations in the policy
applications. The Settlement is subject to certain conditions and
final court approval is intended to resolve all pending COI cases,
other than for policyholders who opt-out of the Settlement. Under
the Settlement, policyholders who are members of the Settlement
Class, including those which have filed individual actions
relating to COI rate adjustments, may opt out of the Settlement
and separately litigate their claims. The opt-out period expired
on July 17, 2015. Opt-out notices have been received by the
Phoenix Life Companies, including from U.S. Bank, a party to four
COI cases. The Phoenix Life Companies are currently unable to
estimate the damages that policyholders who opt out of the
Settlement may or may not collect in litigation against the
Phoenix Life Companies. There can be no assurance that the
ultimate cost to the Company will not be higher or lower than
$36.4 million.


PLY GEM: Deal Reached with Objectors to Vinyl Clad Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that MW entered into a
settlement agreement with, among others, the Objectors in the
Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"),
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany
Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class
action filed in July 2012 in the Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a
result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and
Freedom 800 windows.

On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn
cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, making
similar claims against all MW vinyl clad windows, including MW's
V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom 800 windows. The
plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic and
compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages,
and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs'
counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 to
settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide
basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad
Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any
and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987
through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible
consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other
requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The
Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement on May 23,
2014, and issued a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Approval Order") on
December 29, 2014, granting final approval of the settlement as
well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs'
counsel in the amount of $2.5 million.

On January 13, 2015, notice of appeal of the final approval (the
"Appeal") was given by certain objectors to the settlement, Karl
Memari, Joelene Connor-Hethcox and Vincent Cecil Garrett, Jr. (the
"Objectors"). On May 6, 2015, MW entered into a settlement
agreement with, among others, the Objectors to fully and finally
resolve their claims, including the dismissal of Karl Memari v.
Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., another pending lawsuit
seeking class certification, making the Vinyl Clad Settlement
Agreement final and binding on the parties. The Company and MW
deny all liability in the settlements and with respect to the
facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of the
substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation, and therefore agreed to settle these
matters.


PLY GEM: "Memari" Case in South Carolina Court Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that plaintiff dismissed the
case, Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al.

In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported
class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of
MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive
damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.
Plaintiff dismissed this matter in connection with the settlement
of the Appeal in the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases.


PLY GEM: No Class Certification Ruling in "Pagliaroni" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that a court has not yet
ruled on the hearing regarding class certification in the case,
Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck
North America, LLC.

In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which
was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck")
and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff
seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified. Discovery regarding
class certification has closed and the hearing regarding class
certification was held on March 10, 2015, although the Court has
not yet ruled on this hearing. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer of
Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify MHE for certain
liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales and
distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and MHE.
MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is, however,
limited by the terms and limits of the indemnity as well as the
strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change
in the future.

PLY GEM: Court Has Not Yet Rule on Appeal in "Muhler" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has yet to rule on the plaintiff's
appeal in the case, The Muhler Company, Inc. v. Ply Gem Prime
Holdings, Inc. et al.

In The Muhler Company, Inc. v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et
al., a lawsuit filed in April 2011 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division (the
"Court"), plaintiff alleges unfair competition and trade
practices. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i)
consequential damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

In April 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment with respect to the federal Lanham Act claims. In May
2013, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the summary
judgment granted on the federal Lanham Act claims, and the Fourth
Circuit denied interlocutory appeal. With the summary judgment
granted on the federal Lanham Act claims, only state unfair
competition and trade practices claims remain.

In April 2015, the Court heard arguments on the Company's motion
for summary judgment with respect to such claims, and on July 13,
2015, the Court granted the Company's motion. On July 27, 2015,
the plaintiff filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit with respect to the Court's ruling. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has yet to rule on the
plaintiff's appeal. The damages sought in this action have not yet
been quantified.


PLY GEM: Strathclyde Securities Litigation Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Paul Oetken of the Southern District of New York
has granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case, In Re Ply Gem
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 14-CV-3577(JPO)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Oetken, however, left the door open for lead plaintiff, the
Strathclyde Pension Fund, to file a second amended complaint.
That filing deadline was Oct. 28.

The defendants are: Defendants Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. ("Ply Gem"
or the "Company"), Gary E. Robinette, Shawn K. Poe, Frederick J.
Iseman, Robert A. Ferris, Steven M. Lefkowitz, John D. Roach,
Michael P. Haley, Timothy T. Hall, Jeffrey T. Barber, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LCC, Goldman,
Sachs, & Co., UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Zelman Partners LLC, BB&T Capital Markets, and Stephens Inc.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 29 order is available at
http://is.gd/tArYbvfrom Leagle.com.

Ply Gem explained in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015: In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation is a purported federal securities class
action filed on May 19, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Ply Gem Holdings,
Inc., several of its directors and officers, and the underwriters
associated with the Company's IPO. It is filed on behalf of all
persons or entities, other than the defendants, who purchased the
common shares of the Company pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's IPO and seeks remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, alleging that the Company's Form S-1
registration statement was negligently prepared and materially
inaccurate, containing untrue statements of material fact and
omitting material information which was required to be disclosed.
The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) damages
together with interest thereon and (ii) attorneys' fees and costs
of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint,
on April 14, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that
motion to dismiss, and on May 14, 2015 the defendants filed their
reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. The damages
sought in this action have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.

Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported
federal securities class action is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Water Bottles Due to Lead
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pottery Barn Kids, of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 15,200 Avengers and Darth Vader Themed Water
Bottles (in addition, 430 units were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The gray paint on the metal portion of the water bottle can
contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard.

This recall involves Avengers and Darth Vader themed stainless
steel water bottles with images of Thor, The Incredible Hulk and
Iron Man on one and an image of Darth Vader and the Death Star on
the other style. The water bottles are gray with a blue or black
plastic top, a vacuum-valve stopper and are 5 1/2 inches tall by 2
3/4 inches in diameter. SKU number 7939721 (Avengers) or 7939721
(Darth Vader) is printed on the price sticker affixed to the
bottom of the bottle, along with one of the following date codes:
12/2013, 8/2014 or 12/2014. A tracking label imprinted on the
underside of the bottle contains the date code printed along with
the words, "Pottery Barn Kids," "LOT 1, BATCH 1" and "JINHUA,
CHINA."

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5A8TFq

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Pottery Barn Kids and Pottery Barn Outlet stores nationwide,
through the Pottery Barn Kids catalog and online at
www.potterybarnkids.com from June 2014 through September 2015 for
about $16.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled water bottles from
children and return them to the nearest Pottery Barn Kids store or
contact the firm's toll-free number for free shipping information.
Consumers will have the option of a full refund or replacement
water bottle, plus a $20 Pottery Barn Kids gift card.


PRA GROUP: Court Lifted Stay in TCPA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
PRA Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has lifted the
stay in the case, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  On
December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court").

On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").
Following the ruling of the United States Federal Communications
Commission on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the
TCPA, the Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in
place since May 20, 2014.


QUALITY BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles & Cranksets Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Quality Bicycle Products, Inc. (QBP), of Bloomington, Minn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 70 bicycles and about 170
cranksets (in addition, about 40 bicycles and about 40 cranksets
were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The left end of the bicycle crankset spindle can break, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

The recall involves WeThePeople Envy BMX bicycles and aftermarket
ECLAT Aeon BMX cranksets. The Envy BMX bicycles have a 20.6 or 21
inch chromoly frame, painted dark gold. The bicycle bottom bracket
has an "ENVY20.6" or "ENVY21" stamp. The ECLAT Aeon BMX cranksets
are the gears at the front of the bicycle chain with pedals
attached to the outer ends. The cranksets have a steel, two-piece
construction. Printed on the left side of the spindle is ESS Eclat
22mm" and next to the pedal, on the crank arm is "Aeon." Printed
on the inside of the crank arm is "Eclat Germany" followed by the
crank arm length "170mm" or "175mm."

WeThePeople has received five reports of the crankset spindles
breaking. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at BMX
bicycle/product dealers, WeThePeople distributors and specialty
bicycle retailers nationwide and online at www.QBP.com and other
BMX bicycle/product websites from September 2014 through July
2015. The Envy bicycles sold for about $1,100 and the aftermarket
cranksets sold for about $180.

Consumers should immediately stop riding the recalled bicycles and
cranksets and return to the store where purchased for a free
inspection and free replacement spindle.


QUANTA SERVICES: "Benton" Action Seeks $21MM for Damages, Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Lorenzo
Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al., the
plaintiffs seek approximately $16 million for class damages and $5
million in attorneys' fees.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Benton
seeks to represent a class of workers that includes all persons
who worked on TNS projects between June 2002 and the present,
including individuals that TNS retained through 29 staffing
agencies. An amended complaint was filed in August 2007, naming
two additional class representatives, one of whom has since
settled directly with his employer. The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was heard and denied in May 2012.

The plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification, and in
October 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the denial
and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. In
November 2013, TNS filed a petition for review with the Supreme
Court of California, which was denied. The parties attended
mediation in December 2014, however, there was no resolution.

In March 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in the remanded proceeding. The plaintiffs seek
approximately $16 million for class damages and $5 million in
attorneys' fees. Quanta retained any liability associated with
this matter following its sale of TNS in December 2012.


REDBACK ENERGY: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Reynolds, and all others similarly-situated v. Redback
Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01145 (W.D. Okla., October
12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Redback Energy Services, LLC is an oil and gas service company
specializing in completion and production services, including pump
down and flowback services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,
      BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

          - and -

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


ROVINI CONCRETE: "Figueroa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Figueroa, Dannion Jordan, Jamez Leggett, Lamont Gray and
Shawn Parrilla, and all others similarly-situated v. Rovini
Concrete Corp., Rovini Construction Corp., vincent Zollo and
Rosemary Zollo, Case No. 1:15-cv-08058 (S.D.N.Y., October 13,
2015), seek to recover unpaid overtime premium pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate concrete and construction companies
in New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


RUSTICO FOODS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Non-Inspection
----------------------------------------------------------
Rustico Foods, a Los Angeles, Calif. establishment, is recalling
approximately 2,659 pounds of packaged soup products that were
produced without the benefit of federal inspection and outside
inspection hours, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The ready to eat soups were produced from Sept. 24, 2015, through
Oct. 21, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 2-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled "CHICKEN
      MATZO BALL."
  --- 1.6-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled
      "CHICKEN MATZO BALL."
  --- 1.6-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled
      "TURKEY CHILI WITH BEANS."
  --- 1.6-lb. individual plastic container of soup labeled
      "CHICKEN VEGETABLE."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-45180"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. They also bear lot codes "Lot
#2662015" through "Lot #2942015" on the bottom of the container
and "Best By 10/21/15" through "Best By 11/18/15" stickers on the
sides of the container. These items were shipped to retail
establishments in southern California.

The problem was discovered when an FSIS Consumer Safety Inspector
identified return products that he did not have knowledge of being
produced. An FSIS Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer
then visited the establishment and determined that the
establishment also produced some products outside of their
approved hours of inspection.

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

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Jorge Castaneda, Plant Coordinator, at (213) 749-9670.

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


SAM'S WEST: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Costumer Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Chikosi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sam's West, Inc., Sam's East, Inc., and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01675 (C.D. Cal., October 19, 2015)
is brought to remedy unfair and unlawful practices by the
Defendants for failure to comply with the terms of its 200% refund
guarantee.

The Defendants operate a chain of discount department stores and
warehouse stores, including Walmart Supercenters, Walmart Discount
Stores, and Sam's Club retail warehouses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ali Abtahi, Esq.
      ABTAHI LAW GROUP PC
      4000 MacArthur Blvd, Suite 600 East Tower
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 326-5500
      Facsimile: (949) 326-5501
      E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com

         - and -

      T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      1037 Chuck Dawley, Blvd., Building A
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
      E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com

         - and -

      William D. Herlong, Esq.
      THE HERLONG LAW FIRM, LLC
      1421 Augusta Street
      P.O. Box 8217
      Greenville, SC 29604
      Telephone: (864) 238-5111
      Facsimile: (864) 752-0820
      E-mail: William@HerlongLaw.com


SHAN NAMKEEN: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dimas Rodriguez, and all others similarly situated v. Shan
Namkeen, Inc. and Shailesh Patel, Case No. 3:15-cv-03370-M (N.D.
Tex., October 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the commercial food manufacturing business
in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


SHULER MEATS: Recalls Turkey Products Due Non-Inspection
--------------------------------------------------------
Shuler Meats, a Thomasville, N.C. establishment, is recalling
approximately 25,920 pounds of turkey products that were
reconditioned without the benefit of FSIS inspection, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The fully cooked smoked turkey legs were produced from Nov. 24,
2014, through May 4, 2015. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 648 - 40 lb. (approximate weight) plastic-lined cardboard
      boxes containing frozen turkey legs with the labels:
      "Shuler Meats, Co." and "Belmont Meats, Co."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-21309"
on the Belmont Meats, Co. boxes, and "M-40367" on the Shuler
Meats, Co. label. These items were distributed to fairs and
retailers in North Carolina.

The problem was discovered when staff from the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture notified FSIS personnel of the issue.

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

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Wayne Shuler, owner of Shuler Meats, at (336) 476-6477.

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


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Lawsuits on Premature Corrosion Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., 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 following
lawsuits, which all alleged premature corrosion of the Company's
strap tie holdown products in a housing development known as Ocean
Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, have been resolved by means of a
written settlement agreement (the "Settlement"): Alvarez v. Haseko
Homes, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-
11 ("Case 1"); Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-
1-1491-06 SSM ("Case 2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc.,
Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc. et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc.
et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-
1-1932-08 ("Case 4," and collectively, the "Cases"). Cases 1 and 4
were homeowner class actions consolidated for all purposes.

The Hawaii First District Circuit Court had previously granted the
Company summary judgment on all claims asserted by the plaintiff
homeowners against the Company in Cases 1 and 4. The Court further
granted the Company summary judgment on various claims and cross-
claims asserted by the housing developer and sub-contractor
defendants against the Company. The only claim remaining against
the Company in any of the Cases, which was asserted by the
developer and sub-contractor defendants for alleged negligent
misrepresentation, was resolved pursuant to the Settlement without
adjudication or any admission of liability by the Company. The
Settlement may not be used as evidence of liability against any
party. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement on June
19, 2015, and the Cases will be dismissed in due course. The
Company incurred no uninsured liability to the homeowner
plaintiffs, or to the developer or sub-contractor defendants, in
connection with the Cases or the Settlement.

The following insurance coverage lawsuits related to the above-
referenced Cases have also been resolved through settlement:
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson
Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254 ACK (the
"National Union Action"); Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the
"Fireman's Fund Action"); and Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc,
et al. v. National Union Fire Insurance Company, et al., Case No.
CGC-11-516046 (collectively the "Insurance Coverage Cases"). These
Insurance Coverage Cases will be dismissed in due course after the
Company's insurance companies make agreed contributions to the
above-referenced Settlement. The Company incurred no liability in
connection with the Insurance Coverage Cases.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Bid in "Nishimura" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a request for class
certification in the case, Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd., et
al., remains pending.

Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.;
and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-7, was
filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on July
20, 2011.  The Nishimura case alleges premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development at
Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii.  In February 2012, the Court
dismissed three of the five claims the plaintiffs had asserted
against the Company. In December 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The
Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims against the
developer of their properties, and on April 1, 2015, filed a
motion to seek certification to proceed on behalf of a class of
homeowner plaintiffs.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trials Expected in Early to Mid-2016
-----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trials in the lawsuits
related to the Shape-ups shoes are expected to be set for dates in
early to mid-2016.

The Company said, "On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as
defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that
Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently
designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to
representations made by our company, and that we failed to provide
adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In
total, we are named as a defendant in 1,199 currently pending
cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various
courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar
legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as
well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss
of consortium, and fraud.  Although there are some variations in
the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory
and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

"On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. Since
2011, a total of 1,233 personal injury cases have been filed in or
transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional individuals
have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets. The Company has
resolved 432 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings,
comprised of 62 that were filed as formal actions and 370 that
were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has also settled
8 claims in principle -- 6 filed cases and 2 claims submitted by
plaintiff fact sheets -- and anticipates that those settlements
will be finalized in the near term. Forty-two cases in the MDL
proceeding have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by
Skechers and 38 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet
have been abandoned. The MDL currently encompasses 1,129 personal
injury cases (which include the claims of 1,437 individuals who
filed court approved questionnaires) and 4 claims submitted by
plaintiff fact sheets."

Under a mediation procedure authorized by the District Court, a
total of 2,353 settlement questionnaires were submitted by persons
who had yet to file a lawsuit or who were already participants in
the MDL or related coordinated proceedings pending in California
state court.  Mediations were held on October 4, 2014 and December
16, 2014, but no settlements were reached. On December 29, 2014,
the District Court ordered that a total of sixty cases be selected
by the parties for staggered, accelerated discovery and then
either be remanded to their originating districts or set for
trial. The sixty cases were selected in January 2015 and both
written and deposition discovery is proceeding. Seven of the 60
accelerated cases have been dismissed either voluntarily or on
motions by Skechers, and the Company expects the stipulated
dismissal of an additional case will be ordered in the near term.
To the extent that the remaining 52 accelerated cases are not
resolved by dispositive motions or otherwise, trials are expected
to be set for dates in early to mid-2016."


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trial Dates Set for First 2 Bellwether Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that if the remaining
bellwether cases are not resolved, the court set trial dates of
October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first two bellwether
cases, but deferred selection of the specific individual
bellwether plaintiff to go forward on each of those two dates to a
later time.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group have been named as defendants in a total of 71
personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the
State of California that were brought on behalf of 914 individual
plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved
questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of
those cases, 67 were originally filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases").

On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a
petition by the Company to coordinate all personal injury actions
filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases
(collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases"). On October 6, 2014,
three cases that had been pending in other counties were
transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases.

On April 17, 2015, an additional case was transferred to and
coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. Four of the actions
originally filed as LASC cases, brought on behalf of a total of 6
plaintiffs, have been dismissed. The claims of 44 additional
plaintiffs have been dismissed entirely from certain of the
lawsuits, either voluntarily, on motion by Skechers, or pursuant
to a settlement agreement. The claims of 21 additional persons
have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily or on motions by
Skechers. Thus, the LASC Coordinated Cases currently involve 67
pending personal injury lawsuits brought on behalf of a total of
864 plaintiffs.

On March 12, 2014, the Superior Court selected twelve plaintiffs
as bellwether cases to be set for one or more trials starting in
March 2015. To date, extensive written discovery and document
productions have taken place in the LASC cases. Over twenty fact
witness depositions have been taken (all of which were cross-
noticed in the MDL), as have eight expert depositions. Two of the
bellwether cases have settled and one bellwether plaintiff
dismissed her action after Skechers filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On January 7, 2015, the Court vacated the March 2015 initial
bellwether trial date and granted Skechers' motions for summary
adjudication in five bellwether cases with respect to those
plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including their claims for
breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection
laws. On February 25, 2015, the Court granted Skechers' motions
for summary adjudication in the four remaining bellwether cases
with respect to those plaintiffs' advertising-related claims,
including their claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and
violations of consumer protection laws; the Court also granted
Skechers' summary adjudication motions as to two of the four
plaintiffs' products liability claims for an alleged failure to
warn, and took under submission the portion of Skechers' motions
seeking summary adjudication of all four plaintiffs' products
liability claims for alleged design defects. If the remaining
bellwether cases are not resolved, the Court also set trial dates
of October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first two
bellwether cases, but deferred selection of the specific
individual bellwether plaintiff to go forward on each of those two
dates to a later time.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Jan. 4 Trial Set in Missouri State Court Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in other state courts,
a total of 13 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous
plaintiffs) have been filed that have not been removed to federal
court and transferred to the multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). Ten
of those actions have been resolved and dismissed. The remaining 3
actions include the claims of 220 plaintiffs, all of whom had
submitted court-approved settlement questionnaires in the MDL. No
discovery has taken place in these actions. If not otherwise
resolved, a trial date of January 4, 2016, has been set in one
action currently pending in Missouri state-court. No other trial
dates have been set.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Settlements Being Negotiated with Several Groups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the personal injury
cases in the multidistrict litigation ("MDL") and the Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles Coordinated Cases and in other
state courts are in many instances solicited and handled by the
same plaintiffs law firms. Mediations were held with these laws
firms on May 18, June 18, and July 24, 2015.

The Company said, "Settlements in principle are being negotiated
with several groups that collectively claim to represent over
2,700 claimants. The settlements involve complex monetary and non-
monetary terms that still have to be negotiated and documented. If
the group settlements are not finalized and the litigation
proceeds, it is too early to predict the outcome of any case,
whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or
financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover any losses."

"Notwithstanding, we believe we have meritorious defenses,
vehemently deny the allegations and intend to defend each of these
cases vigorously. In addition, even if the global settlement is
finalized, it is too early to predict whether there will be future
personal injury cases filed which are not covered by the
settlement, whether adverse results in any single case or in the
aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations
or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be
available and/or adequate to cover any losses."


SKECHERS U.S.A.: "Grabowski" Deal to Resolve 2 Other Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement reached
in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected to resolve the
class actions:

     -- Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.; and
     -- Elma Boatright and Sharon White v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
        Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group.

                         "Tomlinson" Case

The Company said, "On January 13, 2011, Patty Tomlinson filed a
lawsuit against our company in Circuit Court in Washington County,
Arkansas, Case No. CV11-121-7. The complaint alleges, on her
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that our
advertising for Shape-ups violates Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, constitutes a breach of certain express and implied
warranties, and is resulting in unjust enrichment (the "Tomlinson
action"). The complaint seeks certification of a statewide class,
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs."

"On February 18, 2011, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where it was
pending as Patty Tomlinson v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., CV 11-05042
JLH. On March 21, 2011, Ms. Tomlinson moved to remand the action
back to Arkansas state court, which motion we opposed. On May 25,
2011, the Court ordered the case remanded to Arkansas state court
and denied our motion to dismiss or transfer as moot, but stayed
the remand pending completion of appellate review.

"On September 11, 2012, the District Court lifted its stay and
remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Washington County,
Arkansas. On October 11, 2012, by stipulation of the parties, the
state Circuit Court issued an order staying the case. On August
13, 2012, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the
nationwide consumer class action settlement in Grabowski v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. Case No. 3:12-CV-00204, and Morga v.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 3:12-CV-00205 (the
"Grabowski/Morga class actions"), and issued a preliminary
injunction enjoining the continued prosecution of the Tomlinson
action, among other cases. On May 13, 2013, the Court in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order finally approving
the nationwide consumer class action settlement, and the time for
any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement in the
Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to resolve the
class claims brought by the plaintiff in Tomlinson."

                         "Boatright" Case

The Company also said, "On February 15, 2012, Elma Boatright and
Sharon White filed a lawsuit against our company in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Case
No. 3:12-cv-87-S. The complaint alleges, on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all others similarly situated, that our advertising
for Shape-ups is false and misleading, thereby constituting a
breach of contract, breach of implied and express warranties,
fraud, and resulting in unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks
certification of a nationwide class, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

"On March 6, 2012, the named plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate this action with In re Skechers Toning Shoe Products
Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. On August 13,
2012, the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky granted preliminary approval of the consumer class action
settlement agreement in the Grabowski/Morga class actions
(described above), and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining
the continued prosecution of this action. On May 13, 2013, the
Court in the Grabowski/Morga class actions entered an order
finally approving the nationwide consumer class action settlement,
and the time for any appeals therefrom has expired. The settlement
in the Grabowski/Morga class actions is expected entirely to
resolve the class claims brought by the plaintiff in Boatright."


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Distribution of Funds to "Angell" Class Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following approval of a
deal to resolve the case, Jason Angell v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers U.S.A. Canada, Inc., claims
are still being evaluated and the funds still have to be
distributed to class members.

The Company said, "On April 12, 2012, Jason Angell filed a motion
to authorize the bringing of a class action in the Superior Court
of Quebec, District of Montreal. Petitioner Angell seeks to bring
a class action on behalf of all residents of Canada (or in the
alternative, all residents of Quebec) who purchased Skechers
Shape-ups footwear. Petitioner's motion alleges that we have
marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and misleading
advertisements and representations about the products' ability to
provide health benefits to users. The motion requests the Court's
authorization to institute a class action seeking damages
(including damages for bodily injury), punitive damages, and
injunctive relief. Petitioner's motion was formally presented to
the Court on June 29, 2012."

"At a mediation held on February 28, 2013, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Angell action (as well as the
Niras and Dedato actions described below) through authorization by
the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class. That
agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and
thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval.

"On November 5, 2014, the Court issued its formal judgment
approving the settlement and the time for appealing the judgment
has now expired without any appeal. Notwithstanding, claims are
still being evaluated and the funds still have to be distributed
to class members. In the event that there are unforeseen
circumstances which upset the settlement, we cannot predict the
outcome of this action or a reasonable range of potential losses
or whether the outcome of this action would have a material
adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or
result in a material loss in excess of the settlement or a
recorded accrual."

                        "Davis/Smith" Case

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the case,
Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

The Company said, "On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a
Statement of Claim in the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton,
Alberta, on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased
Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges that
Skechers marketed Shape-ups through the use of false and
misleading advertisements and representations about the products'
ability to provide fitness benefits to users. The Statement of
Claim seeks damages (including damages for bodily injury),
restitution, punitive damages, and injunctive relief."

"On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended Statement of Claim was
filed to substitute a new representative plaintiff, Kourtney
Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege substantially the same
claims as in the original Statement of Claim with respect to all
Skechers toning footwear sold to residents of Canada.

"On or about February 28, 2014, representative plaintiff Smith
agreed to the terms and conditions of the settlement reached in
the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions. . ., and agreed to
discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the settlement in the
Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is finally approved by the
Court and affirmed on appeal in the event an appeal is taken. On
November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement in the Angell class action and
the time for appealing the judgment has now expired without any
appeal.

"On January 16, 2015, the Court in the Davies/Smith action issued
an order effectively dismissing that action. Notwithstanding,
claims are still being evaluated in connection with the settlement
of the Angell action and the funds still have to be distributed to
class members. In the event that there are unforeseen
circumstances which upset the settlement we cannot predict the
outcome of the Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of
potential losses or whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action
would have a material adverse impact on our results of operations,
financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the
settlement or a recorded accrual."

                           "Niras" Case

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the
George Niras v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II,
and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc.

The Company said, "On September 21, 2012, George Niras filed a
Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups,
Resistance Runners, Shape-ups Toners/Trainers, or Tone-ups. The
Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed these toning
shoes through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide health
benefits to users. The Statement seeks damages, restitution,
punitive damages, and injunctive relief. At a mediation held on
February 28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Niras action (as well as the Angell action described
above and the Dedato action) through authorization by the Quebec
Superior Court of a nationwide settlement class."

"That agreement was finalized by the parties in December 2013 and
thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior Court for approval. On
November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the
judgment has now expired without any appeal. On November 20, 2014,
the Ontario Superior Court issued an order effectively dismissing
the Niras action.

"Notwithstanding, claims are still being evaluated in connection
with the settlement of the Angell action and the funds still have
to be distributed to class members. In the event that there are
unforeseen circumstances which upset the settlement, we cannot
predict the outcome of the Niras action or a reasonable range of
potential losses or whether the outcome of the Niras action would
have a material adverse impact on our results of operations,
financial position or result in a material loss in excess of the
settlement or a recorded accrual."

                           "Dedato" Case

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the case,
Frank Dedato v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A. Canada,
Inc.

The Company said, "On or about November 5, 2012, Frank Dedato
filed a Statement of Claim in Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased Shape-ups, Tone-
ups or Resistance Runners footwear. The Statement of Claim alleges
that Skechers has allegedly made misleading statements about its
footwear products' ability to provide fitness benefits to users.
The Statement of Claim seeks damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief. At a mediation held on February
28, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle
the Dedato action (as well as the Angell and Niras actions)
through authorization by the Quebec Superior Court of a nationwide
settlement class. That agreement was finalized by the parties in
December 2013 and thereafter presented to the Quebec Superior
Court for approval."

"On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court issued its formal
judgment approving the settlement and the time for appealing the
judgment has now expired without any appeal. Notwithstanding,
claims are still being evaluated in connection with the settlement
of the Angell action and the funds still have to be distributed to
class members. In the event that there are unforeseen
circumstances which upset the settlement, we cannot predict the
outcome of the Dedato action or a reasonable range of potential
losses or whether the outcome of the Dedato action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement
or a recorded accrual."

                          "Cooper" Case

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. also disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, updates in the case,
Susan Cooper et al. v. Ontrea Inc. et al.

On October 22, 2014, the Company was named as a third-party
defendant in a lawsuit pending in the Court of Queen's Bench in
Calgary, Alberta, Case No. 1301 10673. The third party notice
asserts claims for indemnification and contribution arising from
injuries plaintiff allegedly sustained as a result of wearing
Shape-ups shoes. The class action settlement in the Angell action,
is expected to resolve the Cooper action.

"However, in the event there are unforeseen circumstances that
upset the settlement, we cannot predict the outcome of the Cooper
action or a reasonable range of potential losses or whether the
outcome of the Cooper action would have a material adverse impact
on our results of operations, financial position or result in a
material loss in excess of the settlement or a recorded accrual,"
the Company said.


SOLAZYME INC: Norfolk County Retirement System Case Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
Solazyme, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a securities class
action complaint entitled Norfolk County Retirement System v.
Solazyme, Inc. et al. was filed in June 2015, against the Company,
its CEO, Jonathan Wolfson, its CFO/COO, Tyler Painter, certain of
its current and former directors, and the underwriters of its
March 2014 equity and debt offerings, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Inc.
and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The complaint asserts claims for
alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1934, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class that would comprise all
individuals who acquired the Company's securities (i) between
February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 and (ii) pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's public equity and debt offerings in
March 2014. The complaint alleges that investors were misled by
statements made during that period about the construction
progress, development, and production capacity associated with the
production facility located in Brazil owned by the Company's joint
venture, Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renovaveis Ltda.  The Company
believes the complaint lacks merit, and intends to defend itself
vigorously.


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Cohen Entered Appearance as Co-Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the law firm Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. has entered its
appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae.   The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae.  Plaintiffs claim that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.

On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to
certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to
amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a
decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to
claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with
respect to plaintiffs' usury claims.   Plaintiffs thereafter filed
a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional
parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. On June 5, 2015, the law firm
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered
its appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action.  However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice").  Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB.  Bank SNB has substantial defenses with
respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately
made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend
against any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the
class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii)
the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made
by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees
charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that
will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi
Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might
prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us
for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that
Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot
estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a
result of the Ubaldi Case.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Proceedings in "Perry" Action Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court ordered a
stay of proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between the
parties in the case, John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court,
District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH).

This putative consolidated class action raises substantially
identical claims and allegations against defendants Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott,
and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is August 8,
2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all
defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section
20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the
individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the
Company's March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that
it anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The
complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press
release, the Company's stock price declined. The complaints
further allege that during the putative class period certain
defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV
sales, which inflated the trading price of Company stock. The
lawsuits seek relief in the form of monetary damages, costs and
fees, and any other equitable or injunctive relief that the court
deems appropriate.

On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.

"On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action complaint. On March 26, 2015, the court
denied the motion to dismiss. On June 15, 2015, the Court ordered
a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of mediation between
the parties," the Company said.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Certification Bid Remains Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on class
certification was held on March 5 - 7 and April 11, 2014, and the
matter remains under advisement. It's unclear when the court will
issue its ruling on class certification.

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

The company is involved, along with other steel manufacturing
companies, in several class action antitrust complaints pending in
federal court in Chicago, Illinois, which allege a conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States during a period between
2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such
steel products. One of the complaints was brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products.  A second complaint was brought on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products
within the same time period.  An additional complaint was brought
in December 2010, on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel
products in Tennessee and has been consolidated with the original
complaints.  All complaints seek treble damages and costs,
including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief.

"Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in May 2012,
and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint Memorandum
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. A
hearing on class certification was held on March 5 - 7 and April
11, 2014, and the matter remains under advisement. It's unclear
when the court will issue its ruling on class certification," the
Company said.


SUPREME SERVICE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Augustine Gomez and Dallas Brown, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Supreme Service & Specialty
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05264 (E.D. Lo., October 10, 2015)
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc. is the largest
independent specialty rental company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Tusa Jr., Esq.
      SUTTON, ALKER & RATHER, LLC
      4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
      Mandeville, LO 70448
      Telephone: (985) 727-7501
      Facsimile: (985) 727-7505
      E-mail: mtusa@sutton-alker.com


SYATT FRANCHISING: "Fuller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Fuller, Maqunair, Rodrigues De Freitas, and Adilson Dos
Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Syatt Franchising, Inc. d/b/a Jani-King of Greater
Rhode Island, Jani-King International, and Jani-King, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00438-M-LDA (D.R.I., October 19, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Massachusetts Wage Laws.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial franchise company
across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Wasylyk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
      1307 Chalkstone Avenue
      Providence, RI 02098
      Telephone: (401) 831-7730
      Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
      E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

         - and -

      James W. Simpson Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES SIMPSON, P.C.
      100 Concord Street, Suite 3B
      Framingham, MA 01702
      Telephone: (508) 872-0002
      E-mail: james@simpsonlawoffices.com

         - and -

      Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
      Jill Kahn, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
              jkahn@llrlaw.com


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Turkey Meatloaf Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms, a Swedesboro, N.J. establishment, is recalling
approximately 276 pounds of turkey meatloaf products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products contain eggs, soy and wheat, known allergens which
are not declared on the product label.

The items were produced on Oct. 15, 2015. The following products
are subject to recall:

  -- 13.9-ounce, single serve trays containing Taylor Farms
     "Turkey Meatloaf with tomato bacon glaze."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-34513"
inside the USDA mark of inspection and a Sell By date of Oct. 29,
2015. These items were shipped to retail locations in Delaware,
the District of Columbia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania
and Virginia.

The problem was discovered by a Taylor Farms merchandiser. Taylor
Farms then notified the FSIS Raleigh (N.C.) District Office.

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

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Marie Butler, company quality assurance director, at (856) 294-
4181.

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


TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration to Settle Labor Rift
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
currently participating in an arbitration related to federal and
state unpaid overtime actions.

The Company is currently participating in an arbitration, based on
the Company's dispute resolution process, with 29 current and
former employees (the "Employees") who had worked or are working
in various states. The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid
overtime wages including liquidated damages under the Federal
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the applicable state laws of
various states, including New Mexico and Colorado. The case is
assigned to a three judge panel of arbitrators. The parties
litigated the issue of whether or not a Rule 23 style opt-out
class action is appropriate in this case and the arbitration panel
has determined it is not appropriate for FLSA claims but is
available for state law wage claims.

"At June 30, 2015, we maintain an estimated reserve for potential
exposure, which we consider adequate," the Company said.


TMCD CORPORATION: "Long" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robyn Long, and all others similarly-situated v. TMCD Corporation
dba The Men's Club of Dallas dba The Men's Club of Charlotte dba
The Men's Club of Houston, and David Fairchild, Case No. 3:15-cv-
03298 (N.D. Tex., October 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failing to pay minimum wage in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a family of gentelman's clubs located in
Dallas and Houston, Texas and Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010

          - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834


TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Baltimore Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trade Street Residential, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a complaint was
filed on June 11, 2015, naming the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors as defendants in the Circuit Court of
Maryland for Baltimore City.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs amended their complaint and added
Senator, Monarch Alternative Capital, LP ("Monarch") and BHR
Capital LLC ("BHR") as defendants.  The amended complaint purports
to assert class action claims alleging that the members of the
Company's Board breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and
the Company's minority stockholders by approving the Merger for
inadequate consideration, that the process leading up to the
Merger was flawed, and that three directors of the Company, by
virtue of their affiliations with certain stockholders of the
Company, engaged in an alleged self-interested scheme to force the
sale of the Company. The amended complaint alleges that the
stockholder defendants aided and abetted these alleged violations
and were unjustly enriched by the merger.  Among other relief, the
complaint seeks a finding that the individual director defendants
are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties; an order
requiring that the directors affiliated with the stockholder
defendants disgorge all profits, compensation and other benefits
obtained by them as a result of their conduct in connection with
the Merger; and an award of plaintiffs' costs and disbursements of
this action, including attorney's fees. The amended complaint does
not seek an injunction against the shareholder vote or the closing
of the transaction.  The deadline for an answer or other
responsive pleading by the defendants has not yet passed.  The
Company and the director defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the claim and believe the probability of an unfavorable
outcome as less than probable. However, the Company cannot give
any assurance as to the legal or financial outcome of this
defense.

Due to the nature of the 2012 Recapitalization, the Company could
find itself subject to a legal claim or proceeding associated with
the previous business operations of the Predecessor. On February
13, 2015, the Company completed the settlement of a claim
involving disputed charges on property previously owned by the
Predecessor in the amount of approximately $0.7 million.  The
charge associated with this settlement was included in accounts
payable and accrued expenses in the Company's consolidated balance
sheet as of December 31, 2014.

Due to the nature of the Company's operations, it is possible that
the Company's existing properties have or properties that the
Company will acquire in the future have asbestos or other
environmental related liabilities.


TRE AMICI: Faces "Carrillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Carrillo and Pedro Jimenez, similarly situated persons,
known and unknown v. Tre Amici Pizza, LLC, and Colleen Felfle,
Case No. 1:15-cv-09226 (N.D. Ill., October 19, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Defendants operate Tre Amici Pizza restaurant located at 1536
Nerge Rd., Elk Grove Village, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
TTM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement in the
class action complaints related to Viasystems Acquisition remains
pending.

Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014 of the
execution of the Merger Agreement, Viasystems, TTM, and the
members of the Viasystems Board have been named as defendants in
two putative class action complaints challenging the acquisition
of Viasystems. The first lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Missouri on September 30, 2014 (the Missouri
Lawsuit), and the second lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware on October 13, 2014 (the Delaware Lawsuit
and, together with the Missouri Lawsuit, the Lawsuits), generally
allege that the Merger fails to properly value Viasystems, that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
approving the Merger Agreement, and that those breaches were aided
and abetted by TTM and Viasystems.

The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary
duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate
consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal
protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating
in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and
management are divided; (2) the voting agreements entered into
between the Company and certain of Viasystems' significant
stockholders prevent Viasystems stockholders from providing a
meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that
those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM,
Merger Sub, and Viasystems. Further, the Missouri Lawsuit
specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the
proposed Merger is unfair and the consideration to be paid in
connection with the Merger is inadequate; (2) the Viasystems Board
and Viasystems' management have a conflict of interest due to the
cash pool bonus and change in control payments to be made to
certain executive officers and key employees if the Merger is
consummated; and (3) the Merger Agreement contains impermissible
deal protection devices.

The Lawsuits seek injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the
extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the
terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the
respective court deems proper. The Delaware Lawsuit also seeks:
(1) in the event the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of
the court's final judgment, rescissory damages as an alternative
to rescission, and (2) an accounting by all defendants to the
plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages caused by
the defendants and for all profits and any special benefits
obtained as a result of their alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

On January 6, 2015, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a
proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry
of the final judgment. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the
parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on May 22, 2015,
that remains subject to customary conditions, including court
approval. The settlement agreement does not require the defendants
to pay any monetary consideration to the proposed settlement
class. The settlement agreement provides for payment of attorneys'
fees of the plaintiffs and reimbursement of expenses, in the
amount to be determined by the court, but not to exceed $550,000.
If the stipulation of settlement is approved by the court, it will
fully and finally resolve all of the claims asserted, or that
could have been asserted, in the Lawsuit against the defendants,
and provide a release by the proposed settlement class of all
claims against the defendants and their respective affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger.

The proposed settlement is subject to the preliminary approval of
the court as well as the court's final approval after notice of
the terms of the settlement has been provided to the proposed
settlement class. Timing of the approval process is dependent on
the court's calendar. Members of the proposed settlement class
will have the right to object to the settlement in writing to the
court once the court has set a hearing for final approval.


UGI CORPORATION: Notice of Appeal Filed by Direct Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that direct customers have
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit in a class action lawsuit.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers
and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.

In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct
customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief
brought by indirect customers.  The direct customers have filed a
notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit; other procedural responses may be available to the
indirect customers.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation.  We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


UNITED STATES STOVE: Recalls Pellet Heater/Stove Products
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
United States Stove Company, of South Pittsburg, Tenn., announced
a voluntary recall of about 4,400 Pellet Heater/Stove. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The internal fire box baffle can degrade, overheat and pose a fire
hazard.

The recall includes United States Stove Company's HomComfort 2400
24K BTU Pellet Heater/Stoves. These steel and polycarbonate
products are grey and are used as a window mounted heating
appliance. The heaters measure about 21.5 inches high by 24.5
inches deep by 23 inches wide.  Serial numbers included in the
recall are 0451 through 4420, 5681 through 5890 and 6301 through
6310. The firm name and serial number are printed on the faceplate
attached by screws on the front bottom of the unit.

The United States Stove Company has received 16 reports of fire
and property damage. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8jyqDf

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Northern Tool, Orsheln, Orgill Brothers and Rural King home
heating retailers and online at www.HomeDepot.com, www.Lowes.com
and www.NorthernTool.com from April 2010 through March 2012 for
about $1000.

Consumers should immediately unplug these units, stop using the
product and return the circuit board and serial face plate to the
firm for $868 cash or $1,200 credit towards the purchase of any
United States Stove Company product.


USPACK LOGISTICS: Faces "Easterday" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Easterday, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. USPack Logistics LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
07559-RBK-KMW (D.N.J.., October 19, 2015) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and
New Jersey common law.

USPack Logistics LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that
supplies courier services throughout the State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      BERGEN & MONTAGUE, PC
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      E-mail: apiazza@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3300
      Chicago, IL
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: aew@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace..com



VERSACE USA: Sued in New York Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Occhiolini and Lillith Vargas, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. Versace USA, Inc., Case No.
160637/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct., October 16, 2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

Versace USA, Inc. is a retailer selling the upmarket Italian
label's apparel, accessories & fragrances for men & women.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Rochford" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Michael Rochford and Shelly Adami, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen A.G. and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01664 (D.D.C., October 12, 2015), seeks damages
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").

The Defendants manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and
warranted the Defeat Device Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi
brand names throughout the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 SE Third Avenue
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: 954-320-9507
      Fax: 954-320-9609
      E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com

          - and -

      Eric R. Glitzenstein, Esq.
      MEYER GLITZENSTEIN & EUBANKS LLP
      4115 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 210
      Washington, D.C. 20016
      Tel: (202) 588-5206
      Fax: (202) 588-5049
      E-mail: eglitzenstein@meyerglitz.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brown" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jontyl C. Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-03680-ODE (N.D. Ga., October 19, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009, that caused the vehicles'
pollution controls to disengage except during emissions tests.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason W. Graham, Esq.
      Eric L. Jensen, Esq.
      Zachary S. Lewis, Esq.
      Mary Meyer, Esq.
      GRAHAM & JENSEN, LLP
      17 Executive Park Drive, Suite 115
      Atlanta, GA 30329
      Telephone: (404) 842-9380
      Facsimile: (678) 904-3110
      E-mail: jgraham@grahamjensen.com
              ejensen@grahamjensen.com
              zlewis@grahamjensen.com
              mmeyer@grahamjensen.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clark" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabian Clark, Bobby Yates, Deborah Kiley, Ronald Trimm, Megan
Hinton, Andrew Pruett, Ray Harris, Mark Johnson, Pamela Johnson
and Rusty Wensel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07581-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 19, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission
"defeat devices" on over 482,000 clean diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Russell D. Paul, Esq.
      Lane L. Vines, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              rpaul@bm.net
              lvines@bm.net

         - and -

      Jay J. Rice, Esq.
      Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
      Diane E. Sammons, Esq.
      Randee Matloff, Esq.
      Greg M. Kohn, Esq.
      NAGEL RICE LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 618-0400
      Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
      E-mail: jrice@nagelrice.com
              bnagel@nagelricc.com
              dsammons@nagelrice.com
              rmatloff@nagelrice.com
              gkohn@nagelrice.com

         - and -

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP
      Park 80 West-Plaza One, 250 Pehle Ave., Ste. 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
      E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: krichter@nka.com
              drake@nka.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gentry" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Gentry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01107 (M.D. Tenn., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional installation of so-called emission "defeat
devices" in approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3,
the Golf and the Passat models, to undermine the emissions tests
of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other state
testing agencies by producing artificially low levels of
pollutants during emissions tests, and dramatically higher levels
of pollutants during real-world driving.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Donald J. Cazayoux, Jr.
      CAZAYOUX EWING, LLC
      257 Maximilian Street
      Baton Rouge, LO 70802
      Telephone: (225) 650-7400
      Facsimile: (225) 650-7401
      E-mail: don@cazayouxewing.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hayden" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Hayden and Dario Medina, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13688-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2015)
arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional installation of
so-called emission "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000
Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, to
undermine the emissions tests of the Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") and other state testing agencies by producing
artificially low levels of pollutants during emissions tests, and
dramatically higher levels of pollutants during real-world
driving.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Henderson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-01182-D (W.D. Okla., October 19, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of so-called emission
"defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the
Audi A3, the Golf and the Passat models, to undermine the
emissions tests of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and
other state testing agencies by producing artificially low levels
of pollutants during emissions tests, and dramatically higher
levels of pollutants during real-world driving.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tracy L. Brock, Esq.
      TRACY BROCK, PLLC
      5104 Summit Drive
      Edmond, OK 73034
      Telephone: (405) 285-7761
      Facsimile: (405) 285-7751

         - and -

      Charles "Dee" Hopper, Esq.
      Sergio Salzano, Esq.
      LYNCH, HOPPER, SALZANO & SMITH, LLP
      1640 Alta Drive, Ste. 11
      Las Vegas NV 89106
      Telephone: (702) 868-1115
      Facsimile: (702) 868-1114


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hoag" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Hoag and Paul Byrne, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02367-AJB-DHB (S.D. Cal., October
19, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional
installation of so-called emission "defeat devices" in
approximately 500,000 Jetta, the Beetle, the Audi A3, the Golf and
the Passat models, to undermine the emissions tests of the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and other state testing
agencies by producing artificially low levels of pollutants during
emissions tests, and dramatically higher levels of pollutants
during real-world driving.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Dowd, Esq.
      Jason A. Forge, Esq.
      Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: miked@rgrdlaw.com
              jforge@rgrdlaw.com
              rachelj@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Joseph, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-13693-SFC-EAS (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      Facsimile: (248) 971-2600
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
      Tana Lin, Esq.
      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel Mensher, Esq.
      Ryan McDevitt, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com
              tlin@kellerrohrback.com
              gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
              rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Landau" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Landau and Frederick H. Landell, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00286-CLC-CHS (E.D. Tenn., October 19,
arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of
so-called "defeat devices" in several Audi and Volkswagen models
sold in the 2009 through 2015 model years and equipped with the
"2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
      J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      The Freedom Center
      223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
      E-mail: joeyl@BSJFirm.com
              gerards@BSJFirm.com

         - and -

      Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Gerald L. Dever, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              dperelman@finekaplan.com
              gdever@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Levy" Suit in Tenn. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan M. Levy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00285 (E.D. Tenn., October 19, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat devices" in
500,000 vehicles equipped with the 2.0 liter TDI(R) Clean Diesel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
      J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      The Freedom Center
      223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Telephone: (615) 254-8801
      Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
      E-mail: joeyl@BSJFirm.com
              gerards@BSJFirm.com

         - and -

      Robert D. Liebenberg, Esq.
      Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
      Gerald L. Dever, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
              dperelman@finekaplan.com
              gdever@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Linnee" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Linnee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
13689-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., October 19, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called "defeat
devices" on 500,000 vehicles equipped with the 2.0 liter TDI(R)
Clean Diesel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jerel Rogers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00061 (M.D. Tenn., October 19, 2015) arises out of the
Defendants' alleged intentional installation of "defeat device" in
approximately 500,000 vehicles sold and leased in the United
States from 2009 to 2015, to allow the Vehicles to spew dangerous
nitrogen oxide while in normal operation and to manipulate engine
performance when it detected testing to simulate compliance with
emission standards.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              tmiles@barrettjohnston.com
              stift@barrettjohnston.com
              jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

      David Boies, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      333 Main Street
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (9140 749-8200
      Facsimile: (202) 749-8300
      E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq.
      Damien J. Marshall, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      575 Lexington Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 446-2300
      Facsimile: (212) 446-2350
      E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
              dmarshall@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
      BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 539-8400
      Facsimile: (305) 539-1307
      E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com

         - and -

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2203
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: jmartin@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Fraud by Concealment
------------------------------------------------------
William Romesburg, John Rowden, Paul Wright, Annie Argento,
William Resh, Sgt. Kenneth Odegard, Sandra Rossi, Donald Ardine,
Dawn Faron-Ardine, Dylan Hanson, James Stepahin, Donald Stave,
Charles Woods, Sara Schram, Segundino Butron III, Patrick Kosacek,
and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Audi of America LLC, and Audi of
America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13579 (E.D. Mich., October 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud by
concealment and breach of contract.

Volkswagen AG and other Defendants, each of which is a direct or
indirect subsidiary and agent of Volkswagen AG, manufactured,
distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device
Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the
nation.

The Plaintiff are represented by:

      Tana Lin, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: tlin@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

      Matthew Preusch, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Tel: (805) 456-1496
      Fax: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
James H. Fisher, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13594 (E.D. Mich.,
October 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged
breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent
concealment.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant marketed vehicles
installed with the defeat devices as environmentally friendly,
fuel efficient, high performing, and clean. Defendant marketed
these vehicles as "green" with full knowledge that the company's
vehicles equipped with the defeat devices would not meet the
company's claims and pass United States' emission standards
without the devices.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation doing business
in all 50 states and is organized under the laws of the State of
New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at 2200
Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171. At all times
relevant to this action, Volkswagen manufactured, distributed,
sold, leased, and warranted the Subject Vehicles under the
Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Dr. Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Gibson" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rex W. Gibson, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-01785 (N.D.
Ala., October 13, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for
fraudulent representation and fraudulent concealment.

Volkswagen AG and other Defendants, each of which is a direct or
indirect subsidiary and agent of Volkswagen AG, manufactured,
distributed, sold, leased, and warranted the Defeat Device
Vehicles under the Volkswagen and Audi brand names throughout the
nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
      CUNNINGHAM BOUNDS, LLC
      1601 Dauphin St.
      Mobile, AL 36604
      Tel: (251) 471-6191
      Fax: (251) 479-1031
      E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com


W2007 GRACE: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
---------------------------------------------------
W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on final
approval of the class action settlement has been held.

In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson
Lawsuit) was filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee (the Chancery Court) by several current and former
shareholders of the Series B and C preferred shares of Grace
Acquisition I. The complaint, which alleges, among other things,
breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that resulted in
the loss of Series B and Series C preferred share value, names
Grace Acquisition I, members of Grace Acquisition I's board of
directors, PFD Holdings, LLC (PFD Holdings), GS Group, Whitehall,
Goldman Sachs Realty Management, L.P. and Grace I as defendants.

On October 4, 2013, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the
Federal Court). In November 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the case back to the Chancery Court, which the defendants
opposed. On July 28, 2014, the Federal Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to remand. In addition, in January 2014, the
defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit and
the motion was fully briefed on April 24, 2014.

In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff
in the same Chancery Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar
breaches against several of the same defendants named in the
Johnson Lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's
board of directors. In January 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants
in the Dent Lawsuit agreed to stay that case until the motion to
remand in the Johnson Lawsuit was decided.  As stipulated by the
parties, plaintiff must file any response to defendants' motion to
stay within ten business days after notice of the Federal Court
decision denying the remand motion.  Defendants notified plaintiff
of the resolution of the remand motion in the Johnson Lawsuit, and
plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion to stay.

In August 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered into
a non-binding memorandum of understanding with respect to a
settlement of the claims raised in the Johnson Lawsuit. On August
22, 2014, the parties notified the Federal Court of the proposed
settlement, and the Federal Court agreed that the parties would no
longer be subject to pending deadlines in the current scheduling
order. On September 2, 2014, in light of the proposed settlement,
defendants filed a motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss
without prejudice to renew that motion if the proposed settlement
of the Johnson Lawsuit does not become final. The Federal Court
granted the motion. The parties submitted the proposed settlement
stipulation and related papers to the Federal Court for approval
on October 9, 2014, and filed additional papers in support of
settlement on December 4, 2014 and March 20, 2015. The stipulation
was preliminarily approved by the Federal Court on April 30, 2015
and remains subject to final approval by the Federal Court. A
hearing on final approval was scheduled for September 11, 2015.

The stipulation of settlement would settle claims with respect to
two classes described in the Johnson Lawsuit: (1) the "Holder
Class" consisting of any and all persons who, as of August 22,
2014 and through the effective time of the merger contemplated by
the stipulation, hold the preferred stock, excluding defendants
and their affiliates, persons who opt out of the Holder Class and
holders of dissenting shares and (2) the "Seller Class" consisting
of all persons who sold some or all of their shares of preferred
stock between October 25, 2007 and October 8, 2014, inclusive, and
suffered a loss, excluding the defendants, their affiliates and
persons who sold shares to PFD Holdings, and persons who opt out
of the Seller Class. The stipulation of settlement generally
provides for the following: (1) the effectuation of a merger that
will result in the exchange of $26.00 in cash for each share of
Series B and C preferred stock outstanding; (2) the establishment
of a $6 million fund to be distributed pursuant to a plan of
allocation to members of the Seller Class; and (3) an award of $4
million in counsel fees, subject to approval by the Federal Court.
Therefore, during the three months ended June 30, 2014, the
Company accrued $24.25 million related to the agreement which is
included in accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets and in
contingent loss on litigation settlement in the condensed
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

In June 2015, the Company paid $0.25 million to the trust created
for the Seller Class and the Company anticipates funding the
balance of the settlement with cash on hand or, if necessary,
funding from Whitehall. The proposed settlement in the Johnson
Lawsuit purports to encompass the claims asserted in the Dent
Lawsuit. Ongoing defense costs will be expensed as incurred.

No further updates were provided in the Form 10-Q report.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Continues to Defend Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management Corp. continues to defend a
shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 10, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserted federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On December 23, 2014, the court
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the
amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint asserted the same legal claims and
alleged that between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014 the Company
and the individual defendants made material misstatements or
omissions relating to the Company's internal controls and
financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance
with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree
Servicing, the liabilities associated with the Company's
acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint
seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between May 9, 2012 and August 11, 2014.

On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On June 30, 2015, the court issued a decision
that granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motions
in part. Among other things, the court dismissed the claims
against Messrs. O'Brien, Cauthen, Dixon and Helm and the claims
relating to statements about the Company's acquisition of RMS.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that,
among other things, added certain allegations concerning the
Company's settlement with the FTC and CFPB. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was due on August 30, 2015. The Company cannot
provide any assurance as to the outcome of the putative
shareholder class action or that such an outcome will not have a
material adverse effect on its reputation, business, prospects,
results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.


WELLS FARGO: January 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
To All Persons Who Have Or Had A Mortgage Serviced By Wells Fargo
And Who Owe Or Paid Property Inspection Fees Assessed During The
Period August 1, 2004 Through December 31, 2013

The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP and Reese LLP regarding the Young v. Wells Fargo &
Co., et al. Litigation.

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

Para ver este aviso en Espa¤ol, se puede visitar
www.WellsFargoPropertyInspectionSettlement.com

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 21,
2016 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Robert W. Pratt, at the
United States District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Central
Division, U.S. District Courthouse, 123 East Walnut Street, Des
Moines, Iowa 50309, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action
("Action") for the sum of $25,750,000 in cash should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Final
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement ("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint filed in the Action on the merits
and with prejudice; (3) the release by the Class of the Released
Claims, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the
Released Defendants; (4) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys'
fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is
discussed below); (5) to grant Plaintiffs' requests for service
awards out of the Settlement Fund for the time and effort they
expended in prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class; and
(6) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court.

IF YOU HAVE OR HAD A MORTGAGE SERVICED BY WELLS FARGO AND OWE OR
PAID PROPERTY INSPECTION FEES ASSESSED DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 1,
2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you may be
required to file a Proof of Claim on or before March 16, 2016.  If
you are required to file a Proof of Claim and do not do so by
March 16, 2016, you will not receive any recovery in connection
with the Settlement of this Action.  If you are a member of the
Class and do not request to be excluded, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.

You may obtain a copy of the Notice, which more completely
describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including
your right to object to the Settlement), a Proof of Claim form,
and a copy of the Stipulation (which among other things contains
definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice),
online at www.WellsFargoPropertyInspectionSettlement.com or by
writing to:

          Wells Fargo Inspection Fee Settlement
          c/o Garden City Group, LLC
          P.O. Box 10106
          Dublin, OH 43017-3106
          Phone: (855) 382-6434

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:

          Deborah Clark-Weintraub
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          The Chrysler Building
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174

          Michael R. Reese
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY DECEMBER 22, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT
REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
ENTERED IN THE ACTION.

Dated:  September 2, 2015

HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA,
CENTRAL DIVISION


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Curry Chicken Salad Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Whole Foods Market establishment located in Everett, Mass. is
recalling approximately 234 pounds of curry chicken salad products
that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The chicken curry salad was packaged on Oct. 16, 2015, and was
sold prepackaged, in salad bars, in store's chef's cases, and in
sandwiches and wraps prepared in the stores. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- Sold by weight "Curry Chicken Salad, Our Chef's Own"
      bearing UPC Code # 285551.
  --- Sold by weight "Curry Chicken Salad CC" bearing UPC Code #
      261068.
  --- Sold by weight "PPK Salad Chicken Curry" bearing UPC Code #
      263142
  --- 12 oz. "Curry Chicken Salad Wrap, Made Right Here" bearing
      UPC Code # 263144.
  --- 7 oz. "Single Curry Chicken Salad Wrap, Made Right Here"
      bearing UPC Code # 263126.
  --- 7 oz. "Curry Chicken Salad Rollup" bearing UPC Code #
      265325.

These items have a sell by date of Oct. 23, 2015 and were shipped
to a warehouse and retail locations in Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.

The problem was discovered when FSIS was notified of sample
testing results performed by the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products.

Consumption of food adulterated by L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating adulterated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the adulterated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be at
home in consumers' freezers or refrigerators.

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

Related items, including the Whole Foods Class Deli Pasta Salad,
have been listed for recall on the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's website at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm469008.htm.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Heather McCready, Public Relations Manager, at (617) 492-
5500.

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


WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Settlement Approved for Immaterial Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that parties in a
class action lawsuit have settled the dispute for an immaterial
amount and the court has approved the settlement.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by
Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington
Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants
in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
"FLSA Litigation"). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage
Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and
challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company
classified its loan originators and compensated them for their
work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On
September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally
certifying an "opt-in" class in this case. Notice to the potential
class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily
informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class
and setting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice
recipients joined the class.

On September 26, 2014, the Court stayed actions by opt-in
plaintiffs with arbitration agreements, which reduced the class
size by more than 40%. The Court also denied the opt-in
plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling, which the Company
anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%.

On April 30, 2015, the parties settled the dispute for an
immaterial amount and the court approved the settlement on June
17, 2015.


XPO LOGISTICS: Intermodal Drayage Claims in Initial Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that matters related to
intermodal drayage classification claims are in the initial
procedural stages.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries, which
were acquired on March 31, 2014, received notices from the
California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of 153 owner operators
contracted with these subsidiaries have filed claims with the DLSE
in which they assert that they should be classified as employees,
as opposed to independent contractors. These claims seek
reimbursement for the owner operators' business expenses,
including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments.
After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven
of these claims, the Company appealed the decision to California
Supreme Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the
merits of those claims.

On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision
finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than
independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.0 million
to the claimants. The court's judgment is subject to appeal, and
the Company is evaluating its options with respect to these
claims. The Company cannot provide assurance that the Company will
determine to pursue an appeal or that an appeal will be
successful. The remaining DLSE claims have been transferred to
California Superior Court in three separate actions involving
approximately 200 claimants, including the 153 claimants mentioned
above. These matters are in the initial procedural stages.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Molina" Action in Initial Stages of Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the matter related to
the class action brought by Edwin Molina is in the initial stages
of discovery.

The subsidiary is a party to a putative class action litigation
brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be
classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent
contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various
California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have the
litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-
operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August
2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants.
Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under
the actions pending in California Superior Court.

This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the court
has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class
action. The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle
this litigation with the claimant, subject to court approval and
acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the purported
class. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement
will be finalized and executed, that the court will approve any
such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the
requisite members of the purported class.


                            *********

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  * * *