CAR_Public/151104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, November 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 220


                            Headlines


6D CLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: December 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
AHMSI INSURANCE: "Parker" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
ALIANT PAYMENT: "Yeaman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customers Filed Notice of Appeal
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit Dismissed

APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Usage Consumption
ATLANTIC POWER: Will Oppose Appeal by Lead Plaintiff
ATLANTIC POWER: To Oppose Appeal by Canadian Plaintiff
BBX CAPITAL: NJ Tax Sales Class Action Deal Awaits Approval
BENGALS: Former Cheerleader Wins $255K Settlement

BENTLEY: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Fire Risk
BETHPAGE CREDIT: "McDermott" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
CANADA HERB: Recalls Finger Mint & Culantro Due to Salmonella
CENTURY ALUMINUM: Ravenswood Case Proceeding in Trial Court
CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM 1500 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk

CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge Journey 2012 Models Due to Injury Risk
CHRYSLER: Recalls Jeep Cherokee 2015 Model Due to Injury Risk
CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM 1500 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
COLLEEN CASEY: "Lopez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
COLOPLAST A/S: Recalls Vaginal Stents Due to Particles

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Snap Peas Products Due to Cyclospora
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Freightliner Models
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Cascadia 2011 Model Due to Injury Risk
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Thomas Built 2015 Model Due to Crash Risk
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Crash Risk

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: $1.53BB Set Aside for Vaginal Mesh Cases
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS to Settle 46,600 Mesh Claims
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 645 MCP Cases Pending Against Qualitest
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 46 Propoxyphene Cases Pending v. Qualitest
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 426 Testosterone Cases Pending

EXTREME NETWORKS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
FBR & CO: Underwriter Defendants Filed Reply Brief
FIFTH STREET: Faces Suit Over Securities Exchange Violation
FIRM TEVA: Recalls Teva-Fluvastatin Capsules Due to Mislabeling
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Pilgrim" Suit Over RICO Violation

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Injury Risk
GENIE ENERGY: Court Stays Class Suit, Denies Motion to Dismiss
GENIE ENERGY: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "McLaughlin" Case
GENIE ENERGY: "Aks" Class Suit in Discovery
GENVEC INC: Court Approved Settlement in Galitsis Class Action

HERTZ GLOBAL: Brief Filed in Concession Fee Recoveries Action
HERTZ GLOBAL: Court Dismissed Securities Litigation
HONDA: Recalls Pilot 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
HONDA: Recalls GL1800 Model Due to Injury Hazard
HONDA: Recalls Accord 2008 Model Due to Injury Risk

HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Settlement in Class Action Remains Pending
KAM WAH: Recalls Coconut Juice Products Due to Milk
KCG HOLDINGS: Case Over August 2012 Technology Issue Closed
KING BEE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAO MA MA: "Xiong" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations

LEASE FINANCE: "Tichy" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Judge Dismissed Suit by PERS and Ostroviak
MONSANTO: School Board File Suit Over PCB Cleanup
NAZ'S FALAFEL: Recalls Kaak Extra Long Due to Sesame Seeds
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Consolidated Class Action

NEW YORK: Occupy Wall Street Protester Can Pursue Suit vs. Police
NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Injury Risk
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Class Suit Funds Up for Distribution
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Ruling in 2013 Class Action Under Appeal
OMNICELL INC: Plaintiff in "Nelson" Filed Notice of Dismissal

OVASCIENCE INC: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suit Pending
PAPA MURPHY'S: Named as Defendant in Class Action
PEAK PERFORMANCE: Faces "Trenz" Suit Over TCPA Violation
PETROBRAS: Sued by Asset Managers Over Fraud
PINGTAN MARINE: Defending "Fila" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.

PORTUGUESE CHEESE: Recalls Raw Milk Cheese Products
PRESIDENTIAL DETAILING: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: $5.9MM Reserved for Class Action Settlement
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Defending Against "Hsu" Class Action
QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: "Delman" Settlement Awaits Approval

RESOURCE CAPITAL: November 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
RETROPHIN INC: Remaining Defendants Filed Motions to Dismiss
REX ENERGY: Litigation Related to Oil and Gas Leases Pending
RING ENERGY: Faces Stockholder Action in Clark County, Nevada
RUSSELL SIMMONS: Faces Class Suit Over RushCard Fiasco

SAIGON SOUL: Recalls Peanut Sauce Due to Clostridium botulinum
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Steck" Lawsuit Transferred to N.D. Texas
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: "Kubischta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Stockholder Class Action
SIENTRA INC: Nov. 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

SUBWAY: Now Measuring 'Footlong' Sandwiches After Class Suit
TALKTALK: Faces Data Breach Issue, Conmen Steal Customer Details
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Suit Over Mishandled Card Numbers
TREMOR VIDEO: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal
UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Key Issues Remain Year After Bogus Classes Fiasco

UNITED STATES: DHS Due to Release Detained Immigrant Families
UNITED STATES: Idaho Man Sues Over Personnel Data Hack
VALEANT PHARMA: December 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
VALEANT PHARMA: Sued Over Business Structure
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action

VOLKSWAGEN: Lackawanna County Man Sues Over Emissions Scandal
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Nov. 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kingman" Suit Over Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Rope" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Breach of Contract
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Magnuson-Moss Warranty Violations
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Thomas" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
WAYFAIR INC: Khang & Khang LLP Files Securities Class Suit

WESTLAKE SERVICES: Faces Fine Over Illegal Debt Collection Tactics

* Class Actions May Deter Corporate Copycat Earnings Manipulation


                            *********


6D CLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: December 14 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against 6D Global Technologies, Inc., or its predecessor,
CleanTech Innovations, Inc., for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares between November 3, 2010 and September 10, 2015, are
advised to contact the firm in advance of the December 14, 2015,
lead plaintiff deadline.

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

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

According to the complaint, on September 8, 2015, the Department
of Justice ("DOJ") indicted Benjamin Wei, the founder of New York
Global Group, for securities fraud. On September 10, 2015, the DOJ
arrested Wei and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil action against Wei, New York Global Group for their part in
the fraudulent scheme to obtain and profit from undisclosed,
controlling ownership interests in several U.S. companies spawned
via "reverse Chinese mergers," including 6D Global Technologies,
that were secretly controlled by Wei and NYGG. When the truth was
revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm.

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

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

          Michael Goldberg, Esq
          Brian Schall, Esq
          GOLDBERG LAW PC
          13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Phone 800-977-7401
          Email: info@goldberglawpc.com


AHMSI INSURANCE: "Parker" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Parker and Sandra Parker, and all others similarly-
situated v. AHMSI Insurance Agency Inc. dba Belt Line Insurance
Agency, Homeward Residential Holdings Inc. fka American Home
Mortgage Servicing, Inc., QBE Financial Institution Risk Services
Inc. fka Sterling National Corporation fka ZC Sterling
Corporation, QBE Insurance Corporation, QBE Specialty Insurance
Company, WL Ross & Co., LLC, WLR AHM Co-Invest, L.P., WLR/GS
Master Co-Investment, L.P., WLR Recovery Fund III, L.P., WLR
Recovery Fund IV, L.P., and WLR IV Parallel Esc, L.P., Case No.
1:15-cv-23840 (S.D. Fla., October 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act ("RICO") in connection with loans serviced by
Homeward Residential at any time from August 1, 2008 through April
30, 2013.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants perpetrated a scheme to
overstate Homeward's LPI premium expenses, and, thereby, to recoup
overstated reimbursements from borrowers.

Defendant Homeward is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Coppell, Texas. Homeward is engaged
in the business of loan servicing.

Defendant AIA is a Texas corporation with its purported principal
place of business located in Coppell, Texas. AIA is a wholly-owned
and direct subsidiary of Homeward, specifically, a shell
corporation that Homeward formed in or about the spring of 2008
for the sole purpose of laundering premium rebates disguised as
"insurance commissions" from QBE.

WLR Recovery Fund III, L.P., WLR Recovery Fund IV, L.P., WLR AHM
Co-Invest, L.P., WLR IV Parallel Esc, L.P., and WLR/GS Master Co-
Investment, L.P. are private equity funds.

QBE FIRST is a loan servicing subcontractor and a purported
"managing general agent" for various affiliates which are licensed
insurance carriers. QBE FIRST is an indirect subsidiary of QBE
Insurance Group, which is an Australian group holding company
whose shares trade on the Australian Stock Exchange.

QBE Insurance is a licensed property and casualty insurer that
provides LPI to mortgage lenders and loan servicers throughout the
United States.

QBE Specialty Insurance Company is a licensed property and
casualty insurer that provides LPI to mortgage lenders and loan
servicers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Adam M. Schachter, Esq.
      GELBER SCHACHTER & GREENBERG, P.A.
      1221 Brickell Avenue Suite 2010
      Miami, FL 33131-3224
      Tel: (305) 728-0950
      Fax: (305) 728-0951
      E-mail: ASchachter@gsgpa.com

          - and -

      Mark A. Strauss, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 371-6600
      Fax: (212) 751-2540
      E-mail: mstrauss@kmllp.com


ALIANT PAYMENT: "Yeaman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Mario Yeaman, and all others similarly-situated v. Aliant Payment
Systems, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-62161 (S.D. Fla., October 14,
2015), seeks actual and statutory damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant Aliant Payment Systems, Inc. is an international
merchant services and credit card processing company that also
engages in merchant funding and business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, LLC
      201 South Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (877) 333-9427
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customers Filed Notice of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's direct
customers have filed a notice of appeal from a class action ruling
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Securities Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Valerie Caproni granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned MICHAEL D. HARRIS, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMTRUST
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., BARRY D. ZYSKIND and RONALD E. PIPOLY,
JR., Defendants, No.: 14-CV-736 (VEC), (S.D.N.Y.)

Relying almost entirely on a negative report published by a short
seller that Lead Plaintiff concedes may have been wrong in certain
respects and has been proven wrong in others by the passage of
time, this securities class action alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Section 77k. The Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint is long on sound, fury and
speculation, but it is short on specifics. Although the gravamen
of the allegations is that Defendant AmTrust Financial Services,
Inc. used fraudulent accounting practices to manipulate its
reported insured losses for the years 2010 through 2012, the
Amended Complaint fails to allege that AmTrust violated a single
Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP).

Defendants moved the dismissal of the Amended Complaint.

In her Opinion and Order dated September 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bUIpuHfrom Leagle.com, the Court said the Amended
Complaint fails adequately to allege actionable misstatements or
omissions necessary to state claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act and
fails adequately to allege scienter necessary to state claims
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a). The Clerk of Court is
requested to terminate No. 14-cv-736 and all pending motions
therein, and the consolidated action, No. 14-cv-945.

Phillip C. Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew
Rosen, Esq. --  lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm
P.A. -- Sara Esther Fuks, Esq. of Milberg LLP; Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Lesley Frank Portnoy,
Esq. -- LPortnoy@glancylaw.com -- and Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom,
Esq., of Pomerantz LLP -- and Peretz Bronstein, Esq., of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Michael D. Harris

Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. -- jessica.corley@alston.com -- John
Dalgarno Roesser, Esq. -- john.roesser@alston.com -- Todd R.
David, Esq. --  todd.david@alston.com -- Joseph Gerard Tully, Esq.
--  joe.tully@alston.com -- and Louis Arnold Russo, Esq. --
louis.russo@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird, LLP serve as counsel
for Defendant Amtrust Financial Services, Inc.

Details of the lawsuit are discussed in AmTrust's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.  The Company
said, "We and certain of our officers are defendants in related
putative securities class action lawsuits filed in February 2014
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to represent a class
of our stockholders who purchased shares between February 15, 2011
and December 11, 2013. On April 24, 2014, the court issued an
order consolidating the related actions, appointing lead
plaintiffs and approving the selection of co-lead counsel. On
September 4, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief. The lead plaintiffs
assert the Section 11 claim on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased our Series A preferred stock in or traceable to our
public offering on June 5, 2013, and did not sell those shares of
Series A preferred stock prior to December 12, 2013.

"On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which the lead plaintiffs opposed
on December 10, 2014. On January 14, 2015, we filed our reply in
support of the motion to dismiss."


APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Usage Consumption
-------------------------------------------------------
PhoneArena.com reported that Wi-Fi Assist is a new feature that
Apple included with iOS 9. The feature allows someone using a Wi-
Fi connection, to seamlessly switch to a cellular network if the
Wi-Fi signal becomes too weak. Wi-Fi Assist is turned on by
default, which means that there could be many iPhone users who are
unaware that their precious data is being used at certain times.
If this sounds like a lawsuit to you, you're absolutely right.

A class-action suit has been filed against Apple by plaintiffs
William Scott Phillips and Suzanne Schmidt Phillips. The filing
indicates that the amount sought from Apple by the entire class
exceeds $5 million. According to the suit, Apple did not properly
explain Wi-Fi Assist until it was too late. It wasn't until
October 14th, nearly a month after iOS 9 launched, when Apple
posted a support document explaining how Wi-Fi Assist uses
cellular data. In the posting, Apple wrote that most users will
see only a small increase in data usage, a comment that the
plaintiffs claim "downplays" the amount of data that Wi-Fi Assist
users can burn through.

The plaintiffs say that they had to pay overage charges after Wi-
Fi Assist appeared with the iOS 9 update on their Apple iPhone 5s
units. As a result, they are claiming that Apple violated the
California Unfair Competition Law and its False Advertising Law.
They add that the tech titan also made a negligent
misrepresentation.

The suit was filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose.


ATLANTIC POWER: Will Oppose Appeal by Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said it will oppose an appeal by the
lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit, the Company indicated 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.

The Company said, "On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23,
2013, five purported securities fraud class action complaints were
filed by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch,
our former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former
Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in
addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, our former
Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, our former interim Chief
Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, our current Chief Financial
Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual
Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed
Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions")."

"The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, as noted above,
the named plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged
(July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court
actions and August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two
District Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other
things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and
year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors,
Atlantic Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint.

On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to
consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel
confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff
Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions.

On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to
address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions,
entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed
two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental
submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions,
and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court
granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were
filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which
sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion.
The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead
Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before
May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before
July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an
opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead
Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed
Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead
Plaintiff.

On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and
proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule,
and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants
jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the
following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014,
(iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any,
on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an
order setting this requested schedule.

On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press
releases, quarterly and year- end filings and conference calls
with analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability
of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially
inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the
class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims
under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the
Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule referenced
above, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
(the "Motion to Dismiss") U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014
announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO
transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion")
requesting a 30-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline for
filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in which
to determine whether to file a second amended complaint. On
October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead
Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file
their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In
accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed
their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the
"Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the
Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint.
On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint
scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline
for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014
as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further
support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as
the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further
support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On
October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this
requested schedule. Pursuant to that order, the Motion to Dismiss
and Extension Motion were fully briefed on November 24, 2014. On
January 22, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to
Dismiss and Extension Motion.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental submission in opposition to Defendants' motion
to dismiss (the "Motion for Leave"). The Court denied the Motion
for Leave in an order entered on February 5, 2015, but permitted
Lead Plaintiff to submit a brief letter identifying supplemental
authorities. Lead Plaintiff filed that letter on February 9, 2015,
and Defendants filed a response on February 10, 2015.

On March 13, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Lead Plaintiff's motion
to amend the Amended Complaint, and on March 18, 2015, the
District Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint
with prejudice. On April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. The Company will oppose that appeal.


ATLANTIC POWER: To Oppose Appeal by Canadian Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 Plaintiffs have advised
that they intend to proceed with an appeal of the July 24 decision
on leave and certification. The Company said it will oppose that
appeal.

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the
actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.
On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action
against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court
of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013, statements of claim
relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this
claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as
Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek leave to commence an action for
statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and
assert common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs'
allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings
and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The Plaintiffs sought to certify the statutory and common law
claims under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who
purchased and held securities through a proposed class period of
November 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013.

On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million.

On March 26, 2015, the Plaintiffs amended their claim to add Scott
Fife as a proposed representative plaintiff. On April 24, 2015,
the Plaintiffs amended their claim to remove Ms. Lowry, who
claimed to hold Atlantic Power convertible debentures, as a
proposed representative plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs' motions for leave and certification were heard on
May 20-21, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, the Ontario Superiour Court of Justice issued a
decision denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave and
certification. The Superior Court granted leave to reconstitute a
claim for debenture holders but required that there be a debenture
holder as plaintiff, that the claim be amended and that the
Plaintiffs pay the Defendants partial indemnity costs of
responding to the Plaintiffs' motion.

Plaintiffs have advised that they intend to proceed with an appeal
of the July 24 decision on leave and certification. The Company
will oppose that appeal.

The proposed class action in Quebec was stayed until August 28,
2015.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not
yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions. As
noted above, the plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated
their alleged statutory damages at $197.4 million. Because both
the U.S. and Canadian Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic
Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from this litigation. Atlantic Power
intends to defend vigorously against each of the actions.


BBX CAPITAL: NJ Tax Sales Class Action Deal Awaits Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital 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 settlement in the
case, New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation,
remains pending.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 6, 2014.

While BBX Capital believed the claims to be without merit, BBX
Capital has reached an agreement to settle the action, subject to
court approval. The parties have filed a motion for court approval
of the settlement, which remains pending.


BENGALS: Former Cheerleader Wins $255K Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Patrick Redford, writing for DeadSpin.com, reported that NFL teams
tend to treat their cheerleaders not so much as valued employees,
but rather as rock-dumb sex objects. Hits include the ridiculous
list of petty fines Raiderettes could earn for, say, "improperly
polishing their boots," the Ravens's exacting micromanagement over
cheerleaders's weight, and the Bills explaining how cheerleaders
should change their tampons.

There have been several lawsuits against NFL teams brought on by
former cheerleaders another one recently settled. Bengals
cheerleader Alexa Brenneman filed a class-action suit in 2014
against the team for violation of federal employment laws. The
team settled with the plaintiffs for $255,000 of back pay, to help
make up for the hours cheerleaders worked for the equivalent of
$2.85 an hour (Bengals owner Mike Brown is worth $924 million).

The suit alleged that Ben-Gals were only paid $90 per game, and
that the paid appearance scheme that theoretically helped fill in
the gaps was useless and never delivered anyone significant money.
This is now the third such settlement in the past 13 months, after
Raiders and Bucs cheerleaders won a combined $2 million in very
similar suits.

The Bengals continued to deny wrongdoing, saying in a memo that
they had, "denied and continue to deny any liability or wrongdoing
with respect to the alleged facts and causes of action asserted in
the lawsuit."


BENTLEY: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 469
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015487TC
ID number: 2015487

Certain vehicles may have a loose electrical connection at the
firewall junction. Under certain conditions, this connection could
overheat, which would increase the risk of fire causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the
original nut securing the connection with a new lock nut.

   Make       Model                     Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----                     ----------------------
  BENTLEY    CONTINENTAL GT             2011, 2011
  BENTLEY    CONTINENTAL GTC            2011
  BENTLEY    CONTINENTAL FLYING SPUR    2011


BETHPAGE CREDIT: "McDermott" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila McDermott, and all others similarly-situated v. Bethpage
Credit Union and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05922 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 14, 2015), seeks monetary damages, restitution, punitive
damages, and injunctive relief for the Defendants' breach of
contract with consumers in its implementation of an overdraft fee
program.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant charged overdraft fees
for transactions for which there were money and a positive balance
in the checking account to cover the transactions, thereby
breaching the express terms of its consumer contract.

The Defendant Bethpage Credit is a federally chartered credit
union headquartered in Bethpage, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 784-6400
      Fax: (212) 213-5949
      E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirms.com

          - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Tel: (909) 557-1250
      Fax: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

          - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 395-2988
      Fax: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com


CANADA HERB: Recalls Finger Mint & Culantro Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 20, 2015
Type of communication: Advisory
Alert sub-type: Food Safety Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canada Herb
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10123

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume and retailers, restaurants and institutions not to
sell or use the products described below due to possible
Salmonella contamination.

Only RAU RAM (finger mint) and NGO GAI (culantro) imported by
Canada Herb and sold from October 14, 2015 to October 20, 2015 are
affected by this warning. These products may have been sold in
clear plastic bags bearing the name Canada Herb or may have been
repackaged or sold in bulk without a label or coding. Consumers
who are unsure if they have purchased the affected products are
advised to contact their retailer.

Check to see if you have the products in your home. If the
products are in your home, do not consume them.

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

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

This warning was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of these or other products. If products are recalled, the
CFIA will notify the public through a Food Recall Warning.

  Brand   Common name    Size        Code(s) on    UPC
  name    -----------    ----        product       ---
  -----                              ----------
  None    RAU RAM        Variable    None          None
          (finger mint)  Variable    None          None
  None    NGO GAI
          (culantro)


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Ravenswood Case Proceeding in Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the case in chief
related to the changes to the Ravenswood retiree medical benefits
is proceeding in trial court, subject to a court ruling on a
motion for summary judgment.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union ("USW"),
the USW's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually and as
class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to
modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in November
2009, the USW and representatives of a retiree class filed a
separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century
Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John Does with
respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et
al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century Aluminum of West
Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have been consolidated
and venue has been set in the District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USW filed a motion for preliminary injunction
to prevent us from implementing any modifications to the retiree
medical benefits while these lawsuits are pending, which was
dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed upon appeal. CAWV has
filed a motion for summary judgment of these actions.

The case in chief is currently proceeding in the trial court,
subject to the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment.


CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM 1500 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015476TC
ID number: 2015476
Manufacturer recall number: R58

On certain vehicles equipped with 5.7L engines and dual exhaust,
the vehicle may have been built with a missing spare tire
passenger side tire heat shield. This could allow thermal damage
to the spare tire to occur. If a damaged spare tire were to be
used, rapid air loss due to tread separation or side wall rupture
could occur, potentially resulting in a loss of vehicle control,
which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect for the presence
of a passenger side spare tire heat shield. If the passenger side
spare tire heat shield is not present, a heat shield will be
installed.

  Make     Model    Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----    ----------------------
  RAM      1500     2016


CHRYSLER: Recalls Dodge Journey 2012 Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 78586
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015478TC
ID number: 2015478
Manufacturer recall number: R61

Certain vehicles may experience water wicking through the wire
harness to the Anti-lock Brake System (ABS) module, which may
disable the ABS and/or Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems.
Disabled ABS and/or ESC systems could increase the risk of a crash
causing in injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers
will seal the ground eyelets with dual wall heat shrink, repair
the wiring harness as required and replace the ABS Module as
necessary.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  DODGE     JOURNEY      2012


CHRYSLER: Recalls Jeep Cherokee 2015 Model Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 7571
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015475TC
ID number: 2015475
Manufacturer recall number: R57

Certain vehicles may have a misrouted A/C suction/discharge combo
line. This could cause the line to be pinched, cut or thermally
degraded by the exhaust manifold heat shield. This could result in
loss of air conditioning and cause smoke and/or fire, which would
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect for misrouted A/C
suction discharge combo lines, and replace those found to be
misrouted.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  JEEP      CHEROKEE     2015


CHRYSLER: Recalls RAM 1500 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 17127
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015477TC
ID number: 2015477
Manufacturer recall number: R59

On certain vehicles, some rear axle shafts may have been
incorrectly heat treated during manufacture at the outboard
bearing journal which may cause heat buildup, thermal degradation
of nearby wiring circuits, illumination of the ABS warning lamp
and noise during operation. If ignored, the axle shaft could
fracture, which could cause a wheel to separate from the vehicle,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect axle shafts, and if
necessary, replace the axle assembly.

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  RAM      1500       2015


COLLEEN CASEY: "Lopez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Vicente Lopez, Rosa Maria Godinez De Lopez and Diana Lopez, and
all others similarly-situated v. Colleen Casey, administrator for
the Paul LeBaron Thiebaud Administrative Trust, Colleen Casey,
Paul LeBaron Thiebaud Administrative Trust and Does 1 to 100, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02140 (E.D. Calif., October 14, 2015), seeks damages
for minimum and overtime wages, meal break premiums, and wage
statement violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage
Orders, and California Business and Professions Code.

Colleen Casey is the administrator of the Paul LeBaron Thiebaud
Administrative Trust, an unincorporated association employing
services for the maintenance of the home of the late Mr. Paul
Thiebaud.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
      SHIMODA LAW CORP.
      9401 East Stockton Blvd., Suite 200
      Elk Grove, CA 95624
      Tel: (916) 525-0716
      Fax: (916) 760-3733


COLOPLAST A/S: Recalls Vaginal Stents Due to Particles
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55656

The EC (European Conformity) certificate of all medical devices
from the manufacturer Silimed, who is a subcontractor to
coloplast, has been temporarily suspended by their notified body
due to particles found at the surface of some breast implants.
There is no indication that these issues would pose a threat to
the implanted person's safety. The suspension also affects vaginal
stents placed on the market by Coloplast. In line with
recommendations from the authorities, Coloplast requests that all
affected devices, with Silimed as point of origin, should be put
in quarantine and that use of these devices should be ceased until
further notice.

Affected products: VAGINAL STENT - INFLATABLE
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: VS3020
                         VS3022
                         VS3024
                         VS3026

Manufacturer: Coloplast A/S
              Holtedam 1
              Humlebaek
              3050
              DENMARK


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Snap Peas Products Due to Cyclospora
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10112

Costco Wholesale Canada Inc. is voluntarily recalling Alpine Fresh
brand Snap Peas from the marketplace due to possible Cyclospora
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product
described below.

The following product has been sold from Costco locations across
Ontario.

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

Food contaminated with Cyclospora may not look or smell spoiled.
Washing fresh produce will not always eliminate Cyclospora. People
infected with Cyclospora can experience a wide range of symptoms,
including watery diarrhea, stomach cramps, and nausea. Some people
do not get sick at all, while others suffer from a severe upset
stomach. Few people get seriously ill.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of this product.

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

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

  Brand   Common name   Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  name    -----------   ----    product           ---
  -----                         ----------
  Alpine  Snap Peas     907 g   All Best Before   8 15887 01072 7
  Fresh                (2 lb)   dates from
                                15-OC-01 to
                                15-OC-29
                                inclusively


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Freightliner Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Steering
Units affected: 427
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015485TC
ID number: 2015485
Manufacturer recall number: FL-691

On certain vehicles built with a front axle built by Detroit
Axles, the steering arm bolt may not have been sufficiently
tightened at time of assembly. This could allow the bolt to loosen
and potentially result in the separation of the steering arm from
the steering knuckle, which could result in a loss of steering.
This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: dealers will inspect the bolt
torque and re-tighten or replace as necessary.

  Make            Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----               ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER    CASCADIA            2016, 2016, 2016
  FREIGHTLINER    BUSINESS CLASS M2   2016
  FREIGHTLINER    114SD               2016
  FREIGHTLINER    108SD               2016
  FREIGHTLINER    122SD               2016


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Cascadia 2011 Model Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 13
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015486TC
ID number: 2015486
Manufacturer recall number: FL-692

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

  Make             Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----             -----       ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER     CASCADIA    2011


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Thomas Built 2015 Model Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015482TC
ID number: 2015482
Manufacturer recall number: FL-664

On certain school buses equipped with Cummins ISB or ISL engines,
the fuel filter shell and nut plate could separate, causing a fuel
leak and also causing the engine to stall. Stalling would result
in a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash
resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Cummins-authorized dealers will replace the fuel filter.

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  THOMAS     BUILT     2015


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 0
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015484TC
ID number: 2015484
Manufacturer recall number: FL-690

On certain vehicles, the Engine Control Module (ECM) may develop
an internal electrical short circuit that could blow a fuse in the
ECM's electrical supply circuit. This could cause the engine to
stall without warning and prevent the vehicle from being
restarted. Engine stalling would result in lost propulsion which,
in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's
reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will replace
the ECM.

  Make            Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----                ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER    CASCADIA             2016
  WESTERN STAR    4900                 2016
  FREIGHTLINER    BUSINESS CLASS M2    2016


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: $1.53BB Set Aside for Vaginal Mesh Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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's reserve for loss contingencies totaled $1.60
billion, of which $1.53 billion relates to the Company's product
liability accrual for vaginal mesh cases.

During 2014, the Company announced that it had reached master
settlement agreements with several of the leading plaintiffs' law
firms to resolve claims relating to vaginal mesh products sold by
the Company's AMS subsidiary. The agreements were entered into
solely by way of compromise and settlement and are not in any way
an admission of liability or fault. Although the Company believes
there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the
amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this
time.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS to Settle 46,600 Mesh Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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,
American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (AMS) and certain
plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability
claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements
(MSAs) regarding settling up to approximately 46,600 filed and
unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating
counsel.  AMS expects to fund the payments under all settlement
agreements by December 31, 2017.

On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification
regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal
placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP)
and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides
recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized
training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the
risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in
diagnosing and reporting complications.

In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public
Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public
and the medical community of the potential complications
associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat
POP and SUI. In this July 2011 update, the FDA maintained that
adverse events are not rare, as previously reported, and
questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a
treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The
July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek
specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise
their patients about the risks associated with these procedures
and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. The
FDA also convened an advisory panel which met on September 8-9,
2011 to further address the safety and effectiveness of
transvaginal surgical mesh used to treat POP and SUI. At the
conclusion of the meetings, the advisory panel recommended
reclassifying transvaginal mesh products used to treat POP to
Class III devices (premarket approval) and recommended that
manufacturers of these products be required to conduct additional
post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel recommended
that transvaginal surgical mesh products used to treat SUI remain
as Class II devices. Regarding retropubic and transobturator (TOT)
slings, the advisory panel recommended that no additional post-
market surveillance studies are necessary. Regarding mini-slings,
the advisory panel recommended premarket studies for new devices
and additional post-market surveillance studies.

On January 3, 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal
surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for
urinary incontinence, such as our subsidiary AMS, to conduct post-
market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating
to the use of these products. AMS received a total of nineteen
class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic floor
repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to place
sixteen of these study orders on hold for a variety of reasons.
Three of these post-market study orders remain active and AMS is
continuing the process of complying with these orders. In these
orders, the FDA also noted that it is still considering the
recommendation of the September 9, 2011 advisory committee that
urogynecological surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP be
reclassified from Class II to Class III.

On April 29, 2014, the FDA issued a statement proposing to
reclassify surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse
repair from Class II to Class III. Further, the FDA proposed to
reclassify urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation from Class
I to Class II, and to establish special controls for surgical
instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh. The FDA
stated that it was proposing these changes based on the tentative
determination that general controls by themselves are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of
these devices. Although this proposal was subject to a 90-day
comment period, to date the FDA has not taken further action
regarding these proposals.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits in various state courts, a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL
No. 2325), as well as in Canada, where various class action and
individual complaints are pending, and other countries outside the
United States alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI.
Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries
including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control
bowel function and permanent deformities.

As of June 30, 2015, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel
representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered
into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding
settling up to approximately 46,600 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs,
which were executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through
June 30, 2015, were entered into solely by way of compromise and
settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or AMS. All MSAs are subject to a process
that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the
settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs
provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into
which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set
forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds
requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by
each law firm. If certain participation thresholds are not met,
then AMS will have the right to terminate the settlement with that
law firm. In addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right
of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate
under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are
authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement
payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon
amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in
Qualified Settlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and
cash equivalents in the June 30, 2015 Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

The Company said it is increasing its product liability accrual
due primarily to (1) its recently becoming aware of previously
unknown U.S. mesh claims, both under and outside the MSAs, and (2)
with respect to known claims under the MSAs, a decrease in the
applicable reduction factor from approximately 20% to 18%. By
decreasing the reduction factor from approximately 20% to 18%, and
thereby increasing the product liability accrual, the Company is
reflecting its current estimate that fewer claims will be excluded
from the MSAs than previously anticipated. The Company and AMS
expect that valid claims under the MSAs will continue to be
settled. However, the Company and AMS intend to vigorously contest
pending and future claims that are invalid or in excess of the
maximum claim amounts under the MSAs. The Company and AMS are also
aware of a substantial number of additional claims or potential
claims, some of which may be invalid or contested, for which the
Company lacks sufficient information to determine whether any
potential liability is probable, and such claims have not been
included in the Company's product liability accrual.

As of the date of this report, the Company believes that the
current product liability accrual includes all known claims for
which liability is probable and estimable. However, it is
currently not possible to determine the validity or outcome of any
additional or potential claims and such claims may result in
additional losses that could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial condition, results of operations and
cash flow. The Company will continue to monitor the situation,
including with respect to any additional claims of which the
Company may later become aware, and, if appropriate, make further
adjustments to the applicable reduction factor and product
liability accrual based on new information.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidential
by all parties and their counsel.

AMS expects to fund the payments under all settlement agreements
by December 31, 2017. As the funds are disbursed out of the
Qualified Settlement Funds from time to time, the product
liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding
reduction to Restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition,
the Company may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate
from the Qualified Settlement Funds, which will also decrease the
product liability accrual but will not decrease Restricted cash
and cash equivalents.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 645 MCP Cases Pending Against Qualitest
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 August 1, 2015,
approximately 645 MCP cases are currently pending against
Qualitest and/or the Company or certain of its subsidiaries.

Qualitest, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of the prescription medicine
metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement disorders
and death. Qualitest and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest.

As of August 1, 2015, approximately 645 MCP cases, some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company or certain
of its subsidiaries.

In 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries have reached an
agreement with certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach
resolution of substantially all of these pending MCP cases. The
agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and
settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or any of its subsidiaries. An essential
element of these settlements will be participation by the majority
of plaintiffs involved in pending litigation. If certain
participation thresholds are not met, the Company will have the
right to terminate the agreements.

Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 46 Propoxyphene Cases Pending v. Qualitest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 August 1, 2015,
approximately 46 propoxyphene cases, some of which may have been
filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are pending against
Qualitest and/or the Company.

Qualitest and, in certain cases, the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
originally filed in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription pain
medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including cardiac impairment,
damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. The MDL Judge's dismissal with prejudice of the claims
asserted against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest and
the Company, was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit on June 27, 2014,
as part of a consolidated appeal. In November 2012, additional
cases were filed in various California state courts. While many of
these cases were initially remanded to a state court coordinated
proceeding in Los Angeles, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc
reversed these remands, finding federal subject matter
jurisdiction. As a result, these actions were returned to the
federal courts to which they were initially removed. Subsequently,
many of these actions have been transferred to the Eastern
District of Kentucky and assigned to United States District Judge
Danny C. Reeves.

On November 18, 2014, additional multi-plaintiff cases were filed
in state court in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma state court actions were
also removed to federal court and are currently pending in the
Western District of Oklahoma.

As of August 1, 2015, approximately 46 propoxyphene cases, some of
which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company. The
Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,
and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, for this matter.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 426 Testosterone Cases Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Endo International PLC 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 August 1, 2015,
approximately 429 cases are currently pending against the Company
and/or its subsidiaries; some of which may have been filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action
complaint filed in Canada.

EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, including Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along with
other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants
in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription medications containing testosterone, including
Fortesta(R) Gel, Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and
Striant(R). Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other vascular
and/or cardiac injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium,
and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable
cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the
federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against
EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in
certain other state courts.

Similar litigation may also be brought by other plaintiffs in
various jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be
brought against the Company and/or its subsidiaries. The Company
and its subsidiaries intend to contest the litigation vigorously
and to explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of
the Company," the Company said.

As of August 1, 2015, approximately 429 cases are currently
pending against the Company and/or its subsidiaries; some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and
including a class action complaint filed in Canada.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Extreme
Networks, Inc. ("Extreme Networks") (NASDAQ: EXTR) common stock
during the period between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you can view
a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online
at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/extremenetworks/. Any member of
the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Extreme Networks and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Extreme Networks develops and sells network infrastructure
equipment and offers related services contracts for extended
warranty and maintenance.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted adverse
information concerning Extreme Networks' current financial
condition and outlook for fiscal 2015, including, among other
things, that the Company's revenue growth depended on the
successful integration of Enterasys Networks, Inc., which Extreme
Networks had acquired in 2013 but had not successfully integrated,
which materially impaired the Company's ability to address
persisting sales problems.  In addition, Extreme Networks had
begun an alliance with Lenovo, but during the Class Period
defendants did not have sufficient visibility into Lenovo's server
business plans to support the Company's quarterly and fiscal 2015
financial forecasts.  As a result of these misrepresentations
and/or omissions, Extreme Networks' stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $8.14
per share in intraday trading on January 23, 2014.

Then on April 9, 2015, after the markets closed, Extreme Networks
preannounced that it would miss guidance for the third quarter of
2015, reporting revenue of $118-$120 million and earnings per
share of ($0.09)-($0.07), significantly below prior guidance of
$130-$140 million and ($0.03)-$0.02, respectively.  The Company
also announced that trading in its shares had been haLTEd and that
Jeff White, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer, who had been
hired only six months earlier to manage the integration of the
Extreme Networks and Enterasys salesforces, was "no longer with
the Company."  On these disclosures, the Company's stock price
fell almost 25%, from $3.24 per share to $2.50 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Extreme Networks common stock during the Class Period (the
"Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which
has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/extremenetworks/for
more information.

         Darren Robbins, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA  92101
         T: (619) 231-1058
         F: (619) 231-7423


FBR & CO: Underwriter Defendants Filed Reply Brief
--------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. 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 underwriter defendants have
filed their reply brief in a class action lawsuit.

FBR Capital Markets & Co. ("FBRCM") has been named a defendant in
the putative class action lawsuit Waterford Township Police &
Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al.,
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The amended complaint, filed on November 24,
2014 (the "Amended Complaint"), names FBRCM as a co-managing
underwriter of offerings in September 2013 and December 2013.
Plaintiffs allege that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
used in connection with these offerings were negligently prepared
and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact and
omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made
not misleading. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all
the underwriters under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act.
Regional Management has agreed to indemnify all the underwriters,
including FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement.

In response to the defendants' motions to dismiss, filed on
January 23, 2015, the putative class plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which shall
serve as the operative complaint.  On April 28, 2015 the
underwriter defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. On June 12, 2015 the plaintiffs filed a motion
in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 14, 2015 the
underwriter defendants filed their reply brief.


FIFTH STREET: Faces Suit Over Securities Exchange Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Waters-Cottrell, and all others similarly-situated v. Fifth
Street Finance Corp., Fifth Street Asset Management, Inc., Leonard
M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G.
Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov and Richard A. Petrocelli, Case No.
3:15-cv-01488 (D. Conn., October 14, 2015), seeks damages for the
Defendants' violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This is a securities class action on behalf of similarly situated
persons or entities that purchased FSC common stock between July
7, 2014 and February 6, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of business designed to
artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income in order
to increase FSAM's revenue.

Defendant FSC is a specialty finance company managed by FSAM that
lends to and invests in small and mid-sized companies, primarily
in connection with investments by private equity sponsors. FSC has
its main office at 777 West Putnam Avenue, 3rd Floor, Greenwich,
CT 06830.

Defendant FSAM is an asset manager and the investment advisor for
FSC and various private Fifth Street funds. FSAM, like FSC, has
its main office at 777 West Putnam Avenue, 3rd Floor, Greenwich,
CT 06830.

The Individual Defendants hold executive positions at FCS and
FSAM.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Slossberg, Esq.
      HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
      147 North Broad Street
      P.O. Box 112
      Milford, CT 06460
      Tel: (203) 877-8000
      Fax: (203) 878-9800
      E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com

          - and -

      Robert A. Hoffman, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 963-0600

          - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Tel: (281) 488-8854


FIRM TEVA: Recalls Teva-Fluvastatin Capsules Due to Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Posting date: October 26, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55552

Potential labelling error, where a bottle of Teva-Venlafaxine XR
150 mg capsules is labelled with an upper peel off label of Teva-
Fluvastatin Sodium 40 mg.

Affected products
Teva-Fluvastatin
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02299232
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Fluvastatin 40 mg

Lot or serial number: W07681

Recalling: Firm Teva Canada Ltd.
           30 Novopharm Court
           Toronto
           M1B 2K9
           Ontario
           CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Teva Canada Ltd.
                                30 Novopharm Court
                                Toronto
                                M1B 2K9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Pilgrim" Suit Over RICO Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
William D. Pilgrim, Walter Goetzman, Jerome E. Pederson, Michael
Fernandez, Roy Haleen, Howard Kopel, Robert C. Murphy, Mike
Peters, Christopher Constantine, John Parsons, Lyle Dunahoo, Aaron
Clark, Edwin William Krause, David Sheldon, Jared Kiley,
Jeff Kplodzi, Morris Smith Andres Frey, and all others similarly-
situated v. General Motors Company LLC and Does 1 through 50, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08047 (C.D. Cal., October 14, 2015), seeks damages for
Defendant's violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

The complaint concerns purchasers or lessees of Corvette vehicles
equipped with the LS7 7.0LV8 engine concerning model years 2006 to
2013. The vehicles exhibited excessive valve guide wear which led
to engine failures and inspections and repairs.

General Motors Company, which is commonly known as GM, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit,
Michigan, that designs, manufactures, markets and distributes
vehicles and vehicle parts and sells financial services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
      KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
      550 North Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
      Glendale, CA 91203-1922
      Tel: (818) 547-5000
      Fax: (818) 547-5329


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015481TC
ID number: 2015481
Manufacturer recall number: 01320

On certain vehicles, front seat-mounted side impact airbag modules
may contain a defect which, in the event of an airbag deployment,
can cause airbag inflator components to separate and be propelled
into the interior compartment, possibly striking occupants. It is
also possible that the airbag may inflate only partially, or not
at all, in the event of a crash. If the airbag components separate
and are propelled into the interior compartment during deployment
in a crash, or the airbag does not inflate, there may be an
increased risk of injury to vehicle occupants. Correction: Dealers
will replace affected side airbag modules.

   Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----       ----------------------
  CHEVROLET    CAMARO      2015
  CHEVROLET    EQUINOX     2015
  CADILLAC     XTS         2015


GENIE ENERGY: Court Stays Class Suit, Denies Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 granted IDT
Energy's motion to stay and denied its motion to dismiss without
prejudice.

On March 13, 2014, named plaintiff, Anthony Ferrare, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. The
complaint was served on IDT Energy on July 16, 2014. The named
plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself and other former and
current electric customers of IDT Energy in Pennsylvania with
variable rate plans, whom he contends were injured as a result of
IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing practices.

On August 7, 2014, IDT Energy removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On
October 20, 2014, IDT Energy moved to stay or, alternatively,
dismiss the complaint, as amended, by the named plaintiff. On
November 10, 2014, the named plaintiff opposed IDT Energy's motion
to dismiss and IDT Energy filed a reply memorandum of law in
further support of its motion to dismiss.

On June 10, 2015, the Court granted IDT Energy's motion to stay
and denied its motion to dismiss without prejudice. IDT Energy
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the action.


GENIE ENERGY: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss "McLaughlin" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 parties in a class
action filed by Louis McLaughlin are awaiting a decision from the
court on the motion to dismiss.

On July 2, 2014, named plaintiff, Louis McLaughlin, filed a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
contending that he and other class members were injured as a
result of IDT Energy's allegedly unlawful sales and marketing
practices. The named plaintiff filed the suit on behalf of himself
and two subclasses: all IDT Energy customers who were charged a
variable rate for their energy from July 2, 2008, and all IDT
Energy customers who participated in IDT Energy's rebate program
from July 2, 2008. On December 19, 2014, IDT Energy filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint. The named plaintiff filed opposition
papers to IDT Energy's motion to dismiss on March 13, 2015, and on
April 10, 2015, IDT Energy filed its reply in further support of
its motion to dismiss. The parties are now awaiting a decision
from the Court. IDT Energy believes that the claims in this
lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
action.


GENIE ENERGY: "Aks" Class Suit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------
Genie Energy Ltd. 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 parties are engaged
in discovery in the case filed by Kimberly Aks.

On July 15, 2014, named plaintiff, Kimberly Aks, commenced a
putative class-action lawsuit against IDT Energy, Inc. in New
Jersey Superior Court, Essex County, contending that she and other
class members were injured as a result of IDT Energy's alleged
unlawful sales and marketing practices. The named plaintiff filed
the suit on behalf of herself and all other New Jersey residents
who were IDT Energy customers at any time between July 11, 2008
and the present. On November 6, 2014, the Court denied IDT
Energy's motion to dismiss the complaint. The parties are
currently engaged in discovery. IDT Energy believes that the
claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the action.


GENVEC INC: Court Approved Settlement in Galitsis Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
GenVec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has approved
the settlement and awarded the plaintiff's attorneys in the
Galitsis class action $325,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses.

On February 3, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Satish Shah v. GenVec, Inc., et al. Civil Action. No. 8:12 CV-
00341-DKC was commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland against the Company, Paul H. Fischer,
Douglas J. Swirsky and Mark O. Thornton. Following appointment of
a Lead Plaintiff group in April 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a
pleading titled Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of
the Federal Securities Laws on July 6, 2012 (the Amended Class
Action Complaint).

In the Amended Class Action Complaint, Lead Plaintiffs asserted
claims, purportedly on behalf of a class of persons who had
purchased or acquired Company common stock between March 12, 2009
and March 30, 2010 (the Class Period), that the Company and the
individual defendants had violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Lead Plaintiffs
alleged generally that the Company and the individual defendants
had made materially false or misleading statements or omissions
concerning the prospects for the Company's leading product
candidate at the time, TNFerade, and the outcome of the then-
ongoing clinical trial for TNFerade. Lead Plaintiffs alleged that
these misrepresentations resulted in the Company's common stock
trading at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period. Lead Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages. On September
4, 2012, the Company and the individual defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On
September 20, 2013, the Court granted this motion and dismissed
the case in its entirety and with prejudice. Lead Plaintiffs did
not file an appeal.

On March 12, 2012, a putative shareholder derivative action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland against certain current and former members of our Board
of Directors and the Company as a nominal defendant. The case was
styled Garnitschnig v. Horovitz, et al. and generally arose out of
the matters alleged to underlie the securities action. The
plaintiff, who purported to bring the action derivatively on
behalf of the Company, originally alleged that the individual
defendants violated their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate
assets and were unjustly enriched by the receipt of compensation
while serving as our directors.

On November 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Garnitschnig action
filed an Amended Verified Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint (the Amended Complaint) that supersedes the previous
Complaint and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust
enrichment, waste of corporate assets and alleged violations of
the duty of candor. The plaintiff, who now purported to bring the
Amended Complaint both derivatively and as a shareholder class
action, alleged that certain current and former members of the
Board of Directors exceeded their authority under the Company's
2011 Omnibus Incentive Plan (the 2011 Plan) by exceeding certain
limits applicable to both stock options and restricted stock. The
Amended Complaint further alleged that the Company's Proxy
Statement was materially false and misleading for failing to
disclose the alleged violations of the 2011 Plan.

On October 17, 2014, a second putative class and derivative action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland styled Galitsis v. Swirsky, et al., Case No. 14-cv-3265.
The Galitsis Complaint contains the same allegations and asserts
almost all the same claims as those in the Garnitschnig Amended
Complaint Shortly after the Galitsis action was filed, counsel for
the plaintiff (who was also counsel for the plaintiff in the
Garnitschnig action) voluntarily dismissed the Garnitschnig
action.

The Company and the individual defendants vigorously deny all
liability with respect to the claims alleged in the Galitsis
action. However, the Company considered it desirable that the
action be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve the settled claims.

On or about November 3, 2014, the parties to the Galitsis action
reached an agreement in principle set forth in a Settlement Term
Sheet to settle the Galitsis action. Subsequently, on January 23,
2015, the parties executed and filed with the Court a Stipulation
of Settlement embodying terms previously set forth in the
Settlement Term Sheet. On May 7, 2015, the court entered orders
approving the settlement and awarding the plaintiff's attorneys in
the Galitsis action $325,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. The
court order approving the settlement resolves all of the claims
that were or could have been brought in the Galitsis action,
including all claims related to awards made pursuant to the 2011
Plan.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Brief Filed in Concession Fee Recoveries Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global 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 plaintiffs in
the so-called Concession Fee Recoveries action have filed their
answering brief and opening brief on their cross-appeal.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or
"Enterprise," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate
action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars
from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged
airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental
charges. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those
airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The
plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees and costs.

In 2010, the parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a
proposed settlement. Although the court tentatively approved the
settlement in November 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of the proposed settlement in May 2011.

Following additional activity in the case, in March 2013, the
court granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
judgment with respect to restitution and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification while denying the Company's motion
for partial summary judgment.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgment, merging all of
its prior rulings and directed Hertz to pay the class
approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in
prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million
with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution
fund. In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members.

In April 2015, Hertz filed its opening brief. In June 2015, the
plaintiffs filed their answering brief and opening brief on their
cross-appeal.

The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not
be material to its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Court Dismissed Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global 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 the court has
dismissed the case, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the
court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiffs were granted leave
to file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order. In
November 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it is not alleged to
have commenced until May 18, 2013 and makes allegations that are
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey and Hertz Holdings responded to the
second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On
July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff may file a third
amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. The court further
ordered that failure to file a third amended complaint will result
in dismissal of the case with prejudice.

A copy of the Dismissal Order is available at http://is.gd/TmzJ10
from Leagle.com.

"Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious
defenses and it intends to vigorously defend against any further
amendment of the complaint, but litigation is subject to many
uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is not predictable
with assurance. It is possible that this matter could be decided
unfavorably to Hertz Holdings. However, Hertz Holdings is
currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses,
but they could be material," the Company said.


HONDA: Recalls Pilot 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 2920
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015474TC
ID number: 2015474

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 135 - Brake Systems and Canada Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 126 - Electronic Stability Control
Systems. Due to a software error in the instrument cluster,
Vehicle Stability Assist (VSA), ABS and BRAKE warning lamps may
not illuminate under certain conditions, which fails to meet the
requirements of the standard. Failure of these lights to
illuminate could increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Note: The warning light will illuminate
with next key cycle. Correction: Dealers will update the
instrument cluster software.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  HONDA     PILOT       2016


HONDA: Recalls GL1800 Model Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 10663
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015488TC
ID number: 2015488

On certain motorcycles, the combined brake system's secondary
master cylinder may cause the rear brakes to drag. Continued
riding with the rear brake engaged/dragging may generate enough
heat to cause the rear brake to catch fire. These issues could
result in injury and/or property damage. Unexpected braking may
also adversely affect vehicle stability, which could result in a
crash. Correction: Dealers will replace the secondary master
cylinder with one that has a modified check valve. In addition to
replacing the secondary master cylinder, dealers will also replace
the rear master cylinder and flush the brake fluid. Note: This
recall supersedes recall 2014-326. All vehicles having been
inspected and/or serviced under the previous recall will require
re-inspection and repair.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ---       -----      ----------------------
  HONDA     GL1800     2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007,
                       2008, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


HONDA: Recalls Accord 2008 Model Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 20247
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015473TC
ID number: 2015473

On certain vehicles, the Supplementary Restraint System (SRS)
threshold setting for the side impact sensor could be too
sensitive. If the vehicle ignition is on, and there was a strong,
non-vehicular collision impact to the lower body of the vehicle or
if a door is shut with extreme force, the SRS ECU may interpret
the input as a crash and command the seat airbag and/or side
curtain airbag to deploy. Unintended airbag deployment, in a non-
warranted (non-impact) situation, could result in injury and
increase the risk of a vehicle crash causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Dealers will update the SRS software.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  HONDA     ACCORD     2008


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Settlement in Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson City 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 settlement in a
class action lawsuit remains pending.

On August 27, 2012, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Wilmington Trust
Corporation ("WTC"), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank
Corporation ("M&T").  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, the Company
will merge with and into WTC, with WTC continuing as the surviving
entity.

Since the announcement of the Merger, eighteen putative class
action complaints have been filed in the Court of Chancery,
Delaware against Hudson City Bancorp, its directors, M&T, and WTC
challenging the Merger. Six putative class actions challenging the
Merger have also been filed in the Superior Court for Bergen
County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey (the "New Jersey Court").
The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Hudson
City Bancorp directors breached their fiduciary duties to Hudson
City Bancorp's public shareholders by approving the Merger at an
unfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed sales
process, and that Hudson City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleading
and incomplete Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with the
proposed transaction. All 24 lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek an accounting of
damages sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of all of the actions (collectively, the "Actions").

Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other
named defendants, and all the plaintiffs have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants from
all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the New
Jersey Court. Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&T
agreed to make available additional information to Hudson City
Bancorp shareholders. The additional information was contained in
a Supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as an
exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013.

In addition, under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also
has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. If the New Jersey Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with
prejudice. The settlement will not affect the Merger consideration
to be paid to Hudson City Bancorp's shareholders in connection
with the proposed Merger. In the event the New Jersey Court
approves an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection
with the settlement, such fees and expenses shall be paid by
Hudson City Bancorp, its successor in interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


KAM WAH: Recalls Coconut Juice Products Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kam Wah Resources Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Manitoba, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10109

  Brand      Common name     Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  name       -----------     ----     product           ---
  -----                               ----------
  N/A        Coconut Juice   1.25 l   All codes which   6 927157-
(Chinese                             do not declare    682160
Characters                           milk on the label.
Only)


KCG HOLDINGS: Case Over August 2012 Technology Issue Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Litigation related to an August 1, 2012 technology issue is now
closed, KCG 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.

On October 26, 2012, Knight, its then-Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its then-Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven
Bisgay, were named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez
v. Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:12-cv-06760 (the "Fernandez
Action"). Generally, this putative class action complaint alleged
that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to
disclose matters related to the events of August 1, 2012. The
plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule
10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that he and a
purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's
Class A Common Stock between January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012
paid an inflated price. Following the appointment of a lead
plaintiff and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
March 14, 2013, alleging generally that the defendants made
material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related
to the events of August 1, 2012. The plaintiff asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the federal
securities laws, claiming that it and a purported class of
Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's securities between
November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated price.

On May 13, 2013, Knight filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was fully briefed as of August 2013. Before the
court rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on December 20, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. More specifically, the plaintiff referred to KCA's October
2013 settlement with the SEC and alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning Knight's risk
management procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity,
Value at Risk and internal controls over financial reporting. The
plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule
10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a
purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's
securities between May 10, 2011 and August 1, 2012 (the "Class
Period") paid an inflated price. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on February 18, 2014 which
was fully briefed as of June 5, 2014.

In November 2014, prior to the court's decision on defendants'
motion to dismiss, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation. Following the mediation, in December 2014 the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Fernandez Action.
On February 9, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement that, once approved by the District Court, will resolve
the litigation and result in the Fernandez Action being dismissed
with prejudice.  Pursuant to an Order filed on March 2, 2015, the
District Court preliminarily approved the settlement of the
Fernandez Action and set July 1, 2015 for the final settlement
hearing. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Knight agreed
that certain of its insurance carriers would pay $13.0 million to
stockholders in the class. The settlement requires no direct
payment by any of the defendants.

Under the proposed settlement, defendants and various of their
related persons and entities will receive a full release of all
claims that were or could have been brought in the action as well
as all claims that arise out of, are based upon or relate to the
allegations, transactions, facts, representations, omissions or
other matters involved in the complaints filed in the action or
any statement communicated to the public during the Class Period,
and the purchase, acquisition or sale of the Company's stock
during the Class Period. The proposed settlement contains no
admission of any liability or wrongdoing on the part of the
defendants, each of whom continues to deny all of the allegations
against them and believes that the claims are without merit. The
settlement will not have an effect on the Company's results of
operations because the full amount of the proposed settlement will
be paid by the Company's insurance carriers. As of April 1, 2015,
the full amount of the proposed settlement was deposited by the
insurance carriers into an escrow account. On July 1, 2015, the
District Court held a final settlement hearing, during which the
District Court approved the settlement. On July 6, 2015, the
District Court entered the judgment and the case was closed.


KING BEE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Williams, John Williams, Fred Berry, and all others
similarly-situated v. King Bee Delivery, LLC and Bee Line Courier
Service, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00306 (E.D. Ky., October 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing delivery services
for a wide range of businesses. Among these, Defendants deliver
pharmaceuticals to stores and hospitals in Kentucky, Ohio, and
Indiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
      BARKAN, MEIZLISH, LLP
      250 E. Broad St.,10th floor
      Columbus, OH 43215


LAO MA MA: "Xiong" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Yuping Xiong, and all others similarly-situated v. Lao Ma Ma La
Tang Incoporated dba Lao Ma Ma La Tang; Lao Ma Spicy Inc. dba Lao
Ma Ma La Tang; Huadong Liu, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-05928 (E.D.N.Y., October 14, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Queens, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


LEASE FINANCE: "Tichy" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Robert Tichy, and all others similarly-situated v. Lease Finance
Group, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02426 (M.D. Fla., October 14, 2015),
seeks damages against the Defendant for violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a leasing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
      WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
      5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290
      Cooper City, FL 33330
      Tel: (954) 212-2184
      Fax: (866) 577-0963
      E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Judge Dismissed Suit by PERS and Ostroviak
------------------------------------------------------------
Millennial Media, 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 judge has entered an
Order dismissing the action, Public Employees' Retirement System
of Mississippi v. Millennial Media, Inc. et al. and Travis
Ostroviak v. Millennial Media, Inc., et al.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, plaintiff Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws against a group of defendants including us,
certain of our current and former executive officers, directors,
and large shareholders, and the underwriters associated with our
initial public offering and secondary offering. Plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that certain defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common
stock by making false and misleading statements to investors."

"On October 17, 2014, plaintiff Travis Ostroviak also filed a
purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff makes
certain of the same allegations made in the action brought by
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi. The complaint
names us and certain of our current and former executive officers
and directors as defendants.

"On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated these two purported
class actions. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March
20, 2015 and subsequently was amended again.  On April 21, 2015,
the Court ordered that defendants file any motion to dismiss the
operative complaint by May 25, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs for the consolidated action filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice; on May 29, the judge entered an Order
dismissing the action."


MONSANTO: School Board File Suit Over PCB Cleanup
-------------------------------------------------
Vanessa de la TorreVanessa de la Torre, writing for Harford
Courant, reported that facing a toxic cleanup project that can run
into the millions of dollars, the city and school board filed a
federal suit against the former manufacturer of hazardous
chemicals that have contaminated a North End neighborhood school.

City officials said they want Monsanto to pay the "full costs of
removal and remediation" of the decades-old PCBs that were
detected at Clark Elementary School late, including the expense of
relocating Clark students and staff to other city schools.

Not only that, Hartford wants Monsanto to bear the cost of
potential PCB testing in other city-owned properties, according to
the suit. The city has estimated that Clark's federally monitored
PCB cleanup, which is still in the early stages, could cost as
much as $4 million or more. The school has been closed
indefinitely since early January.

"Our families and taxpayers should not have to bear the costs for
this project," Mayor Pedro Segarra said in a statement afternoon.
"By shifting the costs to Monsanto, who is ultimately responsible
for selling the PCBs, we are not burdening our taxpayers or
families who have already had to deal with the inconvenience."

The civil suit also names Solutia Inc. and the pharmaceutical
Pharmacia, spinoffs of the original Monsanto company. The city
said it has retained Baron & Budd, a Dallas-based firm that
specializes in class-action suits and environmental cases that
include PCBs in schools.

A Monsanto spokesperson said the company had not yet reviewed the
complaint, but indicated it was not responsible for the cleanup.

The original Monsanto, a chemical giant and frequent target in
contamination suits, has been cited in numerous cases around the
country as the sole manufacturer of polychlorinated biphenyls in
the United States from the 1930s to the late 1970s, when the U.S.
banned production of the chemicals after discovering they were
toxic.

By then, PCBs had been used in window caulk, sealants, insulating
fluid in fluorescent lighting and other building materials that
were common in school construction since the 1950s. District
records indicate that Clark, which opened in 1971, is one of more
than a dozen Hartford school buildings built between 1950 and
1979.

Monsanto, now an agricultural company based in St. Louis, has
argued that it bears no responsibility for contamination costs
because PCBs were manufactured legally at the time they were sold.
It reiterated that stance in a statement evening.

"... the PCBs sold by the former Monsanto Company almost 40 years
ago were a useful, legal product," Monsanto stated. "They were
used in a wide range of products including, primarily, electrical
equipment, and also construction products and plastics. The EPA is
currently addressing the issue of the potential for PCBs to be
present in schools and has an ongoing research program."

The city contends in its suit that the old Monsanto knew of the
toxicity as early as 1937.

"Damage and contamination of plaintiffs' property by PCBs are the
results of Monsanto's reckless disregard for the safety of
consumers and users of PCBs and PCB-containing products," the suit
stated.

The EPA has identified PCBs as a probable carcinogen for humans
and a risk factor for other serious health effects, and experts
say the man-made chemicals might also act as developmental toxins
that interfere with the normal development of cognitive function,
such as learning and memory.

State public health officials have told Hartford parents that the
airborne PCB traces at Clark do not pose a health risk.

School officials said PCBs were first detected in Clark's paint
around winter break as workers prepared to install a fire
sprinkler system. But after air quality tests revealed traces of
PCBs at levels higher than the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's recommended exposure for schoolchildren, Superintendent
Beth Schiavino-Narvaez shut down Clark as more tests were ordered.

Environmental testing found widespread PCB contamination in the
104,000-square-foot school building, from the school's air
handling system to the caulk, where PCB levels were up to 1,940
times the federal limit, triggering EPA intervention under the
federal Toxic Substances Control Act. Even new ceiling tiles were
tainted, an indication that PCB vapors had infiltrated the tiles.

The test results suggest that Clark faces a complicated, expensive
remediation process that would involve special cleanup and
disposal of what the EPA considers hazardous waste, and prolonged
monitoring at the school after the PCBs are cleared.

By mid-year, Hartford had already spent more than $53,000 on
initial testing and consultant fees, according to the city's tally
of expenses.

While Clark's contamination appears to be the most extensive PCB
case in a Hartford public school to date, it is not the first time
the chemicals have been discovered at a city school.

State environmental records show that Simpson-Waverly School,
Global Communications Academy, M.D. Fox, Bellizzi, the former
Barbour School and West Middle School needed some form of PCB
remediation during renovation projects in recent years. Overall,
the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection has
identified more than 100 school buildings in Connecticut that have
reported PCB issues.

"Plaintiffs were not aware of potential harms related to PCBs at
the time of renovations or constructions that used PCBs," suit
stated.


NAZ'S FALAFEL: Recalls Kaak Extra Long Due to Sesame Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Naz's Falafel House
Distribution: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10091

  Brand     Common name   Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  name      -----------   ----    product         ---
  -----                           ----------
  Chamsine  Kaak Extra-   350 g   PRD 01/07/015   5 285000 599098
  Bakery    Long (Plain)          EXP 01/07/016
  Chamsine  Kaak Extra -  350 g   PRD 01/07/015   5 285000 599098
  Bakery    Long (Sesame)         EXP 01/07/016


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Lead Plaintiffs Filed Consolidated Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. 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 three
putative class action lawsuits have been filed against HLSS and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii)
Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-
947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach
Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On
April 2, 2015, these three lawsuits were consolidated into a
single action, which is referred to as the "New York Action." On
April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison counsel
were appointed in the New York Action. On July 17, 2015, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The New York Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman
William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive
Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James
E. Lauter. The New York Action asserts causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS relating to its
relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management and internal
controls. More specifically, the consolidated class action
complaint alleges that a series of statements in HLSS's
disclosures were materially false and misleading, including
statements about (i) Ocwen's servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's
contingencies and legal proceedings; (iii) its risk management and
internal controls and (iv) certain related party transactions. The
consolidated class action complaint also appears to allege that
HLSS's financial statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and
the first quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading
based on HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in
the New York Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by
failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding
governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices. New
Residential intends to vigorously defend the New York Action.


NEW YORK: Occupy Wall Street Protester Can Pursue Suit vs. Police
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reported that an
Occupy Wall Street activist can pursue legal action against the
New York Police Department, a federal appeals panel ruled, after
an earlier ruling ended with the protester's claim of excessive
force being rejected in District Court.

In an opinion handed down on by a three-person panel of the 2nd
Circuit, the appeals court said activist and author Rami Shamir
has standing to sue the NYPD over a Sept. 15, 2012, arrest in
lower Manhattan.

Mr. Shamir had alleged that he was falsely arrested by an NYPD
officer who had taken him into custody because he called the cop a
"thug."

The 2nd Circuit's 13-page ruling affirms the District Court's
dismissal of false arrest and retaliatory arrest claims, but gives
Mr. Shamir the go-ahead to sue the police for allegedly having
cuffed his wrists too tight during the encounter.

"We are heartened the circuit will let Mr. Shamir have his day in
court and will force the police to have theirs," attorney Robert
Quackenbush told Courthouse News Service. "We understand this to
be the first time the circuit has definitively ruled that tight
handcuffs can constitute excessive force."

Mr. Shamir's counsel had failed to adequately address the
handcuffing allegation during initial filings, the appeals court
ruled, but added the claims should be remanded back to District
Court "despite the District Court's justifiable misunderstanding
that this claim was either not pleaded or not being pursued."

"On appeal, Shamir contends that a remand is required for
adjudication of what he asserts is a claim of use of excessive
force in the course of his arrest. It is entirely understandable
that the District Court did not adjudicate an alleged claim of
excessive force. Nowhere in the complaint is there an explicit
claim that excessive force was used in the course of Shamir's
arrest," the 2nd Circuit wrote in its opinion.

"There is no excuse for his lawyer's failure to state such a claim
in plain language."

Mr. Shamir said his hands were cuffed so tightly by the officers
that they turned "really discolored," "really swollen" and "really
. . . blue." He claimed he repeatedly asked for the cuffs to be
loosened, but his requests were denied each time.

"Shamir went to Lenox Hill Hospital, where a doctor gave him pain
medicine and put a splint on his right hand. He wore the splint
for two weeks. He consulted a hand specialist. His pain became
worse. As of the day of the hearing, nearly nine months after the
arrest, he could not completely move the thumb of his right hand,"
the appeals court said.

Mr. Shamir was originally arrested near the one-year anniversary
of the Occupy movement on one charge of "unlawful camping" -- he
admittedly had planned to sleep in downtown New York with a group
of around 20 other protesters. The charge was later dismissed, but
the 2nd Circuit agreed that the NYPD had been in the right to make
the arrest.

A spokesman for the NYPD told Courthouse News that the agency is
"pleased that the court recognized the arrest was perfectly lawful
and only permitted the handcuffing claim to proceed."

Earlier, a class-action lawsuit filed against the NYPD alleged law
enforcement routinely violated the constitutional rights of
protesters during the Occupy movement and did not properly train
its officers with regards to handling First Amendment-protected
demonstrations.

In July, six protesters settled police-brutality claims against
the city for a total of $332,500.


NISSAN: Recalls Multiple Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
MfrSystem: Airbag
Units affected: 184
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015491TC
ID number: 2015491

Certain vehicles serviced as part of recall 2014-093 or which had
the Occupant Classification System (OCS) module replaced during
servicing may have been fitted with an incorrect replacement OCS
module. An incorrect OCS module would impair the effectiveness of
the OCS, potentially failing to properly classify an adult
passenger seated in the front passenger seat. This could increase
the risk of injury to the occupant in a crash. Correction: Dealers
will reprogram the OCS module.

  Make        Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----          ----------------------
  NISSAN      SENTRA         2013
  NISSAN      PATHFINDER     2013
  NISSAN      ALTIMA         2013
  INFINITI    JX35           2013
  INFINITI    QX60           2014


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Class Suit Funds Up for Distribution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, 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 issued an order directing the distribution of the net
settlement proceeds in the 2010 Class Action.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers
of the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware captioned In re Heckmann Corporation
Securities Class Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT). On March
4, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle
this matter by entering into a Stipulation of Settlement with the
plaintiffs, which resolved all claims asserted against the Company
and the individual defendants in this case. Under the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement, which was subject to approval by the
court, the Company agreed to a cash payment of $13.5 million, a
portion of which came come from remaining insurance proceeds, as
well as the issuance of 0.8 million shares of its common stock.
The Company agreed to provide a floor value of $13.5 million on
the equity portion of the settlement; however, at the time of
final court approval of the Stipulation of Settlement (described
below) the equity value of the settlement consideration exceeded
this amount and, as a result, the number of shares to be issued as
settlement consideration was fixed at 0.8 million. Cash payments
of $6.1 million from the Company, and the remaining $7.4 million
from insurance proceeds, were deposited into escrow in April 2014.

The Stipulation of Settlement was approved by the court on June
26, 2014 and became effective on August 27, 2014. Pursuant to the
court's approval order, one-third of the 0.8 million settlement
shares and one-third of the cash settlement consideration were
awarded to co-lead plaintiffs' counsel as attorneys' fees (in
addition to reimbursement of certain court-approved expenses from
the cash portion of the settlement escrow). The remaining two-
thirds of the 0.8 million settlement shares were deposited into
escrow on August 22, 2014.

On May 13, 2015 the court issued an order directing the
distribution of the net settlement proceeds.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Ruling in 2013 Class Action Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, 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
plaintiffs in a 2013 class action filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative
class action lawsuits were commenced in Federal court against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors alleging that the Company and the individual defendants
made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to
the Company's operations and financial condition which caused the
price of its shares to fall. By order dated October 29, 2013, the
two putative class actions were consolidated and a consolidated
complaint was filed. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these
claims in May 2014, and such motion was granted by the Court on
November 17, 2014, whereby the forgoing class action was dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiffs were permitted by the Court to file
a motion to amend the complaint and did so on December 8, 2014.
Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend
the complaint on December 22, 2014.

On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint as to certain claims, but granting
plaintiffs' motion as to other claims. Plantiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 19, 2015, and on March 23, 2015 the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to
comply with the court's March 12, 2015 order. Both parties filed
subsequent pleadings.

On June 24, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended consolidated class action complaint
and dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 24, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Company believes these claims are without merit and
the Company will continue to vigorously defend itself and the
individual defendants in this action.


OMNICELL INC: Plaintiff in "Nelson" Filed Notice of Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, 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 plaintiff in the
case, Nelson v. Omnicell, Inc., has filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice.

On March 19, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and two executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned
Nelson v. Omnicell, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01280-HSG.The
complaint purported to assert claims on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's stock between May 2, 2014 and March 2,
2015. It alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false
and misleading statements regarding the existence of a "side
letter" arrangement and the adequacy of internal controls that
allegedly resulted in false and misleading financial statements.
The Company believed that the claims had no merit and intended to
defend the lawsuit vigorously. The Company and the individual
defendants were not served with the complaint and on May 20, 2015,
the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit
without prejudice.


OVASCIENCE INC: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
OvaScience, 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 not yet
ruled on the motion to dismiss a class action.

The Company said, "On September 16, 2013, a purported shareholder
class action, styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers as
defendants. The lawsuit alleges that we made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the qualification of AUGMENT as a 361 HCT/P in our public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
September 10, 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 February 2, 2014, we and certain of our
officers, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the
District Court. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner
voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice."

"On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder class action was re-
filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers
as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations as were
included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2014. As amended, the
complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of our
stock during the period February 25, 2013 through September 10,
2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees. On December 16, 2014, we moved to
dismiss the complaint. The court has not yet ruled on that
motion."

"We believe that this action is without merit and intend to defend
it vigorously. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to us," the Company said.


PAPA MURPHY'S: Named as Defendant in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's 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 29, 2015, that the Company was
named on May 8, 2015, as a defendant in a class action lawsuit
claiming a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
which prohibits companies from making telemarketing calls to
numbers listed in the Federal Do-Not-Call Registry and imposes
other obligations and limitations on making phone calls and
sending text messages to consumers. The lawsuit alleges that the
Company did not comply with the statutory requirements for
obtaining consumers' consent to receive text messages from the
Company, and seeks statutory penalties for those alleged
deficiencies. The Company believes the plaintiff's interpretation
of the applicable law is incorrect, and it will vigorously defend
itself in the lawsuit, but provides no assurance that it will be
successful. An adverse judgment or settlement could have an
adverse impact on the Company's profitability and could cause
variability in its results compared to expectations.


PEAK PERFORMANCE: Faces "Trenz" Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Trenz, and all others similarly-situated v. Peak Performance
Marketing Solutions, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc and Does 1-
5, Case No. 3:15-cv-02307 (S.D. Calif., October 14, 2015), seeks
damages, injunctive relief and any other available legal or
equitable remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Defendant Peak Performance Marketing Solutions of America, Inc. is
a marketing company.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is the American branch
of an international car manufacturer with dealerships across the
United States, and is, and at all times mentioned
herein was, a corporation founded under the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, whose primary corporate offices are
located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr., Herndon, Virginia 20171.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
      ZAVERI TABB APC
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 398-4767
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com

          - and -

      James R. Patterson, Esq.
      PATTERSON LAW GROUP
      402 W. Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 756-6990
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com


PETROBRAS: Sued by Asset Managers Over Fraud
--------------------------------------------
Beagan Wilcox Volz, writing for Financial Times, reported that
dozens of mutual funds owned by Pimco, Allianz, Legg Mason and
Western Asset Management have sued Petrobras over losses stemming
from huge and long-running incidences of bribery at the Brazilian
oil company.

The asset managers join at least eight others whose funds have
sued Petrobras in recent months. Among them are Aberdeen,
Delaware, DFA, John Hancock, Lord Abbett, OppenheimerFunds,
Russell and Transamerica.

The fraud at the heart of the string of lawsuits involves
Petrobras executives who colluded with at least 16 contractors to
inflate bids. The contractors, in turn, gave kickbacks to
Petrobras officials, politicians and money launderers.

In each of the new cases, the mutual funds have pursued their own
suits and opted out of a pending class-action case against
Petrobras, betting that they have a better chance of recovering
more of the damages they seek outside the broader case.

The lead plaintiff in the class action is the Universities
Superannuation Scheme, the UK pension scheme for university
employees.

"In my view, Petrobras is the watershed case for opt-out
plaintiffs," says Michael Lange, counsel of securities litigation
at Financial Recovery Technologies, which offers claim filing and
monitoring services. "I cannot recall any case where we have seen
so many household-name institutions and institutions generally
opting out to pursue their own claims," he says.

In typical class actions, the settlement amount is the "big, scary
thing" for defendants, says Mr Lange, and the opt-out settlements
are usually smaller amounts.

"But like every company, at some point there is going to be a
limitation on what [Petrobras] can pay," he says.

More than $28 billion was diverted from Petrobras via the fraud,
and 2,000 of its employees were under investigation at the end of
February, according to the complaint filed by Pimco, Legg and the
others. The suit is based on media reports, regulatory filings and
public statements made by the company and other information.

The plaintiffs in the most recent suit claim that Petrobras and 14
individual defendants, including two former chief executives, lied
or omitted information about the company's assets and profits, as
well as its anti-bribery and anti-corruption policies, among other
things. When the company issued disclosure to correct this
information, the value of Petrobras securities "dropped
materially", according to the complaint.

The Pimco Total Return fund held about $1.3bn in Petrobras
securities as of June 30, up from about $573m at the end of 2013,
long before the scandal came to light. Western Asset Core Plus
Bond held about $58m of the company's securities as of September
30, up slightly from $54m at the end of 2013, the data show.

An October 15 court decision dismissed some of the plaintiffs'
fraud claims under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ruling
that the claims could not be brought because they were not filed
within the so-called statute of repose. In this case, that
timeframe is five years and runs from the date of the alleged
fraudulent statement or omission at issue.

"The message to institutional investors is if you want to bring
your own suit, you had better do it as quickly as possible,
because every day that goes by, you are potentially losing claims
if you bought [Petrobras securities] early and are waiting," says
Mr Lange.


PINGTAN MARINE: Defending "Fila" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. is defending a class action filed
by Paul Fila in New York district court, the Company 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.

The Company said, "On January 14, 2015, Paul Fila, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Company and certain of its executive officers and
directors. On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
prospectus and registration statements filed contained materially
false and misleading information in violation of the federal
securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief. Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were
reckless in not knowing that Pingtan Fishing did not pay its
profits to the Company in 2014 even though it was reported to the
SEC that the Company received $85.8 million in profits from
Pingtan Fishing that year."

"Our reply is due on September 11, 2015. We believe that the class
action lawsuit is without merit and we intend to defend the
lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance regarding
the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."


PORTUGUESE CHEESE: Recalls Raw Milk Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Portuguese Cheese Company Limited
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10100

Portuguese Cheese Co. Ltd. is recalling St. Jorge and Queijo Sao
Jorge raw milk cheese from the marketplace because they may
contain the toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers
should not consume the recalled products described below.

The following products, imported from Portugal, have been sold in
Ontario.

The Queijo Sao Jorge raw milk cheese may have been sold in smaller
packages, cut and wrapped by some retailers. Consumers who are
unsure if they have purchased affected products should check with
their retailer.

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

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures. Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

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

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

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

Affected products

                                          Code(s) on
  Brand name   Common name   Size         product         UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----         ----------      ---
  St. Jorge    Raw Milk      Variable       Lot #914     Variable
               Cheese

  Queijo       Raw Milk      Approximately  AEE0215    None
  Sao Jorge    Cheese        9-10 kg
                            (appears on
                             case only)

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/DUx1Ay


PRESIDENTIAL DETAILING: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Yennipatricdv Nunez Fuentes, Javier Enrique Ayala, Alejandro
Barrientos, Elmer Barrientos, Carlos Mario Garcia, Edwin Escobar
Zometa, Juan Jose Caseros Codoy, Elvia Marina Caceros, Jose
Alejandro Lopez Garcia, Jessica Ordonez, Ed Bryan Wilson, and all
others similarly-situated v. Presidential Detailing LLC, New Look
Auto Appearance, LLC, and Kevin Rohalmin, Case No. 1:15-cv-01337
(E.D. Va., October 14, 2015), seeks permanent injunctive relief
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide car wash and automobile "detailing"
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq.
      4015 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 6
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Tel: (703) 865-8836
      Fax: (703) 865-7633
      E-mail: th@virginiawage.com


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: $5.9MM Reserved for Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their
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 reserve for the class action settlement liability is $5.9
million in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30,
2015.

In 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Prosper
and certain of its executive officers and directors in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers
on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The
lawsuit alleged that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws. On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks
and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting
any liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims
related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the
Settlement, Prosper agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10
million into a settlement fund, split into four annual
installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million
in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. The Settlement received final
approval in a final order and judgment entered by the Superior
Court on April 16, 2014.

Pursuant to the final order and judgment, the claims in the class
action were dismissed, and the defendants were released by the
plaintiffs from all claims that were or could have been asserted
concerning the issues alleged in the class action lawsuit. The
reserve for the class action settlement liability is $5.9 million
in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2015.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Defending Against "Hsu" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 is
defending against the case, Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology, Inc., et
al.

The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  The complaint was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased our securities
between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015.  The complaint alleges
that we and certain of our executive officers made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in
violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified
equitable relief.  We intend to vigorously defend this matter."


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: "Delman" Settlement Awaits Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Quality Distribution, 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 settlement in the
case, Delman v. Quality Distribution, Inc., et al., remains
subject to Court approval.

On May 6, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Gruden Acquisition, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent") and Gruden Merger Sub, Inc., a
Florida corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), providing for, among other things, the acquisition
of the Company by Parent. Parent and Merger Sub were formed by
funds affiliated with Apax Partners L.P.

On June 17, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit entitled Delman
v. Quality Distribution, Inc., et al. ("Delman action") was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida (the "Court"). The Delman action
names as defendants the Company, our board of directors, Gruden
Acquisition, Inc. ("Parent"), Gruden Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger
Sub"), Apax Partners LLP ("Apax"), and certain funds advised by
Apax ("Apax Investors"). The action was brought individually and
on behalf of a putative class of the Company's shareholders, and
alleges that the members of our board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed acquisition of
the Company by Parent, depriving the Company's shareholders of the
full and fair value of their ownership interest in the Company.
The action further alleges that the Company has failed to inform
the Company's shareholders of material facts regarding the
proposed transaction, and additionally alleges that Apax, Parent,
Merger Sub and the Apax Investors aided and abetted the alleged
breaches by the Company's board of directors. The Delman action
seeks equitable relief, including, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the transaction, as well as compensatory and/or
recissory damages, and an award of all costs, including attorneys'
fees and other expenses.

The parties to the Delman action have agreed to a settlement-in-
principle, and are in the process of negotiating a stipulation of
settlement to be filed with the Court. The settlement remains
subject to Court approval.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: November 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. reminds shareholders of Resource Capital
Corp.) of an upcoming deadline involving a securities fraud class
action lawsuit commenced against the Company. A complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Resource Capital between March 2,
2015 and August 4, 2015 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 9, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice. One of
the key factors in selecting the lead plaintiff is the size of the
loss. The larger the size of your economic loss, the greater the
likelihood that you may be appointed to serve as lead plaintiff.
Alternatively, you may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

If you purchased shares of Resource Capital during the Class
Period, or purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still
hold Resource Capital, and wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803 at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/resource-capital-corp-rso.

         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Peter Allocco, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         825 E Gate Blvd #300
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Toll Free: (888) 969-4242
         Tel: (516) 683-3516
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: tjm@rl-legal.com
                pa@rl-legal.com


RETROPHIN INC: Remaining Defendants Filed Motions to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, 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 remaining
defendants in a shareholder class action have filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was
filed in the Southern District of New York against the same
defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The
complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014. In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan
filed a motion to appoint lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel,
and to consolidate the two related actions.

On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions,
appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead counsel. Lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on March 4, 2015,
which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr. Panoff, and Mr.
Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven Richardson,
Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional defendants.

On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court
ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The
remaining defendants, including the Company, have filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.


REX ENERGY: Litigation Related to Oil and Gas Leases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Energy 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 continues
to defend the litigation related to proposed oil and gas leases in
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania.

The Company said, "In October 2011, we were named as defendants in
a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas
of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania (the "Cardinale case"). The
named plaintiffs are two individuals who have sued on behalf of
themselves and all persons who are alleged to be similarly
situated. The complaint in the Cardinale case generally asserts
that a binding contract to lease oil and gas interests was formed
between the Company and each proposed class member when
representatives of Western Land Services, Inc. ("Western"), a
leasing agent that we engaged, presented a form of proposed oil
and gas lease and an order for payment to each person in 2008, and
each person signed the proposed oil and gas lease form and order
for payment and delivered the documents to representatives of
Western. We rejected these leases and never signed them."

"The plaintiffs seek the certification of a class and a judgment
declaring the rights of the parties with respect to those proposed
leases, as well as damages and other relief as may be established
by plaintiffs at trial, together with interest, costs, expenses
and attorneys' fees. In May 2012, the trial court dismissed the
Cardinale case with prejudice on the grounds that there was no
contract formed between us and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal during the second half of 2012. On May 3,
2013, the Superior Court reversed the decision of the Common Pleas
Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

"In July 2012, while the Cardinale case was in the midst of the
appeals process, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Cardinale case
filed two additional lawsuits against us in the Court of Common
Pleas of Clearfield County, Pennsylvania: one a proposed class
action lawsuit with a different named plaintiff (the "Billotte
case") and another on behalf of a group of individually named
plaintiffs (the "Meeker case"). The complaint for both cases
contain the same claims as those set forth in the Cardinale case.
It is our understanding that these two additional lawsuits were
filed for procedural reasons in light of the dismissal of the
Cardinale case and the pendency of the appeal. Proceedings in the
Billotte case have been consolidated with the Cardinale case;
proceedings in the Meeker case are ongoing.

"In June 2015, the trial court conducted a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for certification of a class in the Cardinale case.  In
July 2015, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs served notice of their appeal of that
decision in August 2015.

"We continue to vigorously defend against each of these claims. At
this time we are unable to express an opinion with respect to the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of
potential losses, if any."


RING ENERGY: Faces Stockholder Action in Clark County, Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ring Energy, 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 purported stockholder
(the "Plaintiff") of the Company filed on July 10, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada, on behalf of herself and Ring stockholders against
the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, and SunTrust
Bank (the "Lawsuit"). The complaint is captioned Rosalyn Newman,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Ring Energy, Inc., et al. Defendants, under Case No. A-15-721253-
C, in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Dept. IV.

The Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the members of our
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that
SunTrust Bank aided and abetted such breaches, in connection with
our Credit Agreement as a result of certain provisions that gives
SunTrust Bank the right to accelerate the debt in the event of a
change in control, among other things. The complaint seeks, among
other things, declaratory relief, as well as an award of costs and
disbursements of the Lawsuit, including attorney's fees, experts'
fees, costs and expenses. The Credit Agreement has been amended to
eliminate and modify such provisions.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in the
Lawsuit and will seek to have such Lawsuit dismissed. We believe
any costs associated with the Lawsuit will be immaterial," the
Company said.


RUSSELL SIMMONS: Faces Class Suit Over RushCard Fiasco
------------------------------------------------------
TheGrio.com reported that hip hop mogul Russell Simmons is facing
a class action lawsuit after the disastrous problems that his
RushCard program faced recently.

The problems began when a "glitch" resulted in several cardholders
being blocked from accessing their money in their accounts, while
other cardholders have even said that some of their money was
missing. What's worse, many of the cardholders could not afford to
go without the money in their accounts during the week and a half
it took to get the program back online, and some had to choose
between eating and paying utilities or rent.

The lawsuit demands that RushCard pay damages and restitution for
the period of time in which they were without money, citing
everything from late fees for the bills they were not able to pay
to failed ATM withdrawal fees. They also cited account balance
issues after the program was brought back online, in which, in
some cases, account balances had disappeared.

The suit states, "Plaintiff's and class members were fraudulently
induced into purchasing RushCards and depositing money into their
RushCard accounts because they were led to believe their funds
would be 'safe and protected' with unhindered access to these
monies."


SAIGON SOUL: Recalls Peanut Sauce Due to Clostridium botulinum
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 20, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Saigon Soul Food Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10107

Saigon Soul Food Inc. is recalling Saigon Soul Food brand Saigon
Peanut Sauce from the marketplace because it may permit the growth
of Clostridium botulinum. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

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

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

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

  Brand name    Common name    Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  ----------    -----------    ----    product        ---
                                       ----------
  Saigon Soul   Saigon Peanut  250 mL  All units      8 74525-
  Food          Sauce                  purchased up   00302 6
                                       to and
                                       including
                                       October 20,
                                       2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Ryvi3b



SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Steck" Lawsuit Transferred to N.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA 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 the venue
of the Steck securities class action has been transferred from the
Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York (the "Steck Lawsuit"). On October 6, 2014, another
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas and was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas. Both lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors and executive officers and
certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering. Each lawsuit was brought by a purported
stockholder of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant and/or traceable to SCUSA's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering.
Each complaint alleged that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus contained misleading statements concerning the
Company's auto lending business and underwriting practices. Each
lawsuit asserted claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages and other relief.

In February 2015, the purported class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. In June 2015, the venue
of the Steck Lawsuit was transferred from the Southern District of
New York to the Northern District of Texas.


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: "Kubischta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Kubischta, and all others similarly-situated v.
Schlumberger Tech Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-01338 (W.D. Pa., October
14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Schlumberger Tech Corp is a subsidiary of Schlumberger (NYSE:SLB).
It provides directional drilling, MWD, and LWD services for
unconventional oil and gas environments with a team of more than
600 directional drillers and 700 MWD and LWD across the globe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 766-1455
      Fax: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

          - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
      BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      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


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Defending Stockholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
SFX 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 the Company has been
named as a defendant in multiple putative stockholder class action
complaints challenging the proposal by Mr. Sillerman and his
affiliates to acquire all of the outstanding shares of our common
stock not presently held, directly or indirectly, by Mr. Sillerman
and his affiliates in a merger with the Company. All of the
lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware and have been consolidated into a single proceeding as In
re SFX Entertainment, Inc. Stockholders Litigation on July 9,
2015. The defendants named in the consolidated complaint are the
Company, SFXE Acquisition LLC, SFXE Merger Sub, Inc., Sillerman
Investment Company III LLC, and the directors of the Company. The
lawsuit was premised on allegations that the price offered in the
merger is inadequate and that the defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with
the merger. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger and payment
of damages and costs incurred as a result of the merger. The
outcome of the lawsuit is uncertain. An adverse judgment for
monetary damages could have an adverse effect on the operations
and liquidity of the Company. A preliminary injunction could delay
or jeopardize the completion of the merger, and an adverse
judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could indefinitely
enjoin completion of the merger. The defendants believe that the
claims asserted against them in the lawsuits are without merit.


SIENTRA INC: Nov. 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Sientra, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-07548, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Sientra securities between March 18, 2015 and September
24, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks
to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Sientra securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 24, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Sientra is a medical aesthetics company that develops and sells
medical aesthetics products to plastic surgeons.  Sientra offers
silicone gel breast implants for use in breast augmentation and
breast reconstruction procedures, as well as breast tissue
expanders.  Sientra also provides body contouring and other
implants, including gluteal, pectoral, calf, facial, and nasal
implants.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects
and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Sientra's exclusive reliance on Silimed's Brazilian
manufacturing facilities carried significant quality control
risks; (ii) the manufacturing processes at the Silimed Rio de
Janeiro manufacturing plant were contaminated; and (iii) as a
result of the above, the Company's statements regarding quality
control and other financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 24, 2015, it was announced that the United Kingdom's
Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency ("MHRA") had
suspended sales of Silimed products after an audit of Silimed's
manufacturing processes revealed contamination in Silimed's Rio de
Janeiro manufacturing plant.

On this news, shares of Sientra fell $10.88, or nearly 52.9%, to
close at $9.70 on September 24, 2015.

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


SUBWAY: Now Measuring 'Footlong' Sandwiches After Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
RT.com reported that after being sued by customers in a class-
action suit for false advertising, Subway restaurants in the
United States will now measure their 6-inch and footlong
sandwiches.

The settlement agreement released states that the Milford,
Connecticut-based fast food chain has conceded to measure its
sandwiches to ensure that they are at the billed length.

Subway has also agreed to start compliance inspections to make
sure restaurants are abiding by the new rules, according to the
settlement.

The sandwich giant, which has the most stores of any fast food
chain in the world, will amend training materials and other
communication that had "allowed for a small tolerance in the size
of a Footlong sandwich."

The lawsuit was prompted two years ago by Australian Matt Corby's
viral photo of a nominally footlong Subway sandwich next to a
ruler showing that it just barely reached 11 inches.

While Subway agreed to pay only up to $1,000 in compensation to
the plaintiffs, it will cover $525,000 in legal expenses, the
agreement said.

A hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
January 15, 2016.


TALKTALK: Faces Data Breach Issue, Conmen Steal Customer Details
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Rushton, writing for The Daily Mail, reports that conmen
have been raiding the bank accounts of victims of the TalkTalk
mass cyber-attack.

The fraudsters started cold-calling targets even before the
broadband firm realized that customer details had been stolen.

The company alerted Scotland Yard and the major banks on Oct. 22,
going public about the hack on Oct. 22.  But by then some of the
four million TalkTalk customers whose sensitive data may have been
leaked were being contacted by criminals.

One victim's bank card was used for a GBP600 shopping spree before
further purchases were blocked.

TalkTalk admitted on Oct. 22 it still had no idea who was behind
the attack or exactly what was stolen.

And, as touts offered the personal data for sale online, it
emerged that:

A ransom has been demanded for the return of the information;

A group claiming to be Islamic extremists said they were
responsible;

Cyber-security experts said TalkTalk should be ashamed;

A formal probe was opened by the Information Commissioner into the
breach.

On Oct. 22, victims revealed that scammers had used a range of
ploys to try to get hold of their money.

Hilary Foster, a barrister's clerk from Surbiton, south-west
London, found that scammers had tried to go on a shopping spree
funded from her bank account.

Many of the payments were declined but thieves still made off with
more than œ600, which they spent at Tesco and Office shoes.

When she called to block the card, the bank asked her whether she
was a TalkTalk customer: "I was in a blind panic.  I am really,
really angry TalkTalk found out about this on Oct. 21 and didn't
tell customers until a day later."

Conmen also sabotaged a TalkTalk customer's broadband line on
Oct. 21.

Iain Frater, a trainee doctor from Glasgow, said: "They slowed my
internet down then phoned pretending to be TalkTalk support. They
had all the details you would expect, including name, address,
phone number and account number. The guy really sounded like he
was in a TalkTalk call centre."

When Mr. Frater became suspicious and tried to end the call, the
fraudsters warned him his computer was at risk of exploding.
Chief executive Dido Harding apologized to customers last night
but said it was too early to consider compensation.

Asked by Channel 4 if the company had failed to invest in
sufficiently tough online security following two previous attacks,
she replied: "In retrospect -- absolutely.  I would be the first
to admit that."

She said the significant investment the firm had made had proved
inadequate.  She also admitted she didn't know whether the details
accessed by cyber criminals had been encrypted.

The firm shut its website when the attack became apparent.
Miss Harding said: 'Our email system was running very slowly and
that is usually an indication that someone is trying to bombard
your systems to get in.'

Most major firms use encryption to ensure data is useless to
hackers in the event it is stolen.

David Emm, of the cyber-security firm Kaspersky Lab, said:
"TalkTalk should be ashamed.  It is not their data at risk here.
It is the data of other people who have placed their trust in the
company."

TalkTalk does not know how many of its four million mobile and
broadband customers have had their details stolen, but their
names, addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers, credit card
numbers and bank details are all at risk.

The Metropolitan Police cyber-crime unit is investigating the
attack but has made no arrests.

"We are aware of speculation regarding alleged perpetrators; this
investigation remains at an early stage; a full assessment of the
alleged data theft is ongoing," it said in a statement.

The Islamic extremists published a threatening message on the
Pastebin website, warning: "We will teach our children to use the
web for Allah.  Your hands will be covered in blood.  Judgment day
is soon."

The Russia-based groups published a long list of customer email
addresses with some phone numbers and bank account details.  The
account numbers appear to have been deleted but some branch sort
codes remain.

The authenticity of the messages is questionable.  The group may
be hoaxers passing off data stolen at an earlier date.

Two individuals whose telephone numbers were published said they
were no longer TalkTalk customers.  Others contacted by the Mail
confirmed their details were genuine.

Jayne Snellgrove, detective superintendent at the cyber-crime
unit, said: "TalkTalk have done everything right in bringing this
matter to our attention as soon as possible.

"The Met has one of the largest cyber-crime and fraud teams in
Europe, with up to 500 specialist officers dedicated to tackling
this sort of offence."

Charles Dunstone, founder and chairman of TalkTalk, suggested the
amount of information the thieves could get their hands on was
restricted.

The technology company has been a repeat winner of MoneyMail's
"wooden spoon" award for worst customer service.

Plain truth is we've all been far too complacent

Commentary by Edward Lucas

"Imagine a hotel careless enough to put its guests' room keys on
public display, along with their names, credit cards, passport
details and home addresses.  It would be a boon for thieves,
snoopers and pranksters.

That, broadly, is what TalkTalk appears to have done with its
customers' sensitive electronic data.  And it has lost it to
attackers -- and is paying heavily for its carelessness.
Computers and networks can all too easily be breached, whether by
criminals, hooligans, zealots or spies.  But if the information is
properly encrypted, the benefit to attackers is minimal.
All they get is a bewildering mixture of letters and numbers.
Without the 'keys' to decode it, the data is worth nothing.

TalkTalk, amazingly, appears not to have done this.  That made it
easy for the still-unknown attackers -- perhaps criminals, perhaps
political extremists, perhaps a mixture of the two -- to steal
customer information from its computers.

The company's bland and contradictory statements since the attack
-- and especially the woeful performances by chief executive
Dido Harding -- only compound the impression of incompetence.

It appears that the attackers began by swamping the company's
website with bogus requests for information.  This distracted
attention while they hacked into the network and stole the data.
The attack highlights the scandalous complacency which still
reigns in British business about cyber-security.

No chief executive would sleep easily at night if the company
headquarters were secured merely with a child's padlock, with
vital commercial secrets strewn on every desk.

Nor would shareholders tolerate senior management who did not
understand how to lock a door or file papers safely, and could not
tell if the company had been robbed.

Yet the equivalent of such ignorance and carelessness when it
comes to computers and networks is all too common.

Far too many company directors have not the faintest idea how
computers work, or the formidable arsenal of weapons and trickery
which attackers can deploy.

The hapless Miss Harding, bumbling from studio to studio, was
unable to explain how her company had been attacked, how long the
attack had gone on for, what had been stolen and whether the
computers and networks were now secure.

Nor could she tell who was behind it.  This is the other striking
feature of cyber-attacks.  In the real world, we have a fairly
good idea of who our enemies and rivals are.  When it comes to
cyber-space, we are in the dark.

An illiterate and venomous posting on the Pastebin website,
accompanied by what appears to be a portion of the data stolen
from TalkTalk, appears to claim responsibility on behalf of
Islamist extremists.

But we cannot be sure.  Cyber-attacks are indeed a form of
terrorism.  They disrupt normal life, erode public morale, stoke
feelings of powerlessness and humiliate those responsible for
protecting us.

So attacking TalkTalk, a major provider of mobile phone and
internet services, could be a stunt by those bent on destroying
our way of life in the misguided pursuit of piety.

Yet anyone can claim to be a jihadist.  The news that someone had
delivered a ransom demand to TalkTalk suggests that the real
motivation of the attackers was money, not mayhem.

The internet is rife with extortion demands.  Even ordinary
internet users can be blackmailed because they have left a
compromising trail online by browsing pornographic websites, or
posting indecent pictures.

Another common attack is "ransomware" -- encrypting the data on a
computer, and offering to unlock it in exchange for money.
Sometimes criminal and extremist elements overlap.  The jihadists
may revel in the havoc they wreak, but also be keen to raise money
for their cause.

One thing is clear.  TalkTalk will not be the last victim of these
terrifying attacks.  The bleak truth is that the security of our
computers and networks -- government, business and private -- is
woeful.

Our police are hopelessly overstretched trying to deal with the
wave of cyber-crime in this country.  When it comes to crime that
crosses borders, they are even more flat-footed.

We need to counter-attack with every means possible. Everyone who
owns and runs a computer has a responsibility to keep it safe.

We do not tolerate badly-maintained and dangerous cars on our
roads.  We need the same penalties for irresponsibility on the
information superhighways.

That will require not just criminal prosecution for corporate
recklessness, but also greater use of civil liability.  We need
class-action lawsuits from the owners of data that has been
carelessly stored.

Customers should desert TalkTalk in their droves.  That in turn
may encourage the company's shareholders to ask hard questions of
the management.  Just don't expect Miss Harding to answer them.


TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: Faces Suit Over Mishandled Card Numbers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nichole Knight Shine, writing for The Press Enterprise, reported
that a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court claims the
Transportation Corridor Agencies and its contractors broke federal
law by revealing too many card numbers on a printed payment
receipt, exposing customers to the risk of identity theft.

Attorneys for Robert Cohen of Tustin say in a court filing that a
receipt from Aug. 11 displayed eight digits of his debit card
number. Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, all
but the last five digits of debit and credit card numbers must be
redacted to prevent identity theft and fraud involving
cardholders.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of Cohen and other
toll agency customers. More than 250,000 motorists daily drive the
San Joaquin Hills, Foothill and Eastern toll roads.

Cohen's attorneys said it's unclear how many customers have been
affected by the improper display of card numbers. The toll agency
switched to a cashless system in May 2014.

Lisa Telles, chief communications officer with the toll agency,
said it adheres to strict requirements and practices to protect
customer security.

"We take the security of our customer's financial information very
seriously," she said in an email..

The suit also names the agency's payment processing vendors 3M Co.
and Irvine-based BRiC-TPS.

A spokeswoman for 3M declined to comment; BRiC-TPS representatives
did not respond.

The law limits statutory damages to a maximum of $1,000, with
unlimited punitive damages.

Miami-Dade County and its vendors were sued for a similar
violation, according to Law360. The class-action lawsuit claimed
the county printed too many credit card numbers on a traffic
ticket receipt.


TREMOR VIDEO: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Notice of Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tremor Video, 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 plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit have filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company said, "In November 2013, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against us, our directors, and
certain of our executive officers. The lawsuit alleges certain
misrepresentations by us in connection with our IPO concerning our
business and prospects.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages."

"On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  On April 22, 2014, lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  On July 14, 2014, we filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 28, 2014, lead
plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On
September 18, 2014, we filed a reply in support of the motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

"On March 5, 2015, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
entered judgment in our favor. On April 7, 2015, plaintiffs filed
a motion to vacate the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint ("Motion to Vacate").  On June 5, 2015, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
entered an order denying the Motion to Vacate.  On July 1, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit."


UNC-CHAPEL HILL: Key Issues Remain Year After Bogus Classes Fiasco
------------------------------------------------------------------
The News & Observer reports that a year ago, a 131-page report
detailing 18 years of fake classes in the African and Afro-
American Studies department delivered a staggering blow to UNC-
Chapel Hill's academic reputation and to its athletics programs.

That day, Chancellor Carol Folt promised swift action to correct
what had gone wrong: a system of bogus classes that helped keep
athletes eligible to play and a substantial number of key
university officials who failed to stop it.  NCAA investigators
were set to follow up on the findings produced by a legal team led
by Kenneth Wainstein, a former top U.S. Justice Department
official.

In the past year, the university has received notice of five
serious NCAA violations.  A former faculty leader implicated in
the fake classes resigned under pressure.  The commission that
accredits the university placed it on probation.

Yet quite a bit remains unsettled.  Some key developments flowing
from Mr. Wainstein's investigation that are still in play:

The NCAA investigation: By now, the university would have had to
respond to the NCAA's allegations, which include a lack of
institutional control, the most serious charge the NCAA can levy.
But in mid-August, UNC announced it had found evidence of more
improper academic help, which created a delay in the NCAA
infractions case.

At the time, UNC officials said it should be clear within 60 days
whether the NCAA would need to issue a new notice of allegations,
or let UNC respond to the current one.

Those 60 days passed, making it seem more likely that the NCAA
will choose to issue a new notice of allegations, which will
extend the time to resolve the case by at least another 90 days.
All of this means that the NCAA case is unlikely to be resolved
before spring.

The new allegations involve Jan Boxill, the former academic
counselor for women's basketball players, who later became UNC's
faculty leader.  UNC officials said the new allegations are
similar to those in the notice, which accused Ms. Boxill of
writing and editing parts of women's basketball players' papers
and requesting a grade for one player.

Rick White, a UNC spokesman, said on Oct. 21: "We have not
received a revised (notice of allegations) from the NCAA nor have
we received a revised timeline."  He said that information would
be made public as soon as UNC is notified.

The NCAA could reduce scholarships, issue postseason bans or take
away titles won by previous Tar Heels teams.

Disciplinary actions: At the release of the Wainstein Report,
Ms. Folt said nine UNC employees were facing termination or
disciplinary review.  Since then, three of those employees have
left UNC, including Ms. Boxill, while a former academic counselor
for athletes was fired from a similar job at UNC Wilmington.

UNC reported that information as part of settling a public records
lawsuit with a media coalition that included The News & Observer
and The Charlotte Observer.

Since then, UNC has made no determination regarding the other five
employees, who have not been identified by UNC.

One of them appears to be Bobbi Owen, a former senior associate
dean who oversaw the academic support program for athletes.
Mr. Wainstein reported that she became aware the African studies
department was offering abnormally high numbers of independent
studies and sought to bring that number down, but did not look
into why they were so high in the first place.

Owen was later replaced as director of a UNC honors program in
London for the spring 2015 semester, but no explanation was given.

"We're hopeful the personnel reviews will be concluded soon,"
Mr. White said.  "When those are completed, we will announce the
results in accordance with the agreement we have with the NC Press
Association."

Transparency: Ms. Folt pledged UNC would step up its efforts to be
transparent in its actions.  It has created a new website that
lists all public records requests and whether they have been
processed.

But a check of the website shows many unfulfilled requests, some
of which do not involve voluminous records.  The N&O, for example,
has not received legal and public relations bills from some of the
firms UNC has contracted with, nor has UNC responded to a request
for any letters of disassociation issued to people involved in the
scandal.  Both requests are several weeks old.

White said a much more voluminous request has tied up UNC's public
records staff.  Last year, The N&O requested all records provided
to Mr. Wainstein for his investigation. (The Daily Tar Heel, UNC's
student newspaper, made a similar request.) UNC began releasing
those Oct. 21, making public roughly 200,000 pages of records.
UNC officials say 5 million pages of records were originally
provided to Mr. Wainstein.

UNC reviewed the records before releasing them, with some names
and dates redacted.  That review led to UNC identifying the
further allegations of misconduct by Ms. Boxill.  The N&O has
requested those particular records be released immediately.

UNC reforms: Even before the Wainstein report's release, UNC had
announced roughly 70 reforms related to the scandal.  Some of the
key reforms are tighter academic requirements on independent
studies that include limits on how many each professor can offer;
regular and more thorough reviews of academic department chairmen;
and no involvement by the athletics department in the operations
of the academic support program for athletes.

Since then, UNC has announced additional changes, most recently
limits on communications between faculty and coaches and academic
support staff.  UNC also announced two working groups, one that
would focus on policy and procedures and a second on ethics and
integrity.

External reforms: The scandal has drawn the attention of members
of Congress, some of whom have cited it in filing legislation
calling for a presidential commission to examine college sports.
In September, four bill sponsors brought UNC whistleblower
Mary Willingham and others to Capitol Hill to speak at a private
briefing of congressional staff, but it's unclear whether their
efforts drew more support.

Meanwhile, the NCAA is developing new regulations regarding
academic misconduct that speak directly to the UNC scandal.  The
proposed regulations would give the NCAA more latitude over
"impermissible academic assistance," according to a report by Jon
Solomon of CBSSports.com.

NCAA officials have said they are limited in pursuing academic
misconduct because member universities have insisted only they
should make the call on the legitimacy of a class.  The NCAA has
not explained why it did not pursue an academic misconduct case
against UNC over the fake classes, but that would have been likely
if UNC had called the classes fraudulent.  The NCAA has instead
alleged impermissible benefits.

One of the classes led to a felony charge of obtaining property by
false pretenses against former African studies chairman
Julius Nyang'oro, but the charge was dropped when he cooperated
with Mr. Wainstein's investigation.  At a news conference after
the report's release, Wainstein described the classes as
"corrupted" and part of a "scheme."

Mr. Solomon reported in September that Kathy Sulentic, who leads
the NCAA enforcement staff's academic integrity group, told
Division I faculty athletics representatives the new regulations
would allow the NCAA to make a charge in an obvious case of
academic fraud in cases where "the institution, for whatever
reason, came out with an absurd result."

Mr. White, the UNC spokesman, declined to say whether the classes
were fraudulent.

"We have identified some classes as 'irregular.' We've certainly
done that," Mr. White said.  "The Wainstein report has done that,
and I would refer you back to the Wainstein report for that
material."

Lawsuits: Former athletes have filed two lawsuits against UNC over
the fake classes, alleging they were denied a proper education.
The athletes in both are seeking the lawsuits be certified as
class-action cases.  One of the lawsuits also names the NCAA as a
defendant and calls for an independent commission to certify that
athletes in big-money sports programs are receiving the same
educational opportunities as non-athletes.

Both cases remain active in federal court and are assigned to U.S.
District Judge Loretta Biggs of North Carolina's Middle District.
She has not ruled on dismissal motions filed by UNC and the NCAA.


UNITED STATES: DHS Due to Release Detained Immigrant Families
-------------------------------------------------------------
October 23, 2015 was the deadline for the federal government to
start releasing hundreds of immigrant children and their parents
from detention.  Advocates believe a recent decision by the
Department of Human Services in Pennsylvania to potentially revoke
the license for one of the facilities holding the immigrant
families could speed up the process.

The date to start releasing families was set by U.S. District
Court Judge Dolly Gee back in August, when she ruled the
government must come into compliance with a 1997 class action
agreement establishing standards for detaining children.  In a
blistering opinion, she chided the federal government for
depicting "rosy conditions" in the centers.  She said children
were being held in unlicensed facilities, which violated the terms
of the 18-year-old agreement.

The federal government escalated its use of family detention after
tens of thousands of Central American children and their parents
were intercepted as they crossed the U.S.-Mexican border, fleeing
violence in their home countries, in the summer in 2014.
Thousands of children accompanied by their parents were held in
detention while they waited for their asylum cases to be heard.

There are only two other facilities that currently hold immigrant
families.  Both are in Texas. With the center in Pennsylvania,
they hold altogether some 2,075 children and adults.  Only the
Pennsylvania location, the Berks County Residential Facility, was
licensed by the state, so it could mount the best case for being
in compliance with the class action agreement.  The federal
government had then started transferring immigrants detained in
the Texas facilities to Berks.

But that option may soon be closed to the federal government.  On
Oct. 22, Theodore Dallas, secretary of the Pennsylvania Department
of Human Services (DHS), sent a letter to the director of the
Berks Center, informing her that the license would be revoked in
February if the center continued to detain immigrant children.
In the letter -- a copy of which was furnished to NPR -- Dallas
pointed out that Berks was originally licensed to hold delinquent
children, not immigrant children and their parents.  If the center
did not change the population it was serving, Dallas wrote, the
state would revoke its license in February 2016.

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is currently
reviewing the state's correspondence and will determine the
appropriate next steps," Sarah Maxwell, an ICE spokesperson, said
in a statement.

In September, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh
Johnson said the government would comply with Judge Gee's orders,
but would be appealing aspects of her opinion to the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals.

Carol Anne Donohoe, an immigration attorney who has represented
several detainees at Berks, applauded the move by Pennsylvania's
Department of Human Services.  "[The government] has put Berks
forth as the shining, perfect beacon of family detention," she
told NPR.  "But now the state is saying it shouldn't be licensed.
My hope is that this leads to the end of family detention and the
release of these families."


UNITED STATES: Idaho Man Sues Over Personnel Data Hack
------------------------------------------------------
Laura Zuckerman, writing for Reuters.com, reported that an Idaho
man is suing the U.S. government for compromising his personal
information in computer hacks revealed earlier at the federal
Office of Personnel Management that put the private data of at
least 21.5 million Americans at risk.

Victor Hobbs, an aviation safety specialist for the Federal
Aviation Administration, claims the U.S. hiring agency violated
his constitutional right to privacy and was negligent by failing
to properly secure his personal information.

The OPM has said data stolen from its computer networks included
Social Security numbers and other sensitive data on millions of
current and former federal workers and people who underwent
security clearances background checks.

Hobbs is seeking monetary and other damages and has asked a
federal judge to grant class action status for his lawsuit. It
names as defendants OPM officials and a contractor that ran
background investigations for the agency.

The data breach, which was revealed in June, led to the
resignation of OPM head Katherine Archuleta the following month,
as well as to calls by Congress for the security of the federal
government's computer systems to be sharply upgraded.

The United States has identified China as the leading suspect in
the extensive hacking but China's Foreign Ministry earlier
dismissed that assertion as "absurd logic."

Several other lawsuits, including from two unions representing
federal workers, have been filed in federal courts elsewhere in
the nation accusing the OPM of violating privacy and other rights
in relation to the data hack.

The OPM and its contractor have not yet filed responses in Hobbs'
lawsuit, which was filed in August but reported on by local media
in Idaho.


VALEANT PHARMA: December 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
("Valeant Pharmaceuticals") VRX, +5.72% between February 23, 2015
and October 20, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the District of New Jersey. To get
more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/valeant-pharmaceuticals
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information about the Company's business and prospects,
including that: (a) the Company was using a network of specialty
mail-order pharmacies that it actually controlled to prop up sales
of its high-priced drugs and to keep patients and their insurance
companies from switching to less costly generic drugs; (b) that
Valeant's undisclosed use of specialty pharmacies left it subject
to increased regulatory risks; and (c) that without the use of the
specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance and Class
Period financial guidance would have been negatively impacted. As
a result of these false and misleading statements and/or
omissions, Valeant stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching over $260 per share.

If you suffered a loss in Valeant Pharmaceuticals you have until
December 21, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         30 Broad St., 24th FL
         New York, NY 10004
         Toll free. 877-363-5972
         T. 212-363-7500
         F. 212-363-7171
         Email: jlevi@zlk.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Sued Over Business Structure
--------------------------------------------
Todd Kelly, writing for IUSBPreface.com, reported that explosive,
unproven allegations against Valeant Pharmaceuticals have caught
the eye of a Canadian regulator and raised serious questions about
the company's business structure -- even from its long-time
supporters. I doubt its share price will fall that far -- it seems
to have found a temporary bottom around $100 -- but it does
suggest how unsustainable Valeant's recent price above $200 really
was. The stock had previously closed at $109.87.

Valeant shares have lost more than a quarter of their value since
Citron published its report on. Several other drug stocks slid on
pharmacy concerns. The company finally came under federal radar
after it was subpoenaed for its pricing and distribution records.
Bill Ackman's Pershing Square was the top shareholder of Valeant
Pharmaceuticals Intl Inc.

On October 19, 2015, Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation
issued a report on Valeant revealing an undisclosed relationship
between Valeant and specialty pharmacy Philidor Rx Services.
Valeant has categorically, yet unconvincingly, denied the claims.

Valeant has not yet commented on the lawsuit. However, as a
counter to these strengths, we find that the growth in the
company's net income has been quite unimpressive. While the
practice is not illegal, what's worrying is the gaping difference
between Valeant's actual and adjusted earnings. The company traded
as high as $121.69 and last traded at $120.17, with a volume of
14,056,226 shares traded.

That negativity was more than offset by the fact of the enhanced
revenue and impressive global reach that will be afforded the
company by its acquisition of Amdipharm Mercury Limited (AMCo) for
US$3.5 Billion, which it completed. In other words, "this is not
good for Valeant".

Valeant Pharmaceuticals Inc shares rebounded on from four days of
steep losses over allegations it used specialty pharmacies to
inflate revenue, which the company plans to refute in detail.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Tracy Alloway said in this regard:
"The good news here is that Valeant does not have any bonds coming
due until 2018". The analyst said he lowered his target in part
because of a "witch hunt" from politicians, the media, and short-
seller that is compressing valuation multiples in the space.

Analysts have been expecting steadily increasing free annual cash
flows from Valeant, though the figures are likely to be revised in
the coming days/weeks. But company regulatory filings show that he
is entitled to bonus awards of between $6 million and $10 million,
should he and the company meet certain goals. However, Valeant's
2016 R&D projection barely increases the percentage to 3.3% of
sales forecast.

Note that Mr. Pearson also signaled toward a share buyback program
or next to boost share price.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP on Oct. 23
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. common
stock during the period between February 23, 2015 and October 20,
2015.  Those shareholders buying Valeant shares during the Class
Period with substantial losses are encouraged to contact the firm.

The complaint charges Valeant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges during the Class Period, defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information about the Company's business and prospects, including
that the Company was using a network of specialty mail-order
pharmacies that it actually controlled to prop up sales of its
high-priced drugs and to keep patients and their insurance
companies from switching to less costly generic drugs, that
Valeant's undisclosed use of specialty pharmacies left it subject
to increased regulatory risks, and that without the use of the
specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance and Class
Period financial guidance would have been negatively impacted.  As
a result of these false and misleading statements and/or
omissions, Valeant stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching over $260 per share.

Then on October 19, 2015, the Company issued a press release
reporting its third quarter 2015 financial results.  The same day,
Valeant hosted an earnings call during which, for the first time,
defendants revealed the previously undisclosed and direct
relationship between Valeant and certain specialty pharmacies.  On
this news, the price of Valeant common stock fell over 10% in one
day, from a close of $163.83 per share on October 19, 2015 to a
close of $146.74 per share on October 20, 2015.  Additional news
concerning Valeant's unique relationships with specialty
pharmacies reached the market on October 21, 2015, causing the
price of Valeant stock to drop sharply, falling to a close of
$118.61 per share.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than December 22, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights
or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471.

                About Johnson & Weaver, LLP

Johnson & Weaver, LLP -- http://www.johnsonandweaver.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York
and Georgia.  The firm represents individual and institutional
investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action
lawsuits.


VOLKSWAGEN: Lackawanna County Man Sues Over Emissions Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reported
that a Lackawanna County man filed a federal class- action lawsuit
against Volkswagen seeking to force it to buy back all diesel-
fueled cars involved in a worldwide emissions testing scandal.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney James Munley of Scranton, joins
dozens of other class- action lawsuits filed nationwide against
the German auto maker after environmental officials discovered it
installed software that fooled emissions testing equipment, making
it appear cars passed the tests when in fact they did not.

Volkswagen Group of America "systematically cheated" and lied to
the lead plaintiff, Jason Gorel of Fell Twp., other customers and
the government about the amount of pollutants spewed by "clean
diesel" cars it sold between 2009 and 2015, the lawsuit says. It's
estimated about 482,000 of the rigged vehicles were sold in the
United States, including more than 1,000 in Pennsylvania.

The scandal broke in September, when Volkswagen officials admitted
they secretly installed a device that activated emission controls
only while the vehicle was being tested. Once the test was over,
the controls disengaged, allowing the car to emit pollutants at up
to 40 times the legal limit. Mr. Gorel purchased a 2013 turbo
diesel Jetta, one of seven Volkswagen models that were rigged with
the device.

The auto maker has apologized for the fraud and vowed to fix the
vehicles to bring them into compliance. The lawsuit contends the
retrofits will compromise the vehicles' performance and fuel
efficiency. The cars also lost a significant amount of their
resale value.

Mr. Munley, in conjunction with attorney Jeffrey Nepa of
Carbondale and attorneys Charles Hopper and Sergio Salzano of Las
Vegas, Nevada, filed the lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania
consumers in federal court in Scranton. It seeks to force
Volkswagen to return the purchase price paid plus interest, as
well as other compensatory and punitive damages for six counts,
including fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Nov. 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Volkswagen securities between November 19, 2010 and
September 21, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Volkswagen securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 24, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany, Volkswagen is one of the
world's leading automobile manufacturers and the largest carmaker
in Europe.  In 2014, Volkswagen sold over ten million cars,
representing approximately 13% of the global passenger car market.
The Company comprises 12 brands: Volkswagen passenger cars, Audi,
SEAT, SKODA, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Ducati,
Volkswagen commercial vehicles, Scania and MAN.

The Complaint alleges that prior to and during the Class Period,
defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and made numerous
materially false and misleading statements and omissions to
investors regarding the Company's operations and its business and
financial condition and outlook.  Specifically, defendants misled
investors by failing to disclose that the Company had utilized a
"defeat device" in certain of its diesel cars that allowed such
cars to temporarily reduce emissions during testing, while
achieving higher performance and fuel economy, as well as
discharging dramatically higher emissions, when testing was not
being conducted.  The use of this device allowed Volkswagen to
market its diesel vehicles to environmentally conscious consumers,
increasing its sale of diesel cars in the United States and abroad
and, as a result, its profitability.  As a result of defendants'
scheme and false and misleading statements and omissions,
Volkswagen's ordinary and preferred ADRs traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching highs of $54.82
and $56.55 per ADR, respectively, on December 30, 2013.

On September 18, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
issued a Notice of Violation ("NOV").  The NOV stated that
defendants had installed sophisticated software in Volkswagen and
Audi diesel vehicles sold in the United States that could detect
when the vehicle was undergoing official emissions testing and
turn the full emissions controls on only during the test.  At all
other times, however, the emissions controls were deactivated,
meaning that pollution was freely released into the environment at
levels exceeding those allowed by federal and state clean air
regulators.  This software produced and used by Volkswagen is a
"defeat device" as defined by the Clean Air Act.

That same day, The New York Times published a front-page article
entitled "U.S. Orders Major VW Recall Over Emissions Test
Trickery."  The article reported that the Company had "illegally
installed software in its diesel-power cars to evade standards for
reducing smog" and that Volkswagen had "admitted to the use of a
so-called defeat device.  The recall involves 4-cylinder
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles from model years 2009-2015." The
article also reported that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") had
opened an investigation and that fines of as much as $18 billion
could be imposed as a result of defendants' misconduct.

In the days following these disclosures, which began to reveal the
relevant truth that had previously been concealed from the market,
Volkswagen's share price collapsed.  Specifically, between
September 17, 2015 and September 22, 2015, the price of
Volkswagen's ordinary ADRs plummeted over 33%, from a close of
$38.03 per share on September 17, 2015 to $25.44 per share on
September 22, 2015.  Volkswagen's preferred ADRs declined from a
close of $38.05 per share on September 17, 2015 to a close of
$23.98 per share on September 22, 2015.

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Kingman" Suit Over Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
Bryan Kingman, 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-13615 (E.D.
Mich., October 14, 2015), seeks damages against the Defendants for
fraud by concealment and breach of contract.

This nationwide class action concerns the intentional installation
of so-called defeat devices on at least 482,000 diesel Volkswagen
and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Rope" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Remy Rope, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07495 (D.N.J., October 14,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for common law fraud and
breach of express warranty.

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

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation
conducting substantial business in all 50 states, including
Arkansas, with a principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Trade Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie C. Lamproe, Jr., and all others similarly-situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
2:15-cv-02221 (W.D. Ark., October 14, 2015), seeks damages for
Defendants' violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act and breach of express warranty.

Volkswagen AG is currently the world's largest automaker. It is a
German corporation headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen
AG manufactures and delivers through the stream of commerce cars
for sale in the State of Arkansas, markets its vehicles in
Arkansas, and has agents in Arkansasa to faciliate sales and
provide support to its customers in Arkansas.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation
conducting substantial business in all 50 states, including
Arkansas, with a principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip J. Milligan, Esq.
      MILLIGAN LAW OFFICES
      500 South 16th Street
      Fort Smith, AK 72901
      Tel: (479) 783-2213

          - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 621-2000


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Martin" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Martin, Richard Tredo, Steven Dimauro and Jeffrey Manous,
and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Audi AG and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07457 (D.N.J.,
October 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, statutory fraud, breach of good faith
and fair dealing and unjust enrichment.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (which also does business as
Audi of America, Inc.) is a corporation organized and in existence
under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its headquarters
located in Herndon, Virginia. VWoA also maintains corporate
offices in Woodcliff Lake and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. At all
times relevant herein, VWoA was engaged in the business of
importing, marketing, distributing, warranting, servicing,
repairing and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and
motor vehicle components in New Jersey and throughout the United
States of America.

Volkswagen AG, located at Berliner Ring 2, 38440 Wolfsburg,
Germany and Audi AG, located at Auto-Union-Str.2, D-85045,
Ingolstadt, Germany, are automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and servicing corporation organized under the laws
of Germany doing business in all 50 states in the United States.
Volkswagen AG is the parent of defendants VWoA and Audi. These
defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market, service,
repair, sell and lease vehicles, including the Class Vehicles,
nationwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
      MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 228-9898
      E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Suit Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Peterson, and all others similarly-situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
2:15-cv-00642 (M.D. Fla., October 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
breach of contract and fraud by concealment.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., (which also does business as
Audi of America, Inc.) is a corporation organized and in existence
under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its headquarters
located in Herndon, Virginia. VWoA also maintains corporate
offices in Woodcliff Lake and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. At all
times relevant herein, VWoA was engaged in the business of
importing, marketing, distributing, warranting, servicing,
repairing and selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and
motor vehicle components in New Jersey and throughout the United
States of America.

Volkswagen AG, located at Berliner Ring 2, 38440 Wolfsburg,
Germany and Audi AG, located at Auto-Union-Str.2, D-85045,
Ingolstadt, Germany, are automobile design, manufacturing,
distribution, and servicing corporation organized under the laws
of Germany doing business in all 50 states in the United States.
Volkswagen AG is the parent of defendants VWoA and Audi. These
defendants design, manufacture, distribute, market, service,
repair, sell and lease vehicles, including the Class Vehicles,
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles PT Phoenix, Esq.
      RHODES TUCKER
      2407 Periwinkle Way, Suite 6
      Sanibel, FL 33957
      Tel: (239) 472-1144
      E-mail: cptp@rhodestucker.com

          - and -

      Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
      GIRARDI KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Blvd.
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 977-0211
      E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Sued Over Magnuson-Moss Warranty Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Siewert and Greg Siewert, and all others similarly-situated
v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, RVWVT Motors
LLC, dba David Maus Volkswagen North, Michael Horn, Ulrich
Hackenberg, Heinz-Jakob Neusser, Wolfgang Hatz and John Doe, Case
No. 6:15-cv-01728 (M.D. Fla., October 14, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

Volkswagen AG is currently the world's largest automaker. It is a
German corporation headquartered in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen
AG manufactures and delivers through the stream of commerce cars
for sale in the State of Arkansas, markets its vehicles in
Arkansas, and has agents in Arkansasa to faciliate sales and
provide support to its customers in Arkansas.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation
conducting substantial business in all 50 states, including
Arkansas, with a principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia.

RVWVT Motors LLC markets, advertises, sales and leases vehicles in
Florida.

The Individual Defendants are members of Volkswagen Board of
Management.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
      626 N.E. First Street
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Tel: (352) 376-7650
      Fax: (352) 374-7133
      E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Thomas" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Thomas, 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-13616 (E.D. Mich.,
October 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for fraud by
concealment, breach of contract and breach of express warranty.

The Plaintiff alleges that the action is about a global auto
manufacturer's intentional deception of well-meaning,
conscientious consumers and regulators, and its large-scale,
misguided plan to profit by gaming the system rather than playing
by the rules.

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:

      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


WAYFAIR INC: Khang & Khang LLP Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair Inc. ("Wayfair" or the
"Company") (NYSE: W). Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between October 2, 2014 and August 31, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the Firm
immediately to discuss their legal options.

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

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

According to the complaint, a report by Citron claims that Wayfair
had deliberately refused to acknowledge Overstock as a competitor
in its SEC filings, despite the similarities between the two
companies, because to do so would make it apparent that "Wayfair's
stock is not worth more than $10 a share."

If you purchased shares of Wayfair during the Class Period you
have until November 2, 2015, to ask the Court to appoint you as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or
if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights,
please contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by email at
joon@khanglaw.com.

         Joon M. Khang, Esq.
         KHANG & KHANG LLP
         Telephone: 949-419-3834
         Facsimile: 949-225-4474
         Email: joon@khanglaw.com


WESTLAKE SERVICES: Faces Fine Over Illegal Debt Collection Tactics
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Oct. 1
announced an enforcement action against an indirect auto finance
company and its auto title lending subsidiary for pressuring
borrowers using illegal debt collection tactics.  The CFPB found
that Westlake Services, LLC and Wilshire Consumer Credit, LLC
deceived consumers by calling under false pretenses and using
phony caller ID information, falsely threatened to refer borrowers
for investigation or criminal prosecution, and illegally disclosed
information about debts to borrowers' employers, friends, and
family.  The Bureau ordered the companies to overhaul their debt
collection practices and to provide consumers $44.1 million in
cash relief and balance reductions.  The companies will also pay a
civil penalty of $4.25 million.

"There's no excuse for lying to your customers, and the action
will provide millions of dollars in relief for borrowers caught up
in Westlake and Wilshire's deception," said CFPB Director Richard
Cordray.  "Consumers struggling to pay their bills deserve to be
treated with respect, not subjected to illegal threats and
deceptive phone calls.  We will continue to clean up the debt
collection market and root out these illegal and inexcusable
practices."

Westlake Services, LLC is an indirect auto finance company based
in Los Angeles that specializes in purchasing and servicing auto
loans, including many subprime and near-subprime loans.  Subprime
loans are made to borrowers with generally lower credit scores.
Westlake purchases loans from auto dealers nationwide.  Wilshire
Consumer Credit, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Westlake,
offers auto title loans directly to consumers, largely via the
Internet, and services those loans. Wilshire also purchases and
services auto title loans made by others.

The CFPB found that Westlake and Wilshire deceived borrowers into
thinking they were being called by repossession companies, other
third parties, or even the borrowers' own family and friends.  The
CFPB's investigation found that the companies' debt collectors
used a web-based service, Skip Tracy, to place outgoing calls and
choose the phone number and caller ID text that the call recipient
would see. Since January 2010, Westlake and Wilshire debt
collectors have used Skip Tracy to place or receive calls
associated with over 137,000 loan accounts.

The Bureau also found that the companies unlawfully disclosed
information about borrowers' debts to employers, family, and
friends.  The companies also failed to disclose the annual
percentage rate on certain loans as required by law.  In some
cases, the companies changed the due dates or extended the terms
of loans without borrowers' permission, causing more interest to
accrue, while telling consumers that the extensions would have a
positive effect.  These practices violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Financial Protection Act.

Illegal Debt Collection Tactics
Westlake and Wilshire used a variety of deceptive or unfair
tactics in contacting borrowers about their loans.  Specifically,
the CFPB found that the companies:

Pretended to call from repo companies: Westlake and Wilshire
altered caller ID information for outgoing calls to make it appear
the calls were coming from other companies, including repossession
companies.  The companies' debt collectors would then pretend
during the call that they were calling from repossession companies
and make explicit or implicit threats that the borrowers' vehicles
were in imminent danger of being repossessed.  When Westlake and
Wilshire indicated to borrowers that a third-party repossession
company was calling to collect on the debt, the companies became
"debt collectors" within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Faked calls from pizza delivery services, flower shops, or family
and friends: Westlake and Wilshire also altered caller ID
information so that it looked like they were calling from
unrelated businesses.  On these calls the companies' debt
collectors would usually keep up the ruse -- for instance, if the
caller ID was altered to say "Flower Shop," the debt collector
would pose as an employee of a flower shop in order to trick the
consumer into disclosing his location or the location of his
vehicle. Westlake and Wilshire also altered caller ID information
so that it looked like borrowers were receiving calls from family
members and friends when the calls were actually placed by the
companies' debt collectors.

Falsely threatened to refer borrowers for investigation or
criminal prosecution: From at least January 2010 until at least
April 2014, Westlake and Wilshire used Skip Tracy to make it
appear as though they were calling from investigation or
enforcement divisions.  The companies explicitly and implicitly
threatened to file criminal charges against consumers even when
they had not decided to refer the borrowers to criminal
authorities.  These tactics likely misled consumers into believing
they needed to make a payment urgently to avoid an investigation.
Tricked borrowers whose vehicles had been repossessed: From at
least January 2010 until at least April 2014, Westlake and
Wilshire called consumers whose vehicles had already been
repossessed and used Skip Tracy to make it appear the calls were
coming from a party associated with the word "Storage."  During
some of these calls, the companies' debt collectors implied that
the vehicles would be released if the borrowers made a partial
payment on the account; however, the companies would actually only
release a repossessed vehicle after a borrower paid the full
amount due.  As a consequence, some borrowers paid the amount
agreed upon during the phone call, but their vehicles were not
released.

Called consumers' employers, friends, and family members without
permission: From at least January 2010 until at least April 2014,
Westlake and Wilshire called consumers' references, employers,
friends, and family members and disclosed information about their
loans without the consumers' permission.  The companies' tactics
included inserting words like "Repo" or "General Investigations"
into the caller ID, calling third parties, and mentioning the
consumers' names. During other calls, the companies also made
statements implying that consumers were delinquent on loans or
facing repossession, investigation, or criminal charges.
Paid a repo company to make collections calls to consumers:
Westlake and Wilshire paid a third-party repossession company to
make debt collection calls to borrowers, even when the companies
had not decided to repossess the consumers' vehicles or the
companies had no reason to believe repossession was imminent.
This tactic likely misled consumers into believing that they
needed to make a payment urgently to avoid repossession.
Other Illegal Practices
Westlake and Wilshire also violated federal consumer financial
laws in their advertising, customer relations, and account
servicing practices.  Specifically, the CFPB found that the
companies:

Deceived borrowers about the effects of due date changes or
extensions to loan terms: From at least January 2010 until at
least September 2011, some Westlake collectors changed the due
dates on accounts or extended loan terms without consulting
consumers, or even speaking with them.  The collectors would later
tell the borrowers that the modified schedules would have a
positive effect for them, though in fact the changes would cause
the borrowers to owe additional interest over the course of the
loans.

Hid the true cost of credit: Wilshire gave consumers incomplete
information about the true cost of the loans it offered.
Specifically, the CFPB found that Wilshire used monthly interest
rates or other interest rates in advertisements for auto title
loans in 2012 and 2013, without disclosing the loans' annual
percentage rate as required by law.  Wilshire also prominently
advertised monthly rates on one of its websites and only disclosed
the annual percentage rate in small text lower on the page.  And
in 2014, Wilshire representatives speaking with prospective
borrowers on the phone would answer questions about the cost of
loans by providing monthly rates or other rates instead of the
annual percentage rate.

Enforcement Action

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has the authority to take
action against institutions or individuals engaging in unfair,
deceptive, or abusive acts or practices or that otherwise violate
federal consumer financial laws.  Under the terms of the CFPB
order released today, Westlake and Wilshire are required to:

Provide approximately $44.1 million in redress to victims: The
companies are ordered to pay approximately $25.8 million in cash
and to provide the remainder in balance reductions.  Consumers are
not required to take any action to receive their check or balance
reduction.  The companies will contact consumers directly in the
coming months.

End deceptive debt collection practices: The companies must comply
with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth in Lending
Act, and the relevant sections of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Specifically, among other things, the order prohibits Westlake and
Wilshire from misleading consumers into believing that their debt
collectors are associated with any other company or department, or
that they are about to repossess consumers' vehicles.  They are
also prohibited from falsely threatening to refer consumers for
investigation or criminal prosecution, and from implying that they
will return a repossessed vehicle if the consumer makes a partial
payment.

Protect consumers' private information: The companies are ordered
to stop illegally disclosing borrowers' loan information to third
parties. They must also stop threatening to disclose such
information when doing so would be unlawful.

End unlawful advertisements: The companies must evaluate all of
their advertisements for compliance with the Truth in Lending Act
before publication.

Give consumers truthful information about their loans: Westlake
and Wilshire must not change the due dates on consumers' loans or
extend consumers' loans without explaining to consumers the
effects of those modifications and obtaining consumers' informed
consent to the changes.

Pay a $4.25 million civil penalty: Westlake and Wilshire will make
a $4.25 million penalty payment to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund.

* Class Actions May Deter Corporate Copycat Earnings Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to The New York Times' Gretchen Morgenson, one bad
corporate apple, it seems, can spoil a whole bunch.

That's the conclusion of a fascinating academic study that
examined accounting restatements by thousands of corporations over
a 12-year period.  After one company was found to have misstated
its earnings, the study determined, others in its industry often
followed suit and began massaging their own numbers, ultimately
resulting in their own restatements.

Equally intriguing were the exceptions.  When companies playing
accounting charades faced regulatory action, shareholder
litigation or prominent news reports about their practices, the
researchers found that their corporate peers declined to mimic
their conduct. This shows the importance of highlighting and
punishing bad behavior.

Three academics conducted the study, which will appear in the
November issue of The Accounting Review, published by the American
Accounting Association.  They are Simi Kedia of Rutgers University
Business School, Kevin Koh of Nanyang Business School in Singapore
and Shivaram Rajgopal of Columbia University Business School.

The study, "Evidence on Contagion in Earnings Management," looked
at the restatements of 2,249 companies from 1997 through 2008.  It
found that earnings manipulation at companies was strongly related
to the percentage of firms in the same industry or the same region
that had announced restatements in the previous 12 months.

The study did not identify specific companies.  But when bigger
and more visible companies did the book-cooking, it found that the
misconduct was more likely to be copied.  The extent of a
company's initial restatement also had a bearing on whether it
would be mimicked. Extreme restatements involving significant
manipulation apparently were viewed as too risky to be imitated,
the study found.

It turns out that copycats abound in corporate America.  Companies
emulated their peers with remarkable precision, the study found.
Follow-on misstatements often occurred in the same corporate
accounts that the initial case involved, like revenue
manipulation, expense account fudging and massaging of inventory,
assets or restructuring accounts.

"In a sense, restatements serve as handbooks of trickery,"
Mr. Rajgopal said.

Of course, companies in troubled industries might cook their books
because of financial or operational challenges, not in response to
peers' earnings reporting practices.  Recognizing this, the
academics eliminated cases of what they called "contemporaneous
adoption" from their study. That way, they could be confident
their results pointed clearly to companies engaging in copycat
earnings manipulation.

To some degree, Mr. Rajgopal said, the study confirms other
behavioral research showing the contagious effects of leaving bad
behavior unchecked.

"I'm a big believer in this notion of contagion because I come
from India, where littering is a huge example," he said in an
interview.  "Everyone litters because everyone else litters.
People don't know what is acceptable, and they look to authorities
for what would be reasonable social norms of what you can get away
with."

On the issue of deterrence, the study showed a significant
reduction in copycat earnings manipulations immediately after the
passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley law in 2002.  That legislation,
enacted after the accounting scandals at Enron, Tyco and Worldcom,
required top executives to take responsibility for the integrity
of their financial statements.  The law also gave the Securities
and Exchange Commission the right to recover compensation
improperly earned by executives as a result of misleading earnings
statements and increased the criminal penalties associated with
white-collar crime.

For the three years after Sarbanes-Oxley went into effect,
contagion in earnings misstatements disappeared, the academics
found. But memories are short.  The study provided evidence that
the copycat behavior resumed in 2005 and continued through 2008,
when the research concluded.

Class-action lawsuits and news reports critical of manipulative
conduct reduce the likelihood that other companies will mimic the
behavior, the study found.  By contrast, restatements disclosed in
a news release that receives little attention tend to encourage
others to follow suit.

"One of the biggest problems in this research is that we can't
observe people who get away with this" and never disclose
misconduct, Mr. Rajgopal said.  "If Firm A is subject to an S.E.C.
action or class action or if the press shows them in a bad light,
this behavior goes down.  You see less of this contagion if one of
these things happens."

The academics say their study is unusual in its documentation of
the deterrent effects of policing by the S.E.C. and class-action
lawsuits.

Mr. Rajgopal said that he and his colleagues believed that their
research could help the S.E.C.

"By definition, deterrence is far more important than
enforcement," he said in the interview. "The S.E.C. has limited
policing dollars: It can go after 60 or 90 criminals, but the more
important issue is to stop the thousands of others."

The same goes for the Justice Department, whose pursuit of
criminal wrongdoers in the mortgage crisis was so undistinguished.

On Oct. 22, the S.E.C. said it brought a record 507 independent
actions for violations of the federal securities laws in fiscal
2015, which ended in September.  Of those, 134 were in the
financial reporting and audit area, up from 96 such actions
brought in 2014.

|That is all to the good.  But what this study hammers home is
this: Accountability counts.  Whether it comes from a regulator, a
shareholder lawsuit or a journalistic enterprise, our capital
markets and our investors need more of it, not less," NYT's
Morgenson said.



                            *********

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  * * *