CAR_Public/151110.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, November 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 224


                            Headlines


AAC HOLDINGS: Faces "Kasper" Class Action in M.D. Tennessee
AMAZON.COM: Leonard LLP Files Class Suit Over Wage Theft
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: To Pay $8.3MM to California Customers
AREVALO MANUFACTURING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ARL CREDIT: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in "Reynolds"

ASTIN FARMS: "Ruiz-Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BATH AND BODY: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Labor Code Violation
BGC PARTNERS: $10.75 Million Settlement Reached in Del. Suit
BLUE EARTH: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action in C.D. Cal.
BOB EVANS: Has $16.5MM Deal to Resolve Claims in Snodgrass et al

BUMBLE BEE: Giant Eagle Joins Tuna Antitrust Class Suit
CANADA: Trial in Indian Residential Schools Suit Starts
CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Ackerman" Action in Los Angeles Court
CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Altman" Action in N.D. Ga. Court
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recorded $11.2MM Charge Related to Settlement

CHINACAST EDUCATION: 9th Circ. Revives Securities Class Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Granted Conditional Certification
CONFORMIS INC: Vincent Kwong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
DEPAUL HEALTH: "Connors" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

DENVER PARENT: 2016 Trial in Merger Class Action in Delaware
DOLLAR TREE: 2011 Case by Assistant Store Manager Continuing
DOLLAR TREE: Trial Date on Individual Claim Set for March 2016
DOLLAR TREE: No Discovery Yet in 2014 Lawsuit by Store Manager
DOLLAR TREE: Facing Class Suit by Distribution Center Employee

DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Filed Class Action in Calif.
DOLLAR TREE: 10 Named Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL
DOLLAR TREE: Pay Bias Suit v. Family Dollar in Limited Discovery
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Decision in Store Managers Case
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Facing TCPA Class Action in Missouri

DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid
DOLLAR TREE: Mediation Scheduled in 2014 Employee Suit in Calif.
DOLLAR TREE: Briefing Complete on Motion to Strike
DOLLAR TREE: Class Decertified in Case by Assist. Store Manager
DOLLAR TREE: Class Action by Family Dollar Shareholder Dismissed

DRAFTKINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Wall Street Trading
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud
EAST COAST MECHANICAL: NY S.C. Affirms Judgment in Park East Suit
EXPERIAN: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Files Securities Class Suit
EXTREME NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit

EXTREME NETWORKS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Israelis Sue Over Ignoring Palestinian Incitement
FIRST SECURITY GROUP: Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Transfer of Cases to E.D.N.Y. Sought
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Retiree Benefits Litigation Resolved

GFI GROUP: Nov. 24 Securities Class Settlement Hearing
GLOBE SPECIALTY: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
GYRODYNE COMPANY: To Pay $650,000 in Plaintiff Lawyer Fees
HAIN CELESTIAL: Jan. 6 Hearing on Class Certification in "Ham"

HAIN CELESTIAL: Working to Finalize Settlement in "Brown"
HOME DEPOT: 57 Class Actions Filed Related to Data Breach
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Settles $1B Over Quebec Smokers Class Suit
IXIA: Agreed to Settle Securities Class Action

KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Jan. 25 Fairness Hearing on $850K Deal
KIM DAVIS: Progressives Denied Class Status in Suit vs. Clerk
LIBERTY TAX: $5.3 Million Deal in ERC Action Still Pending
LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
LIQUID HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit

LSB INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes Class Suit to Federal Court
MADISON SQUARE: Court Granted Preliminary Settlement Approval
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: November 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MASTEC INC: Still Defending "Wrigley" Action in S.D. Fla.
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit

MICHAELS COS: 40 Individual Claims Pending After Decertification
MICHAELS COS: Continues to Defend Remaining FCRA Claims
MICHAELS COS: Actions Pending Related to Data Security Incident
MOLYCORP INC: Response to Plaintiff's Opposition Due Nov. 13
MOLYCORP INC: Motion for Reconsideration Fully Briefed

MORRISONS: Sued Over Bitter Employee's Act of Revenge
MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Nixes NLRB Ruling on Class Suit Waivers
NAVISTAR INT'L: Nationwide Class Sought in Warranty Litigation
NAVISTAR INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Granted in Part
NET 1: Court Dismissed Purported Securities Class Action

NOBILIS HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
NXT OILFIELD: "Rebardi" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation
OSI SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Roberti Class Action
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Settlements in Two Class Action Suits Approved
PMFG INC: Entered Into MOU in Merger Class Suit

PREMIER ENERGY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Iowa City Sues Over Flushable Bathroom Wipes
PUBLIX SUPER: "Snover" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-Defendant in New York State Action
REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-defendant in NJ and Pa. Actions

RESOURCE CAPITAL: November 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
RUBY TUESDAY: Parties Agree to Resolve "LaFrance" Case
SALEM NURSING: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
SERETUS INC: Illinois Man Sues Over HPA Violations
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Kessler LLP Files Securities Class Suit

SIGNET JEWELERS: Claimants' Motion for Clarification Granted
SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against "Tapia" Wage Suit v. Zale
ST. JUDE: Received $40MM Insurance Recoveries in March 2010 Suit
ST. JUDE: Feb. 2017 Trial Set in Dec. 2012 Securities Case
ST. JUDE: Four Suits Pending Related to Riata

ST. JUDE: Riata Case in Canada Still Pending
ST. JUDE: Paid $13 Million to Riata Settlement Fund
SUBWAY: Settles "Sandwich Sizes" False Advertising Class Suit
SUPER MICRO: Gewirtz & Grossman Files Securities Class Suit
TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Maryland

TRI-TECH HOLDING: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
TRUMP HOTEL: Hit With Data Breach Class Lawsuit
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Action Remains Pending
ULTA SALON: Defending "Moore" Class Action in Los Angeles
ULTA SALON: Parties in "Galvez" Agreed to Private Mediation

ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Comments on Purported False Ad Class Suit
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
USAA AUTO: U.S. Bank Defendant in BlackRock Case
VALEANT PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

VOLKSWAGEN: Susman Godfrey Expands Class Suit to 18 States
VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Sacks" Suit Alleges Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Weiss" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wallace" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wood" Suit Alleges RICO Violation

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Casteen" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Clarke" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty
ZAFGEN INC: December 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ZAFGEN INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit

* CFPB Takes Aim at Class Action Waivers


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Faces "Kasper" Class Action in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
AAC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2015, that on
August 24, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against AAC
Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") and certain of its current and
former officers in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, captioned Dr. Joseph F. Kasper,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AAC
Holdings, Inc., Jerrod N. Menz, Michael T. Cartwright and Kathryn
Sevier-Phillips, No. 3:15-cv-00923. The Company has not yet been
served with process in this matter. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between October 2,
2014 and August 3, 2015. The complaint generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false
and/or misleading statements and failing to disclose certain
information. The complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose allegedly material facts relating to the recent
indictment of certain of the Company's subsidiaries and current
and former employees, specifically that certain officers of the
Company knew of, but failed to disclose, a coming criminal
indictment and that the initial disclosure of the indictment did
not include the specific charges alleged. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company believes this case is
without merit and will vigorously defend this litigation. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of this action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


AMAZON.COM: Leonard LLP Files Class Suit Over Wage Theft
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
alleging that delivery drivers for the new Amazon Prime Now
service have been wrongfully paid as independent contractors even
though they are treated as employees.

"Amazon's mission to deliver 'Now' at no additional cost to its
customers is being funded by the delivery drivers," said Beth A.
Ross of Oakland-based Leonard Carder LLP, who is representing the
plaintiffs in the case. "Unlike the drones that Amazon hopes to
eventually replace them with, these drivers are human beings with
rent to pay and families to feed."

Ms. Ross is the attorney who successfully sued FedEx Ground over
similar violations and secured a $227 million settlement. She
continued, "By the time drivers pay for required expenses like
gas, maintenance and car insurance they are barely getting by.
This is a clear abuse of the independent contractor designation."

Amazon Prime Now is a service recently debuted by the company in
several metropolitan areas around the country, including Los
Angeles and San Francisco. Prime Now allows customers to place
orders for tens of thousands of items that can be delivered within
a one-to-two hour delivery window. Amazon contracts its California
Prime Now delivery services through courier company Scoobeez.

Scoobeez hires its drivers as independent contractors, but the
terms the drivers follow fit many of the hallmarks that would
classify them as employees. The Amazon Prime Now drivers in the LA
area are paid $11 per hour and are given no opportunity to
negotiate a higher wage. The drivers make deliveries in their
personal vehicles and cover all gas, insurance and maintenance
costs out of their own pockets. Minimum wage in California is $9
per hour. After paying for all required costs, Prime Now drivers
barely earn the minimum wage -- and some may earn even less.

Scoobeez employs hundreds of Prime Now delivery drivers based out
of Amazon warehouses in Southern California and expanded its
partnership with Amazon into San Francisco.

Defendants named in the case are Amazon.com, Inc., Scoobeez, Inc.,
and ABT Holdings, Inc. (which is the majority shareholder in
Scoobeez and manages its day-to-day operations).

Leonard Carder LLP has provided full service legal representation
to the labor movement since 1934 and has handled dozens of high-
profile wage and hour class actions over the last 25 years,
including landmark independent contractor misclassification cases
on behalf of thousands of FedEx Ground delivery drivers and
hundreds of exotic dancers at San Francisco's historic Mitchell
Brother's O'Farrell Theatre.

         Beth A. Ross, Esq.
         LEONARD CARDER LLP
         1330 Broadway # 1450
         Oakland, CA 94612
         Tel: (510) 272-0169
         Email: bross@leonardcarder.com


ANTHEM BLUE CROSS: To Pay $8.3MM to California Customers
--------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Masunaga, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that
Anthem Blue Cross agreed to end midyear policy changes that raise
costs for consumers and to reimburse nearly $8.3 million to about
50,000 customers in California as part of a settlement of a class-
action lawsuit announced.

The settlement resolves two lawsuits filed by policyholders in Los
Angeles County Superior Court in 2011 alleging that the state's
largest for-profit health insurer increased annual deductibles and
other yearly out-of-pocket costs on individual policies in the
middle of the year.

Anthem Blue Cross was accused of breach of contract and engaging
in unfair business practices.

Dave Jacobson, one of the plaintiffs, said he experienced this
first-hand after he enrolled in a Blue Cross PPO Share $500
individual plan. In April 2011, he received medical services and
Anthem Blue Cross acknowledged that he met his deductible and paid
70% of his bill. When he went back for follow-up tests three
months later, he was told he needed to pay $50 more toward his
deductible before the insurance company paid its percentage for
his care.

"My deductible had become a moving target," Jacobson, a Santa
Monica resident, said at a news conference in Santa Monica held by
some of the plaintiffs and their lawyers. "It's as if Anthem Blue
Cross changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game."

According to the lawsuit, the midyear change to Jacobson's yearly
out-of-pocket maximum increased to $5,850 from $5,000. His annual
prescription drug deductible increased to $275 from $250.

Anthem Blue Cross did not admit liability but agreed to settle to
avoid "further expense," according to the settlement. In an email,
company spokesman Darrel Ng said, "Anthem is pleased that all
parties were able to come to an agreement."

Anthem Blue Cross agreed to mail notices to affected customers and
to post information about the agreement on a public website.

Checks will be mailed in December to 50,000 consumers, according
to Consumer Watchdog, which jointly represented the plaintiffs.
The average amount will be $167, although one unidentified
consumer will receive $19,000 to compensate for particularly high
out-of-pocket costs.

Only consumers affected by the midyear policy changes will receive
settlement checks, but all Californians enrolled in individual
Anthem health plans will be subject to the agreement that prevents
such cost increases in the future.

"When you look at this settlement, it's such a no-brainer," said
Ricardo Echeverria, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "What this
settlement does is it holds the insurance company accountable to
the terms they promised."

Four named plaintiffs in the court case will receive an additional
$10,000, subject to court approval.


AREVALO MANUFACTURING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Saucedo and Jose Antonio Trejo, and all others similarly-
situated v. Arevalo Manufacturing, Inc. and Jesus Arevalo, Case
No. 4:15-cv-03041 (S.D. Tex., October 15, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants own and manufacture metal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: (713) 868-3388
      Fax: (713) 683-9940


ARL CREDIT: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in "Reynolds"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KENNETH REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ARL CREDIT SERVICES, INC.,
DONETTE JABLONSKI, AND RICHARD JABLONSKI, Defendants, NO. 8:15CV25
(D. Neb.), Chief District Judge LAURIE SMITH CAMP granted the
parties' joint oral motion for approval of the Amended Class
Notice to be sent to class members in this case.

The Amended Class Action Notice reflects information from the
Court's Order certifying the class and preliminarily approving the
parties' settlement.  The Amended Class Action Notice states the
deadlines for class members to take action to object, enter an
appearance, and states when class members may appear for the
hearing on final approval.  The Amended Class Notice also states
the amount of attorney fees and costs sought by Plaintiff's
counsel and clarifies that the recovery for the class is based on
a per letter basis.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 3, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/tvhBbEfrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, and Pamela A. Car, and William L.
Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

ARL Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher
R. Morris, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.  The firm also represents
defendants Donette Jablonski and Richard Jablonski.


ASTIN FARMS: "Ruiz-Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Conrado Ruiz-Gomez, Pascualito Sol Solis, Walter Pastor Perez-
Magarino, Gabriel Medina-Duque, Angel Rasgado-Sibaja, Sergio
Lopez, Ismael Lopez-Perez, and all others similarly-situated v.
Astin Farms, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02438 (M.D. Fla., October 15,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and equal amount in
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This is an action by seven migrant farm workers employed by Astin
Farms, Inc. to pick strawberries and other crops on Astin's
central Florida at various times during the 2013-14 or 2014-15
harvest seasons.

Astin Farms Inc. produces and distributes agricultural products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Karla C. Martinez, Esq.
      MIGRANT FARMWORKER JUSTICE PROJECT
      508 Lucerne Avenue
      Lake Worth, FL 33460-3819
      Tel: (561) 582-3921
      Fax: (561) 582-4884
      E-mail: karla@floridalegal.org


BATH AND BODY: Faces "Daniels" Suit Over Labor Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nani Daniels, and all others similarly-situated v. Bath and Body
Works, LLC, L Brands, Inc., fka Limited Brands, and Does 1 through
100, Case No. 3:15-cv-02343 (S.D. Calif., October 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay reporting time
pay and minimum wage in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate retail stores for personal care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Tel: (818) 991-8080
      Fax: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com


BGC PARTNERS: $10.75 Million Settlement Reached in Del. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
BGC Partners, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, that on
August 24, 2015, GFI Group Inc. ("GFI"), Michael Gooch and Colin
Heffron, directors of GFI and former executive officers of GFI;
Jersey Partners Inc. ("JPI"), a stockholder of GFI controlled by
Mr. Gooch; CME Group, Inc. ("CME"); the former members of the GFI
Special Committee; BGC Partners, Inc. ("BGC"); and certain other
former officers and affiliates of GFI entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with regard to a preliminary settlement
(the "Settlement") of the consolidated class action case pending
before the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court"). The case was captioned In re GFI Group Inc. Stockholder
Litigation (the "Delaware Case"). Neither GFI nor BGC will
contribute any funds to the Settlement, which will be paid from a
combination of insurance proceeds and payments by JPI and Messrs.
Gooch and Heffron.

The Settlement provides for a settlement fund of $10.75 million
for the class of GFI stockholders in the Delaware Case. The
Settlement also provides for payment of attorneys' fees and costs
to plaintiffs' counsel in an amount to be established by
negotiation, mediation or a fee application to the Court. The
final Settlement will also require approval of the Court, with
funds to be paid to the settlement fund after such date and not
before September 30, 2015. The Settlement, once approved, will
resolve fully and finally all of the matters pending in Delaware
relating to the actions of the former GFI officers, former GFI
Board of Directors and former GFI Special Committee in connection
with the BGC tender offer and acquisition of GFI.

In connection with the Settlement, Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, JPI,
BGC and GFI have entered into a separate agreement providing for
certain matters relating to the merger of BGC and GFI and
allocating certain responsibilities and advancing certain payments
(the "Settlement Letter"). In addition, in the MOU, CME has agreed
to terminate the restriction prohibiting Messrs. Gooch and
Heffron, JPI and certain other stockholders and affiliates of GFI
from supporting the Back-End Mergers or similar transactions until
January 30, 2016 (the "Waiver"), which was set forth in the
Support Agreement, dated as of July 30, 2014, by and among the
CME, JPI and affiliated entities, Messrs. Gooch and Heffron and
another former GFI officer.

Accordingly, the parties to the Settlement Letter have agreed that
on December 21, 2015, BGC, GFI, JPI and certain affiliates shall
enter into the merger agreements providing for merger transactions
(the "Back-End Mergers") as required in the Tender Offer Agreement
by and among BGC, GFI and BGC Partners, L.P. dated as of February
19, 2015. BGC expects the Back-End Mergers to be completed no
later than January 29, 2016. In consideration of the Waiver and
JPI's agreement to complete the Back-End Mergers in early 2016,
BGC will advance to JPI $10.75 million of the previously agreed
upon and disclosed merger consideration to which JPI is entitled
in the Back-End Mergers, which JPI will contribute to the
settlement fund. The Settlement Letter also includes the following
agreements: (i) payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
costs in the Delaware Case first from insurance proceeds, with any
excess to be paid by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron; (ii)
indemnification by Messrs. Gooch and Heffron with respect to
liabilities and expenses in the Delaware Case and other cases
related to breach of fiduciary duty or other causes of action, the
CME Merger Agreement, insurance claims and the tender offer to the
extent not covered by insurance; and (iii) indemnification by Mr.
Gooch with respect to liabilities and expenses in connection with
the remaining New York class action case that are not otherwise
covered by insurance.

The JPI advance of the merger consideration will be deducted from
the merger consideration payable to it upon completion of the
Back-End Mergers, bear interest at the rate of 5.375% per annum
and be secured by 2 million shares of GFI common stock owned by
JPI. If insurance proceeds are insufficient, amounts advanced to
Messrs. Gooch and Heffron, if any, would be deducted from any
payment to which they may be entitled under their non-competition
and distributable earnings bonus award agreements with BGC (the
"DE Agreements"), which they entered into in connection with the
tender offer, so long as they are eligible for payments under
their respective DE Agreements.


BLUE EARTH: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action in C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Blue Earth, Inc. is seeking dismissal of a class action against
the Company and certain of its officers, the Company said in its
Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 14, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.  Oral arguments regarding the motion
to dismiss were scheduled for October 2015.

On October 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, two executive officers, and one non-executive
officer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No:2:14-cv-08263).On January 21, 2015, the court
appointed a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel.  The
Court also re-captioned the case In re Blue Earth, Inc. Securities
Litigation, File No. CV 14-8263 DSF (JEMx). On March 13, 2015,
plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC").  The FAC
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and a purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock during
the period from October 7, 2013 through October 21, 2014.

Defendants' responded and filed a motion to dismiss FAC.
Plaintiff's opposition to the motion has been submitted. Oral
arguments regarding the motion to dismiss were scheduled for
October 2015.

The Company believes the claims contained in the complaint are
without merit and is vigorously defending this matter.


BOB EVANS: Has $16.5MM Deal to Resolve Claims in Snodgrass et al
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 24, 2015, that the Company and counsel
for the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to resolve
all claims presented in the Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback class
action cases for the total sum of $16.5 million on a claims made
basis.

In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an
action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, styled David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans
Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cvg-00768 ("Snodgrass"). The lead
plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt
employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the
period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The
plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of alleged back wages,
liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys' fees. The
lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a collective action
on behalf of other similarly situated assistant managers employed
at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and present. In
December 2013, the Court in Snodgrass granted conditional
certification of those assistant managers that elected to opt-in
to the collective action.

In May, 2014, the same plaintiffs' counsel in the Snodgrass matter
filed essentially duplicative claims under the overtime laws of
the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, styled
Utterback v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. CV14826909 in the Court
of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("Utterback") and Mackin
v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-450 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ("Mackin"),
respectively. Neither the Utterback nor Mackin proceedings have
been certified for class status at this time.

In June 2015 counsel for all parties attended the second mediation
in the Snodgrass matter in an attempt to resolve each of the
Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin litigation matters. On July 31,
2015, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to resolve all claims presented in the
Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback cases for the total sum of $16.5
million on a claims made basis.  The agreement in principle is
subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and
court approval.

"While we continue to believe that our assistant managers were
properly classified as exempt from the respective Federal and
State overtime requirements and that we have meritorious defenses
to the claims in each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin
matters, as previously reported in our Annual Report in Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2015 we received an unfavorable ruling related to the
Snodgrass litigation and determined a settlement of all three
matters was in the best interests of the company," the Company
said.


BUMBLE BEE: Giant Eagle Joins Tuna Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reported that
Giant Eagle is the latest of dozens of food companies and
consumers nationwide to join a class-action suit accusing the big
three tuna producers of collusion in fixing prices.

The Pittsburgh-based supermarket chain filed suit in San Francisco
against Bumble Bee, StarKist and Tri-Union Seafoods, which
produces Chicken of the Sea.

The suit is among some 45 federal complaints in San Diego and San
Francisco alleging that the three companies, which control most of
the tuna market, conspired to keep prices artificially high.

In its suit, Giant Eagle said the conspiracy began in 2000 when
growth in packaged seafood began to decline and the producers
"conspired to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices" and as a
result overcharged the supermarket chain.

The U.S. Justice Department is reportedly investigating the
allegations, according to statements from Bumble Bee and Thai
Union Frozen Products, which owns Tri-Union. Both companies said
earlier that they had received Justice Department subpoenas.

The Justice Department has refused to comment.

Lawyers for the various plaintiffs said the next step is for a
federal litigation review panel to decide how the cases will be
combined and where they will be heard, with San Diego the likely
choice. The plaintiffs are comprised of both consumers and
wholesale buyers.

Several attorneys said the litigation could last as long as five
years.


CANADA: Trial in Indian Residential Schools Suit Starts
-------------------------------------------------------
News.sys-con.com reported that the four-month trial began in
Anderson v. Canada, the class action that concerns historical
abuse at five Indian Residential Schools in Newfoundland and
Labrador.

The opening statements are now complete and all key documents have
been admitted into evidence. These documents demonstrate that in
the 1950s and 1960s Canada and its lawyers drafted two internal
legal opinions in which Canada recognized it held a legal
responsibility for Aboriginals in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Despite this, Canada failed to comply with its responsibilities.
To this day, Canada continues to refuse to take responsibility for
the Indian Residential Schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

In 2007, a national Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement
was reached between Canada and the survivors of the Indian
Residential School system in every province and territory except
Newfoundland and Labrador. This was the largest class action
settlement in Canadian history. The settlement recognized the
damage inflicted by the Indian Residential School system on the
lives and culture of Canadian Aboriginals and established a $5
billion compensation package for the approximately 150,000 people
who were forced to attend these schools.

In 2008, on the floor of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister
publicly apologized on behalf of Canada for the forcible removal
of Aboriginal children from their homes and communities to attend
Indian Residential School schools throughout Canada.

Canada specifically excluded the Aboriginals of Newfoundland and
Labrador, from both the settlement and the apology.

The former residents of the Indian Residential Schools in
Newfoundland and Labrador will continue testifying about their
experiences. They will be made to re-live all of the sexual,
physical, emotional, cultural and spiritual abuse they suffered in
open court. Weeks of this evidence have already been heard and
weeks more are to come.


CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Ackerman" Action in Los Angeles Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in June 2015, the
Company was named as a defendant in a putative representative
Private Attorney General action filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, Ackerman v. Chico's FAS, Inc.
The Complaint attempts to allege numerous violations of California
law related to wages, meal periods, rest periods, wage statements,
and failure to reimburse business expenses, among other things.
The Company denies the material allegations of the Complaint and
filed its Answer on July 27, 2015. The Company believes that the
case is without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a
result, the Company does not believe that the case should have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations.


CHICO'S FAS: Faces "Altman" Action in N.D. Ga. Court
----------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company was named
as a defendant in a putative class action filed in July 2015 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc.  The Complaint
alleges that the Company, in violation of federal law, published
more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number or
an expiration date on customers' receipts.  The Company denies the
material allegations of the complaint and will file its response
by the required deadline.  The Company believes that the case is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend. As a result, the
Company does not believe that the case should have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition
or results of operations.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recorded $11.2MM Charge Related to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
25, 2015, that during the second quarter, the Company recorded
charges of $11.2 million for unusual items, which primarily
consisted of certain non-recurring items, including costs related
to a class action wage and hour legal settlement, the proxy
contest, impairment charges, a sales tax audit settlement and
restructuring costs.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: 9th Circ. Revives Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reported that a corporate chief
executive's $120 million embezzlement may be imputed to his
company for purposes of a securities fraud class action, the Ninth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown called the case an example of "textbook
securities fraud," in which the CEO and founder of ChinaCast
Education, Ron Chan, both embezzled from the corporation and
misled its investors.

The plaintiffs alleged that executives of ChinaCast, an
educational firm based in China, issued statements that were false
and or misleading, and/or did not reveal material adverse facts
related to the firm's business, prospects and operations.
They specifically claimed that ChinaCast allowed the wrongful
transfer of no less than $120 million from two bank accounts owned
by two of ChinaCast's subsidiaries, and that the company allowed
for wrongful transfer of its assets, including two private
colleges, to third parties without authorization.

They also alleged that loans were made to third parties for non-
company purposes with the company's assets used as collateral,
that ChinaCast's internal controls were not adequate and that the
company allowed for wrongful transfer of its assets.

U.S. trading in ChinaCast stock was halted in April 2012 with the
share price at $4.24. It was subsequently disclosed that Chan had
been removed as chairman/CEO the previous month, and that the
company's chief financial officer had resigned.

U.S. District Judge John Walter of the Central District of
California dismissed the shareholders' complaint, finding they
failed to plead intent to defraud. The ruling was based on the
"adverse interest exception," which holds that such intent will
not be imputed "from the fraud of a rogue agent."

The appellate panel reversed. The exception, McKeown wrote,
"doesn't apply in every instance where there is a faithless
fraudster within the corporate ranks."

McKeown explained that Chan's actions can be properly imputed to
ChinaCast because "Chan acted with apparent authority on behalf of
the corporation, which placed him in a position of trust and
confidence and controlled the level of oversight of his handling
of the business."

Thus, she concluded, Chan's fraud was attributable to the
corporation, even though Chan "unquestionably lined his own
pockets at the expense of ChinaCast's interests."

ChinaCast received a 2011 audit detailing "material internal
control weaknesses," but "turned a blind eye and failed to take
significant action or heighten oversight," McKeown said.

"Had they done so, they may have prevented much of the decimation
of ChinaCast's bottom line and share value," she said.
McKeown also pointed out that Chan was "hardly a random corporate
bureaucrat or mid-level manager," but ChinaCast's founder and CEO-
"the one person on whom the board undoubtedly should have kept
close tabs."

And since the investors' complaint alleges "that third-party
shareholders understandably relied on Chan's representations,
which were made with the imprimatur of the corporation that
selected him to speak on its behalf and sign Securities and
Exchange Commission filings," McKeown said, Chan's intent to
defraud can be imputed to ChinaCast.

She noted that the district judge dismissed the case at the
pleading stage, cautioning:

"As the litigation proceeds, whether the plaintiff is an innocent
third party and whether the presumption of reliance is rebutted
remain open questions," McKeown said.

Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Milan D. Smith Jr. concurred in the
opinion.

Neither side responded to request for comment.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Court Granted Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Government Services Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Amendment No. 1 to Form 10 Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, that in the Strauch et
al. Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action, the court has entered
an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of the class of system administrators.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages and
associated relief available under the FLSA and various statutes,
including the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, California Labor Code, California Wage Order No.
4-2001, and the California Private Attorneys General Act. The
relief sought by Plaintiffs includes unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, damages in
the amount of twice the unpaid overtime wages due, and civil
penalties.

CSC's position is that its system administrators have the job
duties, responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in
February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 4,000 system administrators, of whom 1,865 are employed by
the Company and the remainder of whom are employed by CSC. Courts
typically undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a
suit may proceed as a class action under the FLSA.

In its order, the Court noted that, as a first step, the Court
examines pleadings and affidavits, and if it finds that proposed
class members are similarly situated, the class is conditionally
certified. Potential class members are then notified and given an
opportunity to opt in to the action. The second step of the class
certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At
that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record
to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that
the proposed class members are similarly situated.

If it is determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial;
if it is determined they are not, the class is decertified and
only the individual claims of the purported class representatives
proceed. The Business's position in this litigation continues to
be that the employees identified as belonging to the conditional
class were paid in accordance with the FLSA.


CONFORMIS INC: Vincent Kwong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of investors who purchased ConforMIS Inc.)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial
Public Offering, or between July 1, 2015 and August 28, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/CFMS-
Info-Request-Form-923. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company's manufacturing processes were flawed; (ii)
that as a result of the flaws in the Company's manufacturing
process, a number of the Company's knee replacement product
systems were defective; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
ConforMIS's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On August 31, 2015 the Company announced that it had initiated a
voluntary recall of specific serial numbers of patient-specific
instrumentation for certain of its knee replacement product
systems, in response to complaints of moisture on the patient-
specific instrumentation. On this news, the Company's stock
dropped $3.78, or 19.11%, to close at $16.00 on August 31, 2015.

If you suffered a loss in ConforMIS you have until November 2,
2015 to 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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/CFMS-Info-
Request-Form-923.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WONG
         39 East Broadway Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby given that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case no. 1:15-cv-00891, on behalf of
stockholders of Cytec Industries Inc. ("Cytec" or the "Company")
(NYSE:CYT) who held (and continue to hold) Cytec securities
acquired on or before July 28, 2015, when the Company agreed to be
acquired by Solvay SA ("Solvay") through Tulip Acquisition Inc.
("Merger Sub").

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/Cytec.

The complaint charges Cytec, its board of directors, Solvay and
Merger Sub with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

On July 28, 2015, Cytec, Solvay, and Merger Sub entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement").
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company's common stock will
be cancelled and converted into the right to receive $75.25 in
cash without interest (the "Merger Consideration"). The proposed
transaction's total value is $5.5 billion and is expected to close
in the fourth calendar quarter of 2015.

The complaint alleges that the Form PREM14A Proxy Statement, which
recommended that Cytec stockholders vote in favor of the Merger
Agreement, omitted and/or misrepresented material information in
contravention of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
omitted information is material to the impending decision of Cytec
stockholders on whether to vote in favor or against the Merger
Agreement and/or whether to seek appraisal for their shares. The
complaint also alleges that the $75.25 per share offer price is
inadequate, the intrinsic value of Cytec's common stock is
materially in excess of the amount offered for those securities in
the proposed transaction given the Company's prospects for future
growth and earnings and the value Solvay attributes to its future
success based on the merger.

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days. 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. If
you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
         Phone: (212) 983-9330
         Email: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


DEPAUL HEALTH: "Connors" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Connors, and all others similarly-situated v. DePaul
Health Care Limited Partnership, dba Angela Jane Pavilion, and
DePaul Health Care Limited Partnership, dba Harmony Place, Case
No. 2:15-cv-05658 (E.D. Pa., October 16, 2015), seeks monetary
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable and
ancillary relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Defendants operate several health care facilities throughout
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
      Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (267) 273-1054
      E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


DENVER PARENT: 2016 Trial in Merger Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Denver Parent Corporation and Venoco, Inc. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that trial in a merger class action in Delaware is expected to
occur in 2016.

In August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of
Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not
beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, five lawsuits were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against Venoco and each
of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its
directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
in connection with the Marquez Proposal.

On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with
Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which
Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going
private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger
Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware and three
suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants
Venoco and each of its directors.

In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that the
court determine among other things that (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered
into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be
rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded
damages to compensate them for the loss resulting from the breach
of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have
been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware
case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in the amended
complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial is expected
to occur in 2016.


DOLLAR TREE: 2011 Case by Assistant Store Manager Continuing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2011, an assistant
store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action
against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the
clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made
on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and
state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an
opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales
associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. The
court denied the Company's motion to decertify the collective
action as well as a proposed settlement. The case is now
continuing.


DOLLAR TREE: Trial Date on Individual Claim Set for March 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2013, a former
assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to
be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending
in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company
failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks;
failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to
maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to
pay wages due upon termination of employment. A trial date on the
individual claim has been set for March 2016.


DOLLAR TREE: No Discovery Yet in 2014 Lawsuit by Store Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in May 2014, a former
assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a
California state court for alleged failure to provide meal
periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and
upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as
well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business
expenses in violation of California labor laws. Discovery has not
commenced and no trial date has been set.


DOLLAR TREE: Facing Class Suit by Distribution Center Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in April 2015, a
distribution center employee filed a class action in California
state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest
breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination
pay. Additionally, the employee seeks to certify a nation-wide
class of non-exempt distribution employees for overtime
compensation. The Company recently removed this lawsuit to Federal
Court.


DOLLAR TREE: Former Store Manager Filed Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in April 2015, a
former store manager filed a class action in California state
court alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime
compensation and meal and rest periods and alleging PAGA claims.


DOLLAR TREE: 10 Named Plaintiffs Remain in North Carolina MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2008, a Multi-
District Litigation forum ("MDL") was created in North Carolina
federal court to handle cases alleging FLSA violations against
Family Dollar. In the first two cases, the court entered orders
finding the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore,
neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA
was appropriate. Since that time, the court has granted 60 summary
judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as exempt
from overtime. Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs
in the remaining cases in the MDL, for which the North Carolina
Federal Court has not decided the class certification or summary
judgment issue.


DOLLAR TREE: Pay Bias Suit v. Family Dollar in Limited Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2008, a complaint
was filed alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to
Family Dollar's female store managers. This case was pled as a
putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female store managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to North Carolina Federal Court in
November 2008. The parties are proceeding with limited discovery.
The Company believes the case is fully insured.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Decision in Store Managers Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2013, plaintiffs
filed a claim in Massachusetts state court seeking unpaid overtime
for a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers
whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
overtime under Massachusetts law.  Family Dollar then removed the
case to Federal District court in Massachusetts. In 2014, the case
was remanded to state court. The Company has appealed the remand
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and is
awaiting that court's decision.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Facing TCPA Class Action in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, Family Dollar
was served with a putative class action in Missouri Federal Court
alleging that customers received Short Message Service ("SMS")
text message advertisements from the Company, without providing
appropriate express written consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), seeking all damages available
under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 - $1,500 per
willful violation.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Awaits Ruling on Arbitration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, a putative
class action was filed in a California Federal Court by a former
employee alleging that Family Dollar had a policy of requiring
employee bag checks while the employees were not clocked in for
work. As a result of those actions, the employee alleges the
Company violated California law by failing to provide meal periods
and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime wages for
work performed off the clock, failing to provide accurate wage
statements, failing timely to pay all final wages and by engaging
in unfair competition. He has also alleges PAGA claims. While
employed by the Company, the plaintiff agreed to arbitrate matters
related to his employment. Accordingly, the Company filed a motion
to compel arbitration and is awaiting the court's ruling on that
motion.


DOLLAR TREE: Mediation Scheduled in 2014 Employee Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, a former
employee brought a putative class action and asserted claims under
PAGA alleging Family Dollar failed to provide suitable seating to
its California store employees. Mediation had been scheduled for
September 23, 2015. In the meantime, the case has been stayed
pending a ruling by the California Supreme Court on a case in
which the court is expected to provide guidance as to what the
Company's obligations are with regard to suitable seating.


DOLLAR TREE: Briefing Complete on Motion to Strike
--------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2015, a lawsuit was
brought as a collective action in Florida Federal Court on behalf
of the plaintiff and other similarly situated Family Dollar store
managers alleging the store managers are misclassified as being
exempt from overtime under the FLSA. The Company then filed a
Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to Stay the Case, a
Motion to Compel Arbitration, and a Motion to Strike the
Collective Action Allegations. Briefing is completed on these
motions and they are currently pending before the court.


DOLLAR TREE: Class Decertified in Case by Assist. Store Manager
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2012, a former
assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to
be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a
California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide
rest breaks to assistant store managers. The class was decertified
in July 2015 and the case has now been resolved.


DOLLAR TREE: Class Action by Family Dollar Shareholder Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in 2014, several
shareholders of Family Dollar filed class actions, now
consolidated into one class action, in Delaware chancery court
against Family Dollar's CEO and board members alleging breach of
fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and Family Dollar were also named as
defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants.
The Delaware Chancery Court and appellate court refused to issue
an injunction against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor
of the merger. The case was dismissed in August 2015 and was
settled for an immaterial amount.


DRAFTKINGS: Faces Class Suit Over Wall Street Trading
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reported that DraftKings
and FanDuel -- the ultra-popular heavyweights in the unregulated
world of daily fantasy sports -- have been hit with yet another
class action complaint accusing the companies of what would be
insider trading if it occurred on Wall Street.

Ryan Leonard, a Watertown man, brought the suit in Boston's U.S.
District Court and alleges that employees at both companies "were
using inside information that was not disclosed or provided to the
public."

The suit stems from an incident when a DraftKings employee won
$350,000 on FanDuel. Multiple lawsuits have accused the employee
of using inside information to build his team.

Both companies have repeatedly denied the allegations. DraftKings
announced that an internal investigation cleared the employee of
any wrongdoing.

All told, more than 20 similar lawsuits have been filed against
the companies in federal court since the scandal erupted. The
sites are also dealing with state-level lawsuits, and 13 states --
including Massachusetts -- are considering legislative actions
that could redefine how the games are played.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cooper" Suit Alleges Negligence and Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael David Cooper, and all others similarly-situated v.
DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23870 (S.D.
Fla., October 16, 2015), seeks damages, restitution and injunctive
relief for Defendants' alleged negligence, fraud,
misrepresentation, and misrepresentation by omission.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Todd Mathews, Esq.
      GORI JULIAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      156 N. Main St.
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Tel: (618) 659-9833
      Fax: (618) 659-9834
      E-mail: todd@gorijulianlaw.com


EAST COAST MECHANICAL: NY S.C. Affirms Judgment in Park East Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cheryl E. Chambers, J.P., L. Priscilla Hall, Colleen D.
Duffy, Betsy Barros, JJ of the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of New York, Second Department, affirmed the judgment --
with costs -- in the case, PARK EAST CONSTRUCTION CORP., AS
ASSIGNEE OF DAVIDSON GROUP COMPANIES, INC., DOING BUSINESS AS
GILMOUR SUPPLY CO., ETC., Respondent, v. EAST COAST MECHANICAL
SERVICES, INC., ET AL., Appellants, 2013-10849, INDEX NO. 25086/10
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Appellate Div.).

This is a class action seeking to recover damages for breach of
contract and for diversion of trust assets pursuant to article 3-A
of the Lien Law.  The defendants appeal from so much of a judgment
of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), entered
September 10, 2013, as, upon a decision of the trial court dated
July 30, 2013, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the
plaintiff:

     (a) on behalf of Davidson Group Companies, Inc., doing
business as Gilmour Supply Co., and against them in the total sum
of $101,400.84,

     (b) on behalf of Associated Testing and Balancing, Inc., and
against them in the total sum of $3,888.10,

     (c) on behalf of Johnson Controls, Inc., and against them in
the total sum of $14,267.08,

     (d) on behalf of Island Insulation, and against the
defendants William Sallee and Carlyle J. Sallee in the total sum
of $58,281.26, and

     (e) against the defendants, in effect, dismissing their
counterclaim, and

     (f) awarding the plaintiff an attorney's fee in the sum of
$50,000.

A copy of the New York Supreme Court's Decision and Order dated
Nov. 4 is available at http://is.gd/uUHsKBfrom Leagle.com.

Ralph A. Hummel, Woodbury, N.Y., for appellants.

Steven G. Rubin & Associates, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for
respondent.


EXPERIAN: Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 26, 2015, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. filed a class action
lawsuit against Experian alleging the credit reporting agency,
which processes credit inquiries for potential creditors,
including T-Mobile, missed numerous opportunities to prevent,
detect, end, or limit the scope of the data breach, thus, allowing
thieves to steal and globally publish customers' PII entrusted
with Experian -- to the life-long detriment of Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers.

Hackers accessed an Experian computer server that housed personal
information of over 15 million T-Mobile applicants who required a
credit check for service or device financing during a two-year
period from September 1, 2013 through September 16, 2015. Experian
said "this was an isolated incident of one server and one clients'
data." But, hackers took T-Mobile customers' names, addresses,
Social Security numbers, birthdays and ID numbers, such as
driver's license, military ID or passport numbers. These types of
critically important information are used to commit fraud or
identity theft.

The Complaint was filed on behalf of Washington-based Martha
Schroeder who has been a T-Mobile cellular telephone and data
services customer since September 12, 2015. In order to receive
cellular and data services from T-Mobile, Schroeder provided her
full name, home address, home telephone number, credit and bank
debit card numbers, Social Security number, and birthdate.

"Consumers have a right to expect that the companies they do
business with will keep their information safe from criminals who
can use this data to commit identity theft and fraud," said Cari
Laufenberg, a member of Keller Rohrback's nationally recognized
complex litigation group.

"Adding insult to injury, the free identity protection services
Experian is offering victims of the Data Breach does not protect
consumers from identity theft or identity fraud with regard to the
unauthorized use of their stolen PII," the Complaint reads,
"Instead, the service monitors consumers' credit reports -- only
providing alerts as to the unauthorized use of PII after the
fact."

If you are concerned that your personal information was breached
and would like to know more about your rights, please contact
attorney Cari Laufenberg at (800) 776-6044 or via email at
tmobile@kellerrohrback.com.

The case is Schroeder v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in
the Central District of California. A copy of the complaint is
available at krcomplexlit.com.

Keller Rohrback is a leader in representing consumer and employee
victims of data breaches. Keller Rohrback has a long track-record
of success with data breach litigation, including the Ninth
Circuit case Krottner v. Starbucks where the court held that the
theft of a laptop containing employees' personally identifiable
information sufficed to confer Article III standing on plaintiffs.

The firm also serves as Co-Lead Counsel in the Sony Pictures
Entertainment Inc. Data Breach case, where thousands of current
and former employees' claims are proceeding after prevailing
against Sony's motion to dismiss. In addition, Keller Rohrback
represents plaintiffs in the Target consumer litigation pending in
the District of Minnesota, as well as the Anthem Inc. Data Breach
litigation.

Keller Rohrback, with offices in New York, Seattle, Phoenix and
Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class actions
throughout the country. Our Complex Litigation Group is proud to
offer its expertise to clients nationwide, and our trial lawyers
have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in
excess of seven billion dollars.

         Cari Laufenberg, Esq.
         KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
         1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200
         Seattle, WA 98101-3052
         Tel: 206.224.7550
         Fax: 206.623.3384
         Email: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Extreme Networks Inc. ("Extreme Networks" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:EXTR) and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Extreme Networks securities
between November 4, 2013 and April 9, 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 Extreme Networks securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 22, 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.

Extreme Networks develops and sells network infrastructure
equipment and offers related services contracts for extended
warranty and maintenance.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, 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.

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.

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

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW
         Fax: 212.661.8665
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP announced that a
class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Extreme
Networks, Inc. common stock during the period between November 4,
2013 and April 9, 2015 (the "Class Period").

If you are an Extreme Networks shareholder and fit in one of the
following categories, we encourage you to contact Johnson &
Weaver:

   (1) Shareholders buying Extreme Networks shares during the
Class Period with substantial losses.

   (2) Shareholders continuously holding shares before November 4,
2013. As a long term shareholder, you may have standing to hold
Extreme Networks harmless from the damage the officers and
directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may
also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

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

The complaint asserts that during the Class Period, Extreme
Networks issued false and/or misleading statements and/or omitted
adverse information concerning its 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.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than December 23, 2015.

If you purchased Extreme Networks shares during the Class Period,
or if you are a long term shareholder and wish to discuss this
action, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or by phone at 619-814-4471.

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
         600 W Broadway #1540
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Phone:+1 619-230-0063
         Email: jimb@johnsonandweaver.com


FACEBOOK INC: Israelis Sue Over Ignoring Palestinian Incitement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Times of Israel reported that a class-action lawsuit against
Facebook is accusing the social media platform of ignoring
widespread Palestinian posts calling for violence against Jews.

In the suit filed in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, the
20,000 Israeli plaintiffs claim the Facebook posts have inspired
many recent terror attacks and that "Facebook's algorithms and
platform connects inciters to terrorists who are further
encouraged to perpetrate stabbings and other violence attacks
against Israelis."

According to a news release issued by the plaintiffs, many recent
assailants "were motivated to commit their heinous crimes by
incitement to murder they read on Facebook -- demagogues and
leaders exhorting their followers to "slaughter the Jews," and
offering instruction as to the best manner to do so, including
even anatomical charts showing the best places to stab a human
being."

The suit alleges that Facebook has a "legal and moral obligation"
to block much of this content but that it chooses not to.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against Facebook
requiring the social network to "immediately remove all pages,
groups and posts containing incitement to murder Jews; to actively
monitor its website for such incitement that all incitement is
immediately removed prior to being disseminated to masses of
terrorists and would-be terrorists; and to cease serving as
matchmaker between terrorists, terrorist organizations, and those
who incite others to commit terrorism."

The complaint does not seek monetary damages against Facebook.

The lead plaintiff, Richard Lakin, 76, died of his wounds after he
was shot and stabbed by Palestinian terrorists while riding on a
crowded Jerusalem bus on October 13. Two other Israelis were
killed and more than 20 were wounded in the attack.

Three attorneys -- Robert Tolchin of New York; Nitsana Darshan-
Leitner, the director of the Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, and
Asher Perlin of Fort Lauderdale, Florida -- filed the suit.

In a news release issued by her organization, Darshan-Leitner
said, "Facebook wields tremendous power and this publicly traded
company needs to utilize it in a way that ensures that Palestinian
extremists who are calling to stab Israelis and glorifying the
terrorist that do, are not permitted to do it on its platform."

An article published by The Associated Press said that social
media, particularly Twitter and Facebook, is the "number one
source of news among young Palestinians." Some 3.7 million
Palestinians follow the Quds News Network, believed to be
affiliated with Islamic Jihad, on the social media platform and
4.2 million follow the Shehab News Network, which is believed to
be affiliated with Hamas, AP reported.

The Times of Israel reported that Facebook pages such as Quds News
Network (3.6 million followers on Facebook, 264,000 on twitter);
Shehab News Agency (4.1 million followers on Facebook, 99,000 on
twitter), and Urgent from Gaza (282,000 followers on Facebook)
flood Palestinian computer screens with gruesome images of dead
Palestinians and caricatures encouraging more attacks, often
accompanied by a hashtag ordering "stab!" or warning "al-Aqsa is
in danger!"

Approximately one third of Palestinian society in Jerusalem and
the West Bank is active on social media, said Orit Perlov, a
research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies
(INSS) who specializes in Palestinian social media.

"There are no borders in social media," she said. "The same
message resonates in Gaza, Jerusalem and Umm al-Fahm."

In recent months, she added, Israel and the PA have been
monitoring and arresting prominent Palestinian social media
activists in Jerusalem and the West Bank, leaving the arena "like
an octopus with tentacles but no head."


FIRST SECURITY GROUP: Entered Into MOU in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
First Security Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2015, that on
August 25, 2015, First Security Group, Inc. ("First Security" or
the "Company") entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") regarding the settlement of certain litigation related to
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of March 25, 2015 (as
amended on June 8, 2015, the "Merger Agreement"), by and between
First Security and Atlantic Capital Bancshares, Inc. ("Atlantic
Capital"). Under the Merger Agreement, First Security will merge
with and into Atlantic Capital, with Atlantic Capital as the
surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Immediately following the
Merger, Atlantic Capital Bank will merge with and into FSGBank,
National Association ("FSGBank"), with FSGBank as the surviving
bank.

As contemplated by the MOU, First Security and Atlantic Capital
are providing certain additional disclosures with regards to the
Merger.

The First Security board of directors, by a unanimous vote of all
directors, found the Merger to be advisable and in the best
interests of First Security and its shareholders and approved the
Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. THE
FIRST SECURITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS THAT
FIRST SECURITY SHAREHOLDERS VOTE "FOR" THE MERGER PROPOSAL, "FOR"
THE MERGER-RELATED COMPENSATION PROPOSAL, AND "FOR" THE
ADJOURNMENT PROPOSAL.

Litigation Related to the Merger

As disclosed on page 163 of the preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus contained in Pre-Effective Amendment #1 to
the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus") under the heading "Legal Proceedings," two
putative shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in
connection with the Merger. Knutson v. First Security Group, Inc.
et al., filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton
County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board
of directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants. Meade v. Kramer,
et al., filed April 24, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton
County, Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board
of directors, FSGBank, Atlantic Capital and Atlantic Capital Bank
as defendants. Each of these complaints alleges, among other
things, that the First Security directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement and that the other named defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Among other
relief, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief preventing the
parties from consummating the Merger, rescission of the
transactions completed by the Merger Agreement, an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses for plaintiffs and other forms of
relief. On June 1, 2015, the Chancery Court entered an order
consolidating these two suits under the caption In re First
Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 15-0212. On
June 25, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated
class action complaint in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County,
Tennessee. The amended complaint repeats many of the same
allegations of the original complaints but also makes additional
allegations with respect to disclosures contained in the
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on June 10, 2015.

On August 25, 2015, First Security, Atlantic Capital and the other
named defendants executed the MOU with counsel for the plaintiffs
in the above-described lawsuits. The MOU agreed on the terms of a
settlement of the above-described lawsuits, including the
dismissal with prejudice of the suit captioned In re First
Security Group, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and a release of all
claims that were made or could have been made therein against all
of the defendants. The proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, consummation of the Merger, the execution of
an appropriate stipulation of settlement, and final approval of
the proposed settlement by the Chancery Court for Hamilton County,
Tennessee. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as
provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs'
counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the Merger will
be consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation. If the
settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU would become void. The settlement will not
affect the amount of the merger consideration that First Security
shareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.

The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the lawsuits or
otherwise in relation to the Merger. The defendants have agreed to
the terms of the proposed settlement described above solely to
avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, uncertainty,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation, including
the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the Merger.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Transfer of Cases to E.D.N.Y. Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
ForceField Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation was scheduled to take up a request by the
lead plaintiff in a class action to transfer several class actions
and the related derivative actions to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York and to have all actions
coordinated or consolidated before a single judge.

The Panel was slated to hear argument on the motion in October
2015.

On April 17, 2015, a class action lawsuit against the Company and
its officers, Messrs. Richard St-Julien (who resigned as Chairman
and from all other positions he held with the Company), David
Natan and Jason Williams (Mr. Natan and Mr. Williams are
collectively referred to as the "Individual Defendants"), and
certain other third parties, was filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.

Since the filing of this class action, additional complaints have
been filed seeking class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company' s securities between September 16, 2013 and
April 15, 2015 (together, the "Class Actions"). The Class Actions
allege the Company and the other persons named therein violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Class
Actions seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On May 13, 2015, a derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company' s officers, directors and former
director Messrs. St-Julien, Natan, Williams, Kebir Ratnani, Adrian
Auman, and David Vanderhorst (Messrs. Ratnani, Auman and
Vanderhorst are collectively referred to as the " Director
Defendants" ). This lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against
these individuals for breaches of their fiduciary duties and
unjust enrichment.

On May 29, 2015, another derivative lawsuit (together with the
prior derivative lawsuit, the "Derivative Actions") on behalf of
the Company was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company' s officers,
directors and former director Messrs. St-Julien, Natan, Williams,
Ratnani, Auman, and Vanderhorst. This lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages against these individuals for breaches of their fiduciary
duties, abuse of control, violations of Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and unjust
enrichment. On or about July 13, 2015, this suit was voluntarily
withdrawn and re-filed in the Eastern District of New York.

On June 26, 2015, a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 was
made to the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (the
"Panel") by a lead plaintiff movant in the Class Actions to
transfer the Class Actions and the Derivative Actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
and to have all actions coordinated or consolidated before a
single judge. The Panel will hear argument on the motion in
October 2015.

On July 22, 2015, pursuant to various motions seeking
consolidation and appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel,
the Class Actions were consolidated before the Honorable Naomi
Reice Buchwald in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, who appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class.

Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Actions and Derivative
Actions cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes
that the allegations stated in the Class Actions and Derivative
Actions are without merit against the Company, Individual
Defendants and Director Defendants, and the Company, Individual
Defendants and Director Defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against all allegations set forth in the Class Actions
and Derivative Actions.

                           *     *     *

In a July 22 Order, District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald appointed
Beverly Brewer as lead plaintiff, and approved her selection of
interim counsel under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g)(3).  The court also
consolidated the three class actions under In Re Forcefield Energy
Inc. Securities Litigation.  Those actions are: LORI ATKINSON,
Plaintiff, v. FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC., DAVID NATAN, JASON WILLIAMS,
RICHARD ST-JULIEN, THE DREAMTEAM GROUP, and MISSION INVESTOR
RELATIONS d/b/a MISSIONIR, Defendants. HANNAH MILLER, Plaintiff,
v. FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC., DAVID NATAN, JASON WILLIAMS, RICHARD
ST-JULIEN, THE DREAMTEAM GROUP, and MISSION INVESTOR RELATIONS
d/b/a MISSIONIR, Defendants. DEAN ROSALES and NIRAV SHAH,
Plaintiffs, v. FORCEFIELD ENERGY INC., DAVID NATAN, JASON
WILLIAMS, RICHARD ST-JULIEN, Defendants, Nos. 15 Civ. 3020 (NRB),
15 Civ. 3141 (NRB), 15 Civ. 3279 (NRB)(S.D.N.Y.).

A copy of the Court's July 22 Memorandum and Order is available at
http://is.gd/Kyk6oHfrom Leagle.com.

Lori Atkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Gail Haws, Movant, represented by Gregory Mark Nespole, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Beverly Brewer, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm P.A..

Michael Sinclair, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Lovell Group, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna, Gainey
McKenna & Egleston.

Bengt Ling, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Renata White, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Robert Whiting, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Retiree Benefits Litigation Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------
FreightCar America, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2015, that
the Company -- together with co-defendants Johnstown America
Corporation and Johnstown America Corporation USWA Health &
Welfare Plan (collectively with the Company, the "Defendants") --
had reached an agreement in principle with the United Steel, Paper
& Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW" and,
collectively with certain retiree plaintiffs, the "Plaintiffs") in
connection with the settlement of the litigation relating to
certain welfare benefits that is pending before the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"Court"). Pursuant to their Joint Motion to Cancel the Trial
Scheduled to Begin August 25, 2015 (the "Joint Motion") that was
filed with the Court on August 20, 2015, the parties have agreed
to the following terms, subject to execution of definitive
documentation and approval by the Court:

     (1) The USW will establish and administer a Voluntary
Employees' Beneficiary Association (the "VEBA"). The Defendants
will have no responsibility for the implementation or
administration of the VEBA, except that the Company will cooperate
in providing health claims data and other information reasonably
requested for establishment of the VEBA.

     (2) Within 10 business days of final approval of the proposed
settlement, the Defendants will make a settlement payment of
$32,750,000 in cash. Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs (not to
exceed $1,500,000) will be deducted from that settlement payment,
with the balance to be contributed to the VEBA.

     (3) Interest at the rate of 5% will accrue on the Defendants'
payment obligation if payment is not made within 180 days after
the filing of the Joint Motion. Interest shall in no case exceed
$250,000.

     (4) The Defendants shall not be responsible for any other
payments, expenses or costs to or by Plaintiffs or their counsel
associated with the litigation or the settlement process,
including, but not limited to, costs relating to class notice and
settlement administration. This limitation does not apply to any
proceedings to enforce the proposed settlement.

     (5) The final settlement agreement will contain a full
release of all parties.

     (6) The parties will file with the court a joint motion for
preliminary approval of a class settlement within 30 days of the
filing of the Joint Motion.

     (7) All parties will use their best efforts to obtain a
fairness hearing within 90 days of filing the joint motion for
preliminary approval, and to secure approval of the settlement
terms.

     (8) The settlement will not be effective until full and final
class action approval has been granted. If approval of the
proposed settlement terms is not obtained, the parties will revert
back to their respective positions.

All parties have agreed to use their best efforts to obtain a
fairness hearing within 90 days of filing the motion for
preliminary approval and to secure final approval of the
settlement terms, which final approval is anticipated to be
granted by the court by early 2016. Upon payment of the settlement
amount, the Company expects to realize an after-tax gain of
approximately $11 million, based on associated recorded
liabilities of approximately $67 million at June 30, 2015.

The current pre-tax expense associated with these postretirement
benefits is approximately $3.3 million annually, which will be
eliminated upon payment of the settlement amount.

FreightCar America's President and Chief Executive Officer, Joe
McNeely, commented, "We are pleased to have reached this
preliminary settlement, which will allow us to put this matter
behind us and keep us focused on the continued execution of our
strategic priorities, including railcar diversification and
further productivity improvements across the organization."

FreightCar America, Inc. manufactures a wide range of railroad
freight cars, supplies railcar parts, leases freight cars through
its JAIX Leasing Company subsidiary and provides railcar
maintenance and repairs through its FreightCar Rail Services, LLC
subsidiary. FreightCar America designs and builds high-quality
railcars, including coal cars, bulk commodity cars, covered hopper
cars, intermodal and non-intermodal flat cars, mill gondola cars,
coil steel cars and boxcars. It is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois and has facilities in the following locations: Cherokee,
Alabama; Danville, Illinois; Grand Island, Nebraska; Hastings,
Nebraska; Johnstown, Pennsylvania; and Roanoke, Virginia. More
information about FreightCar America is available on its website
at www.freightcaramerica.com.


GFI GROUP: Nov. 24 Securities Class Settlement Hearing
------------------------------------------------------
A settlement hearing will be held on November 24, 2015 at 10:00
a.m. at the Court of Chancery in the New Castle County Courthouse,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, to determine, among
other things, (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated September 17, 2015 (and in the
Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT.  If you have not yet
received the Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
contacting the Settlement Administrator at 888-722-0627.  Copies
of the Notice can also be downloaded from the settlement website,
www.GFIStockholderLitigation.com.

If you (i) held shares of GFI common stock that were tendered into
and cashed out in the BGCP Tender Offer,1 or (ii) hold shares of
GFI common stock that are cashed out in the Back-End Mergers,2 you
are eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement.  If you are
eligible to receive a Settlement payment, you do not have to
submit a claim form or take any other action in order to receive
your payment.  Your distribution from the Settlement will be paid
to you directly in the same manner in which you either (i)
received your cash payment from the BGCP Tender Offer, or (ii)
receive your cash payment from the Back-End Mergers.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of litigation expenses, must be filed with the
Register in Chancery and delivered to Representative Lead Counsel
and Representative Defendants' Counsel such that they are received
no later than November 14, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE OFFICE OF THE
REGISTER IN CHANCERY REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than
requests for the Notice, may be made to the following Lead
Counsel:

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com

            -- and --

         Avi Josefson, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITIWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas # 38
         New York, NY 10019
         Phone: +1 212-554-1400
         Email: avi.blbglaw.com


GLOBE SPECIALTY: Plaintiffs Filed Opening Brief
-----------------------------------------------
Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 27, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs in a
class action filed their opening brief in support of their motion
for preliminary injunction.

On February 23, 2015, the Company, Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U., a
public limited company (sociedad anonima) incorporated under the
laws of Spain ("Grupo VM"), Grupo FerroAtlantica, S.A.U., a
Spanish public limited liability company in the form of a sociedad
anonima and wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo VM
("FerroAtlantica"), VeloNewco Limited, a newly formed private UK
holding company and wholly owned subsidiary of Grupo VM
("VeloNewco"), and Gordon Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed
Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of
VeloNewco ("Merger Sub"), entered into a Business Combination
Agreement (the "Original Business Combination Agreement") pursuant
to which the parties agreed, subject to the terms and conditions
of the Original Business Combination Agreement, to combine the
businesses of the Company and FerroAtlantica under VeloNewco as
described below (the "Business Combination").

On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the Company's shareholders ("Company Shareholders") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The action,
captioned Fraser v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10823-VCG, named as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
obtain the best price possible for Company Shareholders, that the
proposed merger consideration to be received by Company
Shareholders is inadequate and significantly undervalued the
Company, that the Company directors failed to adequately protect
against conflicts of interest in approving the transaction, and
that the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deters
competitive offers.  The complaint also alleged that the Company,
Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco aided and
abetted these alleged breaches.  The action sought to enjoin or
rescind the Business Combination, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 1, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.  The action, captioned City of Providence v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, named as
defendants the Company, the members of its board of directors, its
Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco.  The complaint alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided
and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco,
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business
Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred
a potential alternative transaction.  The complaint further
alleged, among other things, that the Company's Executive Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary
duties by negotiating the Business Combination Agreement, and, in
the case of the Executive Chairman, by entering into a voting
agreement in favor of the Business Combination Agreement, out of
self-interest.  The action sought to enjoin the Business
Combination, to order the board of directors to obtain an
alternate transaction, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  The action, captioned Int'l Union of
Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty
Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10899-VCG, named as defendants the
Company, the members of its board of directors, its Chief
Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco.  The complaint made identical allegations and sought
the same relief sought in City of Providence v. Globe Specialty
Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG.

On April 21, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, named as
defendants the Company, its board of directors, Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco.  The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the Company's directors, aided and
abetted by the Company, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the
Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred
a potential alternative transaction.  The action sought to enjoin
or rescind the Business Combination, disclosure of information,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these four actions for all purposes into C.A. No.
10865-VCG, now captioned In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10865-VCG. The
Court further designated the complaint filed in C.A. No. 10865-VCG
as the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the
Company from convening a special meeting of Company Shareholders
to vote on the proposal to adopt the Business Combination
Agreement or consummating the Business Combination. In addition,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and
supporting brief, in which they requested that the Court schedule
a trial in this action before the Company Shareholders vote on the
Business Combination. Defendants, including Globe, filed an
opposition brief in which they objected to Plaintiffs' motion for
expedited proceedings to the extent it seeks expansive discovery
and an expedited trial on the merits in lieu of a preliminary
injunction hearing. Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on
the scope of expedited discovery. The Court scheduled a hearing on
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for August 26,
2015.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint, realleging, among other things, that the
Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided
and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco,
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business
Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred
a potential alternative transaction. The amended complaint further
alleges that, among other things, the Company's preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015, is
materially misleading and incomplete, and that the Company's board
of directors and Chief Executive Officer breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to
Company Shareholders in connection with the Business Combination.
The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, an order
enjoining the Defendants from consummating the proposed Business
Combination; a declaration that the disclosures contained in the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus are deficient; damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in
support of their motion for preliminary injunction.

The amended complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought by Plaintiffs in the consolidated action and it is not
presently possible to determine the outcome of these matters.
Accordingly, the possible loss, if any, related to these matters
is uncertain and cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Globus
Medical, Inc. (NYSE:GMED) securities from February 26, 2014
through August 5, 2014, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Globus Medical investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Globus Medical class action, go to the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-621.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Globus Medical's relationship
with a significant distributor was deteriorating; (2) such
deterioration was negatively impacting Globus Medical's financial
performance; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
statements about Globus Medical's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 30, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-621.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


GYRODYNE COMPANY: To Pay $650,000 in Plaintiff Lawyer Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Gyrodyne Company Of America, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17,
2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the parties to
the Action have entered into a Stipulation of Settlement.

On July 3, 2014, a shareholder of Gyrodyne Company of America,
Inc. (the "Company") filed a putative class action lawsuit against
the Company and members of its board of directors (the "Individual
Defendants"), and against Gyrodyne Special Distribution, LLC
("GSD") and Gyrodyne, LLC (collectively, the "Defendants"), in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk (the
"Court"), captioned Cashstream Fund v. Paul L. Lamb, et al., Index
No. 065134/2014 (the "Action"). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that (i) the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties or aided and abetted the breach of those duties
in connection with the proposed merger of the Company and GSD with
and into Gyrodyne, LLC (the "Merger"), and (ii) the Company and
the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to disclose material information in the proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the Merger (the "Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").

On August 14, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") providing for
settlement of the Action, subject to the Court's approval, a
summary of which is as follows:

* The Company will file a Current Report on Form 8-K supplementing
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus with disclosures on specified
topics relating to the Merger and the related plan of liquidation.

* The Company may sell the properties currently owned by GSD in
arm's-length transactions at prices at or above the most recent
appraised values of those properties.

* Plaintiff will apply to the Court for certification, for
settlement purposes only, of a class of all persons who held
Gyrodyne shares from September 12, 2013 through the effective date
of the Merger.  Excluded will be any shareholder who may and
elects to opt out of the class.  Pursuant to a side agreement, the
Company has an option to terminate the settlement if more than a
specified percentage of the outstanding shares opts out.

* There will be mutual releases of all claims arising out of or
relating to the Merger, the plan of liquidation, the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, the retention bonus plan and the rights
offering.  Excluded from the release are claims for statutory
appraisal of Gyrodyne shares, employment-related disputes,
antitrust matters and enforcement of the Settlement.

* The parties will ask the Court to schedule a hearing for
approval of the Settlement and to award plaintiff's counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses of $650,000 in the aggregate.

While the Company believes that no supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws, the Company has agreed, pursuant
to the terms of the Settlement, to make certain supplemental
disclosures related to the Merger, all of which are set forth in
Supplement No. 2 dated August 17, 2015 to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

The Settlement is also contingent upon, among other things, the
Merger becoming effective under the New York Business Corporation
Law. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the
Settlement. In the event that the Settlement is not approved, the
Defendants will continue to vigorously defend against the
allegations in the Action.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Jan. 6 Hearing on Class Certification in "Ham"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the motion for class certification is set for
January 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in the case, ANA BELEN HAM,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:14-CV-02044-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Stipulation and Order signed by the Court on October
6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/er95sRfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Edward Cole, Esq., Molly A. DeSario, Esq., Christopher B.
Johnson, Esq., SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC, Oakland, California,
Attorneys for Representative Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff Classes.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Kenneth K. Lee, Kelly M. Morrison, Los
Angeles, CA, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Dean N. Panos (pro hac vice),
Chicago, IL, Attorneys for The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.

District Judge William H. Orrick presides over the case.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12, Representative
Plaintiff Ana Belen Ham ("Plaintiff"), individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Defendant The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc. ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel
of record, agree and stipulate to extend Defendant Hain
Celestial's deadline to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification from October 28, 2015 to its requested
continued deadline of November 30, 2015.  The Parties further
stipulate to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file her Reply from
November 11, 2015 to December 11, 2015.  The Parties stipulate and
request that the hearing on this matter be continued to December
23, 2015 or to another date in accordance with the Court's
convenience.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Working to Finalize Settlement in "Brown"
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 21, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
currently working to finalize the settlement in a class action
lawsuit.

On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit
organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County against the Company.  The complaint
alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and
JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's
implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated
certain California statutes.  Defendants removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The action was consolidated with a subsequently-filed
putative class action containing substantially identical
allegations concerning only the JASON(R) brand personal care
products.

The consolidated actions sought an award for damages, injunctive
relief, costs, expenses and attorneys' fees. The consolidated
lawsuits were certified as a class action by the trial court in
November 2014. In July 2015, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with the plaintiffs to settle the class action for $7.5
million in addition to the distribution of consumer coupons up to
a value of $2.0 million. The Company is currently working to
finalize the matter.


HOME DEPOT: 57 Class Actions Filed Related to Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2015, that at least 57 class
actions have been filed in courts in the U.S. and Canada related
to a data breach.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company confirmed that
its payment data systems were breached, which potentially impacted
customers who used payment cards at self-checkout systems in the
Company's U.S. and Canadian stores (the "Data Breach"). The
Company's investigation to date has determined the intruder used a
vendor's user name and password to enter the perimeter of the
Company's network. The intruder then acquired elevated rights that
allowed it to navigate portions of the Company's systems and to
deploy unique, custom-built malware on the Company's self-checkout
systems to access payment card information of customers who
shopped at the Company's U.S. and Canadian stores between April
2014 and September 2014. The investigation of the Data Breach is
ongoing, and the Company is supporting law enforcement efforts to
identify the responsible parties.

In the second quarter of fiscal 2015, the payment card networks
made claims against the Company for costs that they assert they or
their issuing banks have incurred in connection with the Data
Breach, including incremental counterfeit fraud losses and non-
ordinary course operating expenses (such as card reissuance
costs). At this time, the Company believes that settlement
negotiations will ensue and that it is probable that the Company
will incur a loss in connection with the payment card networks'
claims. The Company has recorded an accrual for estimated probable
losses that it expects to incur in connection with the claims made
by the payment card networks, which amount is included in the
expenses discussed below. The accrual for estimated probable
losses is based on currently available information and expected
payments associated with those claims. These estimates may change
as new information becomes available or circumstances change.

In addition, at least 57 class actions have been filed in courts
in the U.S. and Canada, and other claims may be asserted against
the Company on behalf of customers, payment card issuing banks,
shareholders or others seeking damages or other related relief,
allegedly arising from the Data Breach. The U.S. class actions
have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That
court ordered that the individual class actions be
administratively closed in favor of the filing of consolidated
class action complaints on behalf of customers and financial
institutions allegedly harmed by the Data Breach. In addition,
several state and federal agencies, including State Attorneys
General, are investigating events related to the Data Breach,
including how it occurred, its consequences and the Company's
responses.

The Company is cooperating in the governmental investigations, and
the Company may be subject to fines or other obligations. While a
loss from these matters is reasonably possible, the Company is not
able to estimate the costs, or range of costs, related to these
matters because the proceedings remain in the early stages,
alleged damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as
to the likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the
ultimate size of any class if certified, and there are significant
factual and legal issues to be resolved. The Company has not
concluded that a loss from these matters is probable; therefore,
the Company has not recorded an accrual for litigation, claims and
governmental investigations related to these matters in the second
quarter of fiscal 2015. The Company will continue to evaluate
information as it becomes known and will record an estimate for
losses at the time or times when it is both probable that a loss
has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably
estimable. The Company believes that the ultimate amount paid on
these actions, claims and investigations could have an adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition, results
of operations, or cash flows in future periods.


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that a court has granted the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, in
the case, Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc.

A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics,
Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleged
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors failed to disclose and/or made material
misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to the
termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the complaint
alleged that defendants failed to make timely disclosure
concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of
veltuzumab.

On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed
Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing
John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants
believed that the allegations in the class action complaint were
without merit and intended to defend the lawsuit vigorously.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014.

On January 29, 2015 the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety. The Court's opinion concluded that
Immunomedics had no duty to disclose issues raised with Takeda-
Nycomed prior to the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. The
Court granted Plaintiffs thirty days from the date of the opinion
in order to file an amended complaint.

On February 27, 2015 a second amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiff alleging failure to disclose information related to the
status of the agreement. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on April 13, 2015.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the
Company had no duty to make the disclosure of information
concerning the agreement at an earlier time and that there was no
misstatement or omission sufficient to support the claim. The
Court ordered this action closed.


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Settles $1B Over Quebec Smokers Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the Quebec Court of Appeal has ordered two
big tobacco companies -- Imperial Tobacco and Rothmans Benson &
Hedges -- to set aside almost $1 billion for members of Canada's
largest class-action lawsuit.

Back in June, the two companies, along with a third big tobacco
company, JTI-Macdonald, were ordered to pay $15 billion in damages
to more than one million Quebec smokers. The plaintiffs were
separated into two groups: some who became seriously ill from
smoking and others who said they became addicted.

The case marked the first time tobacco companies have gone to
trial in a civil suit in this country.

The original judgment ordered the companies to set aside $1
billion right away to ensure victims get some sort of
compensation.

The tobacco companies argued that they simply didn't have the
funds, saying it could cause irreparable harm to their ability to
appeal and even put them on the brink of bankruptcy.

Court of Appeal Justice Mark Schrager ordered the companies to
start paying in instalments.

"It is not acceptable that appellants merely say that they have no
funds to satisfy the judgment or an order to furnish security and
continue to distribute earnings because that is 'business as
usual,'" Schrager  said in his ruling.

"I do not question appellants' right to appeal but neither can I
stand idly by while appellants pursue an appeal which will benefit
them if they win but which will not operate to their detriment if
they lose."

The judge said that Rothmans Benson & Hedges, which owes $226
million in security, must pay in in six instalments.

Imperial Tobacco, which owes $758 million, must pay in seven
instalments.

The motion against JTI-Macdonald  was withdrawn because attorneys
were unavailable.

"The above amounts are less than average quarterly revenue. They
are far easier to manage financially than a single lump sum,"
Schrager said.

The first payments are due at the end of December.

The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health called ruling an
important one.

"This is an important moral victory," said Mario Bujold, general
manager of the council. "We now have the certainty that the
victims will be compensated."

Imperial Tobacco issued a statement , saying it is disappointed
with the Court of Appeal's decision.

"Imperial Tobacco Canada . . . does not believe it should have to
secure a payment before all appeals are exhausted and a final
judgment is rendered," the statement said. "Imperial Tobacco
Canada continues to disagree with the overall judgment rendered by
the Superior Court of Quebec. It is unjustified to hold legal
manufacturers responsible for the personal choices of adult
consumers and it will continue to defend that position as its
appeals proceed before the courts."


IXIA: Agreed to Settle Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that the Company on August 14, 2015, agreed
in principle to settle the purported securities class action
litigation, captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement
System and Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System v. Ixia,
Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol
Ginsberg, that is pending against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. Upon final approval,
the settlement will resolve the claims asserted against all the
defendants in the purported class action.

The terms agreed upon by the parties include a settlement payment
of $3.5 million, which will be paid in full by one of the
Company's insurance carriers. The terms of the settlement are
subject to the parties' execution of final settlement documents
and the approval by the U.S. District Court.

The settlement will not include any admission of wrongdoing or
liability on the part of the Company or the individual defendants
and will include a dismissal of, and a full release of all claims
asserted against the defendants in, the purported class action.

The Company previously announced in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
August 3, 2015, that it had agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated shareholder derivative action, captioned In re Ixia
Shareholder Derivative Litigation, that is currently pending
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.

For certain background information regarding the purported
securities class action discussed above, please refer to the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2015, as filed with the SEC on August 7, 2015.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Jan. 25 Fairness Hearing on $850K Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court District of New Jersey has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of securities of Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.
(OTCMKTS:KEYP):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED (A) KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS, INC.
("KEYUAN") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 16, 2010
THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 2011, INCLUSIVE AND/OR (B) KEYUAN SECURITIES
PURSUANT TO THE CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE OFFERING MEMORANDUM DATED
MARCH 22, 2010 CONSISTING OF PURCHASERS IN THE FIRST TRANCHE THAT
CLOSED ON APRIL 22, 2010 AND THE SECOND TRANCHE THAT CLOSED ON MAY
18, 2010.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will
be held on January 25, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Madeline Cox Arleo, United States District Judge of the District
of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom MLK 2A, Newark, New
Jersey 07101 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the
sum of $850,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of $283,333.33 or one-third and reimbursement of expenses of
not more than $7,500 and an incentive payment of no more than
$5,000 to Lead Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether the
Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased (a) Keyuan common stock during the class period
from August 16, 2010 through October 7, 2011, inclusive, and/or
(b) Keyuan securities pursuant to the confidential private
offering memorandum dated March 22, 2010 consisting of purchasers
in the first tranche that closed on April 22, 2010 and the second
tranche that closed on May 18, 2010, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this action.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to the Claims Administrator at: Patrizio & Zhao LLC, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel) 610-565-7985 (Fax);
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net).  If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must either (1) have already submitted a claim in
connection with the "First Keyuan Settlement"1 by September 28,
2015; or (2) if you did not submit a claim in connection with the
First Keyuan Settlement by September 28, 2015, submit a Proof of
Claim and Release postmarked no later than December 21, 2015 to
the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will
be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not
you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it is
received no later than January 5, 2016, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than January 5, 2016,
to each of the following:

         Clerk of the Court
         United States District Court
         District of New Jersey
         50 Walnut Street
         Newark, NJ 07101

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS:

         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

         Thomas F. Quinn, Esq.
         WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP
         200 Campus Drive
         Florham Park, NJ 07932
         Tel: 973.735.6036
         Fax: 973.624.0808
         Email: thomas.quinn@wilsonelser.com

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com


KIM DAVIS: Progressives Denied Class Status in Suit vs. Clerk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Unruh, writing for WND.com, reported that a federal judge who
ordered Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis to issue marriage
licenses to same-sex duos in violation of her faith then jailed
her when she refused says there's no need for more arguments over
which couples can obtain a license.

So Judge David Bunning rejected a request from the plaintiffs to
give their lawsuit against Davis class-action status.

Bunning initially ordered the deputies in Davis' office to issue
marriage licenses to the plaintiffs then expanded the order to
include anyone.

"Although the court initially enjoined Defendant Davis from
applying her 'no marriage licenses' policy to plaintiffs, who at
the time were the only ones to request marriage licenses in Rowan
County post-Obergefell, it later clarified that its order
prohibited Defendant Davis from applying her policy to marriage
license requests submitted by any couples. . . " the judge wrote
in an order.

The non-profit legal group Liberty Counsel, which represents
Davis, said the ACLU made the request because it wanted to avoid
the conclusion that its demand is moot.

The next step will be to file briefings with the 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, where Davis' case in pending.

WND reported earlier Liberty Counsel asserted the case was not
about "gay weddings" but about forcing a homosexual agenda on a
Christian.

The same-sex duos who originally brought the case were trying to
get Bunning to penalize Davis again, claiming she's not following
his orders and the licenses may not be legitimate.

"The plaintiffs are showing their true colors in this latest
filing," the statement from Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel
contended. "It has never really been about a marriage license --
Rowan County has issued the licenses -- it is about forcing their
will on a Christian woman through contempt of court charges, jail
and monetary sanctions. Kim wouldn't give up the job she loves, so
the plaintiffs are asking the court to put the county office into
receivership -- removing Kim from doing her job."

"Outlasting the Gay Revolution" spells out eight principles to
help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on
our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual
activists

The statement continued: "The fact is the plaintiffs already
possess marriage licenses from Rowan County that have been
approved as being valid by the Kentucky governor and Kentucky
attorney general. Kim has taken all reasonable steps and good
faith efforts to substantially comply with this court's orders."

The licenses are being issued by the county clerk's office
deputies to anyone legally eligible. Davis is redacting her name
from the licenses, and the governor and the state attorney general
have affirmed their validity.

But the plaintiffs insist that's not good enough. They assert
Davis should be fined, and the federal courts should take over her
office.

"There is no cause for this court to punish Davis with civil fines
or take the extraordinary measure of annexing the Rowan County
clerk's office through the intrusive remedy of a receivership.
This sanction is reserved exclusively for situations of last
resort -- not a hammer to be used while Davis' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint has been stayed, her consolidated appeals
are pending in the Sixth Circuit, and licenses that are recognized
as valid by the Kentucky governor and Kentucky attorney general
are being issued in Rowan County," Staver said.

The legal brief states: "Since her return to the office on Sept.
14, 2015, Davis has not interfered with, hindered, blocked or
obstructed the issuance of any marriage licenses by her deputy
clerks to couples who are legally eligible to marry in Kentucky.
Instead, marriage licenses approved, authorized and recognized as
valid in the Commonwealth of Kentucky are being issued without
delay to eligible couples.

"And 'alterations' made by Davis constitute reasonable steps taken
to ensure compliance with the court's orders, because these steps
ensure that marriage licenses will be issued in Rowan County,
while also accommodating her sincerely held religious beliefs and
convictions."

Lawyers previously had speculated the case was more about
attacking a Christian than obtaining a license. To get to Davis'
jurisdiction, the plaintiffs had to travel through other
jurisdictions where they could have obtained a license.

The plaintiffs in the case, although they already have licenses,
had demanded of the court fines for Davis and a "receivership" of
her office.

"Imposing civil monetary sanctions against Davis and a
receivership upon the Rowan County Clerk's Office is extreme,
unnecessary and improper under the circumstances of this case,"
Davis' lawyers said.

"After setting aside plaintiffs' bluster and rhetoric in the
motion to enforce, the following facts are undisputed: (1)
licenses are being issued to all eligible couples in the Rowan
County clerk's office; (2) there are no differences between
licenses issued to same-sex and different-sex couples in Rowan
County -- all licenses are the same; (3) Davis is not interfering
. . .  ; (4) couples who are legally eligible to receive marriage
licenses are receiving the licenses and are deeming them vaild and
acceptable," the filing said.

"Outlasting the Gay Revolution" spells out eight principles to
help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on
our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual
activists

Davis has several challenges to the district court's handling of
the case pending before the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


LIBERTY TAX: $5.3 Million Deal in ERC Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that following mediation,
the parties in the so-called ERC class action litigation entered
into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which the
Company will establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million,
inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs'
counsel fees. The parties are in the process of seeking the
approval of the trial court, which must approve the settlement.

The Company was sued in November 2011 in federal courts in
Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota.

In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending
cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated
complaint alleges that the Company's refund transfer products
formerly called electronic refund checks ("ERC") represent a form
of refund anticipation loan ("RAL") because the taxpayer is
"loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that the refund transfer
product is, therefore, subject to federal truth-in-lending
disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs. The
plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to the ERC
fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim
violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege
potential damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company appealed
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit a
ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were not subject to
arbitration.

Following mediation, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which the Company will
establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million, inclusive of
settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. The
parties are in the process of seeking the approval of the trial
court, which must approve the settlement. The Company has
preserved potential claims against a financial product partner
that was responsible for the design of a portion of the ERC
programs in the years at issue in the cases. The Company
previously accrued the proposed settlement amount during fiscal
2015.


LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the settlement in the
TCPA class action litigation has received preliminary approval of
the court, but the settlement remains subject to other conditions
typical in a class action.

The Company was sued in September 2013 in federal court in
Illinois in connection with alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges that the Company
inappropriately made auto dialed telephone calls to cellular
telephones, seeks the certification of a nationwide class action,
and claims statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation. The
Company tendered the defense of this litigation to a third party
entity that had contracted with us to solicit potential
franchisees, and that third party entity acknowledged its defense
and indemnification obligations to the Company. However, because
the third party did not have the financial resources to satisfy
its defense and indemnity obligations, the Company concluded that
it could not rely upon the fulfillment of those obligations.

In September 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a
tentative settlement of this litigation pursuant to which the
Company will establish a settlement fund of $3.0 million,
inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs'
counsel fees. This settlement has received the preliminary
approval of the court and notices to class members have been sent,
but the settlement remains subject to other conditions typical in
a class action. The Company previously accrued the proposed
settlement amount during fiscal 2015.


LIQUID HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers Liquid
Holdings Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:LIQD) securities pursuant and/or
traceable to Liquid Holdings' Initial Public Offering on or about
July 25, 2013 and/or during the period from July 26, 2013 through
December 23, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Liquid Holdings investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Liquid Holdings class action, go to the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-723.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT.  YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Liquid Holdings was overstating its ability to generate
customers; (2) Liquid Holdings' business model was unsustainable;
(3) the financial condition of Liquid Holdings' main and largest
customer-an investment entity known as QuantX Management, LLP-was
deteriorating; (4) as a result, Liquid Holdings' financial results
and operating metrics were overstated; (5) as such, Liquid
Holdings' financial statements were not prepared in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (6) Liquid Holdings
lacked adequate internal controls; and (7) as a result, Liquid
Holdings' financial statements and defendants' statements about
Liquid Holding's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 20, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-723.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


LSB INDUSTRIES: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of LSB
Industries, Inc., securities during the period from May 8, 2015
through August 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for LSB Industries investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the LSB Industries class action, go to the firm's website
at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-720.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.
According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LSB Industries
costs related to the expansion of the El Dorado Facility would be
significantly higher than reported; and, (2) as a result, LSB
Industries' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. On August 7, 2015, LSB Industries announced its intent to
implement certain recommendations by the Strategic Committee of
the LSB Industries Board of Directors and that the total cost to
complete the El Dorado Facility expansion would now be in the
range of $660 million to $680, significantly higher that its
previous estimates of $495 million to $520 million on May 8, 2015.
On this news, shares of LSB Industries declined $12.09 per share
or over 34% to close at $23.01 per share on August 7, 2015, on
heavy volume.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-720.htmlfor more
information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Removes Class Suit to Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported
that Lumber Liquidators removed a class action suit to federal
court that alleges it sold a defective Dura-Wood flooring.

Lumber Liquidators filed the notice of removal to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Sept. 25
through attorneys Matthew Robinson and Andrew Martone of Hesse
Martone in St. Louis.

Kevin Morris filed the class action on Aug. 18, claiming that in
February 2013 he bought 900 square feet of the Casa de Colour

Collection by Dura Wood, which is a pre-finished and stained
hardwood flooring.

Morris, who claims he is a skilled at installing flooring, alleges
that six months after spending about $5,000 and 24 hours
installing the flooring, he started noticing defects in the
flooring. He claims he specifically noticed warping, buckling and
cupping, the suit states.

Morris alleges common law fraud, breach of implied warranty,
breach of express warranty and violations of the state Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act and state Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The class seeks a refund of their money and installation costs,
injunctive relief, court costs and attorney's fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by James G. Onder and William W.
Blair of Onder, Shelton, O'Leary and Peterson LLC in St. Louis.


MADISON SQUARE: Court Granted Preliminary Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison Square Garden Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in antitrust
class action against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs,
regional sports networks and cable and satellite distributors.

On August 31, 2015, the Court held a final fairness hearing on the
Settlement. On September 1, 2015, the Court found that the
Settlement's terms were fair, reasonable and adequate and issued
an order approving the Settlement, which became effective on
September 16, 2015. As a result of the Court's order, the lawsuit
was dismissed and all appeals were withdrawn with prejudice. The
time to appeal the court's order has expired.  The Settlement did
not result in any changes to the distribution of NHL games on the
MSG Networks or in any Company payment obligations.

In March 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in two
purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the NHL and certain NHL member clubs, regional sports
networks and cable and satellite distributors. The second
complaint, which was substantially identical to the first, was
dismissed after its named plaintiff was named as a co-plaintiff in
the first complaint. The operative complaint primarily asserts
that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered
into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide
certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the
television and online distribution of live hockey games, violate
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of
the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. On December 5, 2012, the court issued an
opinion and order largely denying the motion to dismiss.

On April 8, 2014, following the conclusion of fact discovery, all
defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of
the case in its entirety. On August 8, 2014, the Court denied the
motions for summary judgment.

On May 14, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion with respect to damages but granted it with respect to
injunctive relief. Both plaintiffs and defendants filed petitions
with the Court of Appeals seeking pretrial review of these
rulings.

On June 10, 2015, the parties entered into a proposed settlement
(the "Settlement") of the lawsuit and the Settlement was filed
with the Court on June 11, 2015. The Settlement would not result
in any changes to the Company's distribution of NHL games on the
MSG Networks or in any MSG payment obligations. The Settlement is
subject to Court approval. If the Settlement is approved by the
Court, the lawsuit and all appeals will be withdrawn with
prejudice.

On June 15, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement, directed that notice of the proposed Settlement be
sent to the putative class and scheduled a hearing on final
approval for August 31, 2015.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that only two weeks remain to
file a motion for lead plaintiff in a class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Marvell Technology Group,
Ltd. ("Marvell" or the "Company") from November 20, 2014 through
September 10, 2015 (the "Class Period").  The action alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Marvell is a fabless semiconductor company, and ships over one
billion chips a year.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company had engaged in
inappropriate revenue recognition practices; (2) Marvell's
management permitted an inappropriate and ineffective control
environment; (3) the Company's key accounting metrics were
misstated; and (4) Defendants' statements about Marvell's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 11, 2015, the Company reported a quarterly loss of
$382.4 million for its fiscal second quarter, whereas analysts on
average had predicted a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. The
Company also announced an internal probe by its Audit Committee
into Marvell's key accounting practices including its revenue
recognition, litigation reserves, and internal controls.  Marvell
also revealed that it would be unable to timely file its quarterly
report due to the fact that its Audit Committee was examining
"certain revenue recognition issues in the second quarter of
fiscal 2016 and any associated issues with whether senior
management's operating style during the period resulted in an open
flow of information and communication to set an appropriate tone
for an effective control environment."  On this news, shares of
Marvell fell over 16%.

On October 26, 2015, after market close, the other shoe dropped.
Marvell disclosed in a regulatory filing that
PricewaterhouseCoopers had resigned as its auditor.  Notably, PwC
advised Marvell on its way out that it would need to expand its
2016 audit to areas including whether senior management set an
appropriate tone for effective control management.  After this
news, Marvell stock fell approximately 15% from $9.45 per share to
close at only $8.05 per share.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Marvell securities during the Class Period.  If
you invested in Marvell securities as described above, and lost
money on the transactions, you may wish to join in this action to
serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than November 10, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Marvell
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3.5
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

         Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212.779.1414
         Fax: 212.779.3218
         Email: Seidman@bernlieb.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that class action lawsuits have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Marvell Technology
Group, Ltd. ("Marvell" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MRVL) securities
from November 20, 2014 through September 10, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Marvell
investors under the federal securities laws.

If you purchased Marvell securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than November 10, 2015, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you want more information about the Marvell Securities Class
Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Marvell
and certain of its executive officers and directors issued
materially false and/or misleading information and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Marvell had engaged in inappropriate revenue
recognition practices; (2) the Company's management permitted an
inappropriate and ineffective control environment; (3) Marvell's
key accounting metrics were misstated; (4) that the Company lacked
adequate controls at all relevant times; (5) and as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Marvell's business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On September 11, 2015, the Company reported a quarterly loss of
$382.4 million for its fiscal second quarter, whereas analysts on
average had predicted a quarterly profit of $11.9 million. The
Company also announced an internal probe by its Audit Committee
into Marvell's accounting practices including its revenue
recognition, litigation reserves, and internal controls.

Following this news, the price of Marvell's common stock fell
$1.71 per share, or nearly 17%, to close on September 11, 2015 at
$8.84 per share.

On October 26, 2015, Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP ("PwC") resigned
as the outside auditor to Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. PwC's
resignation comes a little more than a month after Marvell
disclosed an internal investigation into its accounting.  In its
resignation, PwC questioned whether Marvell's senior management
set a "tone for effective control."  Marvell's price per share was
down more than 14% since closing price.

                     About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.  All of the Firm's legal
endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and
consumer protection and always fight "for the people."

         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
         New York, NY 10036
         Phone: (212) 564-1637
         Email: psafirstein@forthepeople.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: November 10 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Marvell
Technology Group Ltd. (NASDAQ:MRVL) securities between November
20, 2014 and September 10, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/MRVL-
Info-Request-Form-927. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Marvell had engaged in
inappropriate revenue recognition practices; (b) the Company's
management permitted an inappropriate and ineffective control
environment; (c) as a result, Marvell's key accounting metrics
were misstated; and (d) the Company lacked adequate controls at
all relevant times.

On September 11, 2015, Marvell Technology announced it would delay
filing its Form 10-Q reporting its financial results for the
period ended August 1, 2015. The Company noted that an Audit
Committee is conducting an independent investigation of certain
accounting and internal control matters in the second quarter of
fiscal 2016.

If you suffered a loss in Marvell Technology you have until
November 10, 2015 to 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. To obtain additional
information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/MRVL-Info-Request-Form-927.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT WONG
         39 East Broadway, Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com


MASTEC INC: Still Defending "Wrigley" Action in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 7, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), Wrigley v. MasTec,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R. Mas, and
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as
defendants. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a
shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained
in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the SEC and other statements, in each case with
respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the
independent internal investigation being conducted by the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The Lawsuit seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. The
Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no assurance
that the Company will be successful in its defense.


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against MaxPoint Interactive, Inc.
("MaxPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: MXPT), for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares traceable to the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") on March 6, 2015, are advised to contact
the Firm prior to the October 30, 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, the Company's offering documents
failed to disclose that MaxPoint derived two-thirds of its sales
from only 50 customers. In addition, the complaint alleges that
the Company was signing up smaller businesses in advance of its
IPO, which meant that the Company's growth was declining at the
time of the IPO. 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


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
MaxPoint Interactive, Inc. MXPT, ("MaxPoint" or the "Company")
shareholders that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
the Company on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or
acquired MaxPoint common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") on March 6, 2015.

MaxPoint shareholders are reminded that they may, no later than
October 30, 2015, petition the Court for appointment as a lead
plaintiff of the class.  MaxPoint shareholders who wish to discuss
this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D.
Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 --
7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

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

MaxPoint is a provider of business intelligence and marketing-
automation software services designed to enable national brands to
drive local in-store sales.  On March 6, 2015, MaxPoint completed
its IPO, selling 6.5 million shares of common stock to investors
at $11.50 per share, for gross proceeds of more than $74 million.
In connection with its IPO, the Company filed a Registration
Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Materials")
with the SEC.

The class action lawsuit alleges that MaxPoint's Offering
Materials contained false and misleading statements about the
Company's financial condition, business and prospects.  Among
other things, the lawsuit alleges that MaxPoint's Offering
Materials failed to disclose: (i) that the Company was wholly
dependent upon its top 50 customers alone for two-third of its
sales; and (ii) that the Company had been signing smaller
customers with smaller advertising budgets in the months leading
up to its IPO.

Following the Company's IPO, the price of MaxPoint common stock
significantly declined from an IPO price of $11.50 per share to a
current trading price of less than $5.00 per share.

MaxPoint shareholders are reminded that they may, no later than
October 30, 2015, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff of the class.

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

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

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

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com


MAXPOINT INTERACTIVE: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against MaxPoint Interactive, Inc.
("MaxPoint" or the "Company") (NYSE: MXPT), for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares traceable to the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") on March 6, 2015, are advised to contact
the Firm prior to the October 30, 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, the Company's offering documents
failed to disclose that MaxPoint derived two-thirds of its sales
from only 50 customers. In addition, the complaint alleges that
the Company was signing up smaller businesses in advance of its
IPO, which meant that the Company's growth was declining at the
time of the IPO. 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


MICHAELS COS: 40 Individual Claims Pending After Decertification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that 40 individual
claims are pending as well as a separate representative action are
pending in the California Superior Court in and for the County of
San Diego brought on behalf of store managers throughout the
state, following decertification of class action.

On September 15, 2011, Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI") was served
with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for
the County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store
managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and
certain former and current store managers employed by MSI in
California. The lawsuit alleges that MSI improperly classified its
store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all
wages, overtime, waiting time penalties and failed to provide
accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleges that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law.

On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order
certifying a class of approximately 200 members.  MSI successfully
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was
decertified.

"As a result of the decertification, we have approximately 40
individual claims pending as well as a separate representative
action pending in the California Superior Court in and for the
County of San Diego brought on behalf of store managers throughout
the state. We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
defend the lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution
of the lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements," the Company said.


MICHAELS COS: Continues to Defend Remaining FCRA Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend remaining Fair Credit Reporting claims.

On December 11, 2014, Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI") was served
with a lawsuit, Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by a
former associate.  The lawsuit is a purported class action,
bringing plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on
behalf of a putative class of applicants who applied for
employment with Michaels through an online application, and on
whom a background check for employment was procured. The lawsuit
alleges that MSI violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")
and the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide
the proper disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to
conduct background checks.

Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations.  The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. filed in the
Superior Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court in the
Western District of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New
York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court in the Central District of California. All of the
plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA.  In addition, Castro,
Horton and Janice Bercut also alleged violations of California's
unfair competition law.  The Burnside, Horton and Gettings
lawsuits have been dismissed and an offer of judgment has been
accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will be dismissed. The Graham,
Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred by the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralized
pretrial proceedings to the District of New Jersey.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.


MICHAELS COS: Actions Pending Related to Data Security Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend remaining class actions related to Data
Security Incident.

Five putative class actions were filed against Michaels Stores,
Inc. ("MSI") relating to the January 2014 data breach.  The
plaintiffs generally alleged that MSI failed to secure and
safeguard customers' private information including credit and
debit card information, and as such, breached an implied contract,
and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states'
similar laws) and are seeking damages including declaratory
relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre and post
judgment interest, and other relief as available.  The cases are
as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize and Jessica
Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February 21, 2014;
and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on March 14,
2014. These four cases were filed in the United States District
Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July
14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied on October
14, 2014. The deadline to file a notice of appeal expired on
November 13, 2014.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest,
and other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss and is awaiting a decision from the Court.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. We cannot
reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related
to the lawsuits, if any.

"In connection with the breach, payment card companies and
associations may seek to require us to reimburse them for
unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also
impose fines or penalties in connection with the data breach, and
enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies
against us," the Company said. "We have also incurred other costs
associated with the data breach, including legal fees,
investigative fees, costs of communications with customers and
credit monitoring services provided to our customers. In addition,
state and federal agencies, including states' attorneys general
and the Federal Trade Commission may investigate events related to
the data breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and
our responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these
investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations,
which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business
and our results of operations. We cannot reasonably estimate the
potential loss or range of loss related to any reimbursement
costs, fines or penalties that may be assessed, if any. Such
amounts incurred to date are immaterial to the consolidated
financial statements."


MOLYCORP INC: Response to Plaintiff's Opposition Due Nov. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's response
to a class action plaintiff's opposition is due by November 13,
2015.

The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against
us and certain of our current and former executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated
Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also named most of
our Board members and some of our stockholders as defendants,
along with other persons and entities."

"On March 31, 2015, the Colorado Federal District Court granted
our motion to dismiss that Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015, and defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 24, 2015.

"As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, plaintiffs filed a motion of
voluntary dismissal of us from the purported class action lawsuit,
without prejudice. On July 24, 2015, plaintiffs filed an
opposition to our motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Our
response to the opposition is due by November 13, 2015. We believe
that this lawsuit is without merit, and we intend to vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims."


MOLYCORP INC: Motion for Reconsideration Fully Briefed
------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a motion for
reconsideration filed by class action plaintiffs of certain
portions of the case dismissal order has been fully briefed.

The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on May 19, 2014, also named us and certain of our current
and former executive officers. On March 12, 2015, the Federal
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. On April 1, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of certain portions
of the dismissal order. The motion for reconsideration has been
fully briefed."

"As a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Federal Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order terminating the
motion for reconsideration, subject to reinstatement upon the
disposition of the Chapter 11 Cases. We believe that this lawsuit
is without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims."


MORRISONS: Sued Over Bitter Employee's Act of Revenge
-----------------------------------------------------
Olivia Waring, writing for Metro.co.uk, reported that Andrew
Skelton, 43, worked as a senior internal auditor for Morrisons
when he leaked sensitive data relating to 100,000 staff and their
finances, to newspapers -- and uploaded it to data sharing
websites.

At trial it was found Skelton held a 'grudge' after being
reprimanded for using the mail room at the supermarket's Bradford
headquarters for sending out his eBay packages.

Details of salaries, national insurance numbers, dates of birth
and bank account details were leaked by Skelton in a flagrant act
of revenge.

Solicitor Nick McAleenan said thousands more staff are likely to
complain.

He said: 'My clients' position is that Morrisons failed to prevent
a data leak which exposed tens of thousands of its employees to
the very real risk of identity theft and potential loss.

'In particular, they are worried about the possibility of money
being taken from their bank accounts and -- in the case of younger
clients -- negative consequences for their credit rating.'

The data breach has already cost Morrisons GBP2million to rectify
and Mr McAleenan says the consequences of the lawsuit has
implications for all 'employers and employees' in the UK.

He added: 'Whenever employers are given personal details of their
staff, they have a duty to look after them.

'That is especially important given that most companies now gather
and manage such material digitally and, as a result, it can be
accessed and distributed relatively easily if the information is
not protected.'

Skelton was given an eight-year jail sentence in July following a
trial at Bradford Crown Court.

A Morrisons spokesperson said: 'We are contesting this case. We're
not accepting liability for the actions of a rogue individual.
'We can confirm that we're not aware that anybody suffered a
financial loss from this breach.

'When we found out about the breach we immediately put in place,
at a cost of GBP2million to the company, Experian protection to
ensure that people's accounts were protected.'

They added: 'This particular law firm has been searching for our
employees for the or so, going through social media to ask
colleagues to join this class action.'


MURPHY OIL: 5th Cir. Nixes NLRB Ruling on Class Suit Waivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel wiessner, writing for Reuters, reported that a U.S. appeals
court on overturned a National Labor Relations Board decision that
said a gas station operator violated the law by requiring workers
to sign class action waivers and suggested the agency was too
cavalier in applying a legal standard rejected by federal courts.

Arbitration agreements signed by employees of Murphy Oil USA Inc
that barred them from participating in class or collective actions
were valid because they did not affect any basic right granted to
workers by the National Labor Relations Act, a unanimous three-
judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Nationwide Class Sought in Warranty Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that N&C
Transportation Ltd. has filed a Notice of Application seeking an
order certifying a nationwide class of Canadian residents who
purchased in or after January 2009 a Class 8 Navistar truck
equipped with an "Advanced EGR" engine.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. ("N&C") filed a putative
class action lawsuit against NIC, Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada
Inc., and Harbour International Trucks in Canada in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia (the "N&C Action").  Subsequently, six
additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed
in four other provinces in Canada (together with the N&C Action,
the "Canadian Actions").

On July 13, 2015, N&C filed a Notice of Application seeking an
order certifying a nationwide class of Canadian residents who
purchased in or after January 2009 a Class 8 Navistar truck
equipped with an "Advanced EGR" engine.

Meanwhile, on July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative
class action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4
Action"). Subsequently, similar putative class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts, including the
Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Wisconsin,
the Southern District of Florida, the Southern District of Texas,
the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of Alabama, the
Western District of Kentucky, and the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S. Actions").
The U.S. Actions contained allegations substantially similar to
the Canadian Actions.

More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions
(collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify one or
more classes of persons or entities in Canada or the United States
who purchased and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle
equipped with a model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR
engine.  In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engines are defective and that Navistar,
Inc. failed to disclose and/or correct the alleged defect. The EGR
Class Actions assert claims based on various theories, including
breach of contract, breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair
competition, misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class
Actions seek relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive
damages, declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, NIC and Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before
the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the
"MDL Panel") seeking to transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan
B. Gottschall of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois all of the U.S. Actions then pending, as well
as certain non-class action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits
pending in various federal district courts. On December 17, 2014,
Navistar's motion was granted. The MDL Panel issued an order
consolidating all of the U.S. Actions pending on the date the
motion was filed before Judge Gottschall in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The MDL
Panel also consolidated certain non-class action MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various federal
district courts, with the exception of one matter.

The Company said, "For cases filed after the initial ruling by the
MDL Panel, we continue to request that the MDL Panel similarly
transfer and consolidate cases involving one or more common
questions of fact. To date, eight putative class actions and three
non-class cases have been added to the MDL proceeding before Judge
Gottschall. On March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall entered an order in
the MDL proceeding, appointing interim lead counsel and interim
liaison counsel for the Plaintiffs. On May 11, 2015, lead counsel
for the Plaintiffs filed a First Master Consolidated Class Action
Complaint ("Consolidated Complaint"). The Company answered the
Consolidated Complaint on July 13, 2015. The next status
conference is set for September 11, 2015."

"Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification
of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future
consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows," the Company said.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 2,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Court
has granted, in part, and denied, in part, the Company's Motion to
Dismiss the Defendants' Second Amended Complaint in the
Shareholder Litigation.

The Company said, "In March 2013, a putative class action
complaint, alleging securities fraud, was filed against us by the
Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund - Lake County and
Vicinity, on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of November 3,
2010 and August 1, 2012. A second class action complaint was filed
in April 2013 by the Norfolk County Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
purchasers of our common stock between the period of June 9, 2010
and August 1, 2012. A third class action complaint was filed in
April 2013 by Jane C. Purnell FBO Purnell Family Trust, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated purchasers of our
common stock between the period of November 3, 2010 and August 1,
2012. Each complaint named us as well as Daniel C. Ustian, our
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew J.
Cederoth, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, as defendants. These complaints (collectively, the "10b-5
Cases") contain similar factual allegations which include, among
other things, that we violated the federal securities laws by
knowingly issuing materially false and misleading statements
concerning our financial condition and future business prospects
and that we misrepresented and omitted material facts in filings
with the SEC concerning the timing and likelihood of EPA
certification of our EGR technology to meet 2010 EPA emission
standards. The plaintiffs in these matters seek compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees, among other relief. In May 2013, an
order was entered transferring and consolidating all cases before
one judge and in July 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint in October 2013. The consolidated
amended complaint enlarged the proposed class period to June 9,
2009 through August 1, 2012, and named fourteen additional current
and former directors and officers as defendants. In December 2013,
we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

In July 2014, the Court granted the defendants' Motions to
Dismiss, denied the lead plaintiff's Motion to Strike as moot, and
gave the lead plaintiff leave to file a second consolidated
amended complaint. In August, 2014, the plaintiff timely filed a
Second Amended Complaint, which narrows the claims in two ways.
First, the plaintiff abandoned its claims against the majority of
the defendants, asserting claims against only Navistar, Dan
Ustian, A.J. Cederoth, Jack Allen, and Eric Tech. The plaintiff
also shortened the putative class period by changing the class
period commencement date from June 9, 2009 to March 10, 2010.
Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in September, 2014 and in October, 2014, the plaintiff
filed its opposition to defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In
November, 2014, defendants filed their reply brief in support of
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. Also
in November 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Eric Tech as
a defendant.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2015, the Court issued its Opinion
and Order on our Motion to Dismiss the Defendants' Second Amended
Complaint in the 10b-5 Cases. The Motion to Dismiss was granted in
part and denied in part. Specifically, the Court (i) dismissed all
of plaintiff's claims against the Company, Andrew J. Cederoth and
Jack Allen and (ii) dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims against
Daniel C. Ustian, the only remaining defendant, except for claims
regarding two of Mr. Ustian's statements. Further, all of the
dismissed claims were dismissed with prejudice except for claims
based on statements made subsequent to the lead plaintiff's last
purchase of the Company's stock (the "Post-Purchase Claims"). The
Court determined the lead plaintiff lacked standing to assert the
Post-Purchase Claims and dismissed those claims without
prejudice."


NET 1: Court Dismissed Purported Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. (NasdaqGS: UEPS; JSE: NT1) ("Net1")
said the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has dismissed the purported securities class action
litigation originally filed on December 24, 2013, against Net1,
its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer.

"We are pleased with the Court's decision and believe that its
opinion confirms our assertion that this case was without any
merit," Dr. Serge C.P. Belamant, Net1's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, said in a statement dated Sept. 17.

The Court's order allows the plaintiff to file a further amended
complaint on or before October 16, 2015, failing which the action
may be dismissed with prejudice.

Net 1 UEPS Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that, "On December 24,
2013, Net1, our chief executive officer and our chief financial
officer were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities
laws. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported shareholder
of Net1 and all other similarly situated shareholders who
purchased our securities between August 27, 2009 and November 27,
2013."

"On July 23, 2014, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On September 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint alleging that we made materially false and
misleading statements in that we failed to disclose material
adverse information and misrepresented the truth about our
finances and business prospects. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of the lead plaintiff and all other
similarly situated shareholders who purchased our securities
between January 18, 2012 and December 4, 2012, which is a shorter
class period than proposed in the original complaint.

"On January 16, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 6, 2015,
plaintiff filed an opposition to our motion to dismiss its
complaint, and we filed a reply brief on March 27, 2015. No motion
for class certification has been filed. We believe this lawsuit
has no merit and intend to defend it vigorously."


NOBILIS HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas against Nobilis Health
Corp.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is April 2, 2015 through October 8, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Nobilis Health
Corp. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class.

You may move the Court no later than, December 21, 2015 to serve
as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do
so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Tel: 405.235.1560
         Fax: 405.239.2112
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com


NXT OILFIELD: "Rebardi" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------
Wade Rebardi, and all others similarly-situated v. NXT Oilfield
Rentals, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03047 (S.D. Tex., October 15,
2015), seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

NXT Oilfield Rentals, LLC is an oilfield services company
providing well-related services to oil and gas companies and
operators. NXT maintains significant operations throughout
the State of Texas and across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Tel: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


OSI SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Roberti Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
OSI Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that a settlement has been
reached in the Roberti class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint
was filed against the Company and certain of our officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California (the "Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc.,
et al. (the "Securities Class Action"). The Amended Complaint in
the Securities Class Action, filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that
the Company and the individual defendants violated the Exchange
Act by misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts concerning the
status of the Security division's efforts to develop automated
threat recognition software and the alleged use of unapproved
parts in its baggage scanning systems in violation of its contract
with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (the "TSA").
The Amended Complaint also asserts that the individual defendants
allegedly sold stock based on material non-public information.

Following a mediation and further post-mediation settlement
discussions, the parties to the litigation accepted settlement
terms proposed by the mediator and entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement (the "Settlement"), which was filed with
the Court on August 21, 2015.

The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending
claims in the Securities Class Action.  The Company and the other
defendants agreed to the Settlement Agreement to avoid further
expense, inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of
burdensome and protracted litigation.  Neither the Company nor the
individual defendants conceded any wrongdoing or liability, and
continue to believe that they have meritorious defenses to all
claims alleged in the Securities Class Action.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $15.0 million
(the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all
claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company
or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action.

The Company expects that the Settlement Amount will be fully
covered and funded by the Company's insurers pursuant to the
applicable insurance policies.  The Settlement remains subject to
preliminary and final approval by the Court and certain other
conditions, including notice to all class members.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Settlements in Two Class Action Suits Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, that on
August 11, 2015, PhotoMedex, Inc. (the "Company") was notified
that the proposed settlements in two class action suits against
the Company and its subsidiaries had been approved by the
respective courts with jurisdiction over those suits.

The Company had been served on December 20, 2013, with a purported
shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (the "Eastern District Court") against the Company
and its two top executives, Dolev Rafaeli, Chief Executive
Officer, and Dennis M. McGrath, President and Chief Financial
Officer.   The action alleged various violations of the Federal
securities laws between November 7, 2012 and November 14, 2013,
including that the Company and its officers made false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose material facts
concerning the Company's business.  The plaintiffs sought class
action status for the suit, as well as an unspecified amount of
monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees, expert witness fees and other costs.  A companion action had
also been brought against the Company and its two officers in the
State of Israel, where the Company's shares are traded on the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange.

The Eastern District Court has entered an order approving the
settlement in this action.  The settlement provides a fund of $1.5
million for the benefit of those persons or entities who purchased
securities issued by the Company during the period November 6,
2012 and November 5, 2013, inclusive.  The settlement fund will
also pay for plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses approved by
the Eastern District Court with respect to the action.  The
Company maintains insurance that will help defray the cost of the
proposed settlement, and does not expect the settlement to have a
material impact on its financial results.

The Company was also a party in the consolidated action In re LCA-
Vision Inc. Shareholder Litigation.  The Company received notice
of this order on March 30, 2015.  The action consolidated four
separate cases that had been filed in the Common Pleas Court of
Hamilton County, Ohio (the "Ohio Court") against the Company, its
subsidiary Gatorade Acquisition Corp., LCA-Vision, Inc. ("LCA"),
LCA's chief executive officer, Michael J. Celebrezze, and LCA's
board of directors over the proposed acquisition of LCA by the
Company.  On May 12, 2014, the Company acquired LCA, and on
January 31, 2015, the Company sold LCA to Vision Acquisition, LLC.
The action alleged that LCA's officer and board members breached
their fiduciary duty to LCA, and that the acquisition of LCA by
the Company failed to maximize LCA's stockholder value and
deprived LCA's stockholders of the ability to participate in LCA's
long-term prospects. The suit further alleged that the Company
aided and abetted LCA's officer and directors in their breaches of
fiduciary duties.  Similar suits had also been filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and its
subsidiary, Gatorade Acquisition Corp.

The Ohio Court has entered an order approving the settlement of
all suits in this action.  Under the settlement, LCA had published
certain additional disclosure statements regarding its acquisition
by the Company and its financial statements prior to its
shareholder vote on the acquisition, which was held on May 12,
2014.  The settlement also provides for the payment of plaintiffs'
counsel's fees and expenses with respect to the action.  The
Company believes that LCA maintains insurance that will help
defray the cost of the proposed settlement; the Company does not
expect the proposed settlement to have a material impact on its
financial results.


PMFG INC: Entered Into MOU in Merger Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2015, that the Current
Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with litigation
involving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 3,
2015 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among PMFG, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("PMFG" or the "Company"), CECO Environmental Corp., a
Delaware corporation ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of CECO
("Merger Sub I"), and Top Gear Acquisition II LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of CECO
("Merger Sub II"). The Merger Agreement provides for, among other
things, (1) the merger of PMFG with and into Merger Sub I, with
PMFG as the surviving entity (the "First Merger"), and (2) a
subsequent merger whereby PMFG will merge with and into Merger Sub
II, with Merger Sub II as the surviving entity (the "Second
Merger" and together with the First Merger, the "Mergers").

As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to
the Mergers, dated as of July 31, 2015 (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), three lawsuits related to the Mergers have
been filed by alleged stockholders of PMFG after the public
announcement of the Mergers on May 4, 2015. The first filed
lawsuit, which is a derivative action that also purports to assert
class claims, was filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (the "Texas Lawsuit"). The second and third filed lawsuits,
which are class actions, were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware and have now been consolidated into a single
action (the "Delaware Lawsuit"). A description of the Texas and
Delaware Lawsuits is included under the heading "Legal Proceedings
Related to the Mergers" beginning on page 150 of the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

Effective as of August 23, 2015, the Company and the other
defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit regarding the settlement of the
Delaware Lawsuit. In connection with this Memorandum of
Understanding, the Company agreed to make certain additional
disclosures to Company stockholders in order to supplement those
contained in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. After the
Company enters into a definitive agreement with the plaintiffs in
the Delaware Lawsuit, the proposed settlement will be subject to
notice to the class, Court approval, and, if the Court approves
the settlement, the settlement, as outlined in the Memorandum of
Understanding, will resolve all of the claims that were or could
have been brought in the Delaware Lawsuit, including all claims
relating to the Mergers, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure
made in connection therewith including any such claims against
CECO, Merger Sub I or Merger Sub II, but will not affect any
shareholder's rights to pursue appraisal rights.

The proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware
Lawsuit will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to
Company stockholders under the Merger Agreement or change any of
the other terms of the Mergers or the Merger Agreement.

The Company and its directors vigorously deny all liability with
respect to the facts and claims alleged in the lawsuit and
specifically deny that any further supplemental disclosure was
required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or
that the directors failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the Merger Agreement. The Memorandum of
Understanding is not, and should not be construed as, an admission
of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant. However, to avoid the
risk of delaying or otherwise imperiling the Mergers, and to
provide supplemental information to Company stockholders at a time
and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the Mergers, the
Company and its directors have reached the Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuit as
described above. The parties consider it desirable that the
actions be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve the settled claims.


PREMIER ENERGY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Rodriguez, and all others similarly-situated v. Premier
Energy Technical Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00295 (S.D.
Tex., October 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Premier provides the design, development, deployment, management
and maintenance of equipment used to monitor and control various
types of machinery, processes, and engineering systems in the oil
and gas industry. Its principal office is located in Woodstock,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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

          - and -

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Iowa City Sues Over Flushable Bathroom Wipes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that an
Iowa city has filed a class action lawsuit against a half-dozen
makers of bathroom wipes, claiming the companies' so-called
"flushable" wipes have caused damage to the city's sewer system
and a number of its buildings.

The City of Perry filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York Oct. 13.

The named defendants include: Procter & Gamble Company; Kimberly-
Clark Corporation; Nice-Pak Products Inc.; Professional
Disposables International Inc.; Tufco Technologies Inc.; and
Rockline Industries.

The companies make up the vast majority of the flushable wipes
market -- most notably, Pampers, Huggies, Charmin, Cottonelle and
Scott.

The city, in its 44-page complaint, seeks to recover for the harm
allegedly caused by the defendant companies' "unfair practices
associated with the design, testing, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution, and/or sale of allegedly flushable bathroom wipes."

The city argues that the defendants know, and have known, about
the wipes' negative effects, yet continue to manufacture and
promote them as "flushable" -- meaning they are suitable or able
to be flushed down a toilet without causing harm to plumbing,
sewer and septic systems.

"As the key participants in the flushable wipes market, Defendants
have had access to a plethora of information about the harm their
wipes cause to plumbing systems," attorneys for Perry wrote.

The city contends that contrary to the defendants'
representations, their so-called "flushable" wipes do not degrade
after flushing.

"Rather, the flushable wipes remain intact long enough to pass
through private wastewater drain pipes into the municipal sewer
line causing clogs and other issues for municipal and county sewer
systems, wastewater treatment plants and public buildings,
resulting in thousands, if not millions, of dollars in damages,"
the city wrote.

According to its complaint, the city -- located in central Iowa,
with a population of more than 7,000 -- has incurred a great deal
of expenses associated with the removal of flushable wipes from
its lift stations. The lift stations, of which Perry is the owner
and operator of two, pump its wastewater to a treatment facility.

The city has been forced to repeatedly clean the lift stations and
fix mechanical damage.

Perry, which oversees and is responsible for its sewer lines, also
contends the wipes have repeatedly clogged its sewer lines and the
city has had to "expend significant resources" cleaning out the
lines.

In addition, various city-owned buildings have experienced
plumbing problems associated with the use of the wipes. The city
pointed to a pipe in the bathroom of the Perry Public Library that
was clogged by patrons who flushed the wipes down a toilet.

"In order to function properly, flushable wipes must hold up under
the pressure of scrubbing after being soaked in water and
propylene glycol lotion for an extended period of time," the city
wrote. "The ability of a wipe to hold together when subjected to
water is referred to as its 'wet strength.'

"In order to maintain 'wet strength,' and despite the Defendants'
claims otherwise, flushable wipes do not degrade after flushing.
Rather, once in the sewer system, they ultimately wrap around
structures within the system, such as filters or pumps, creating
clogs and back-ups. In order to clear the clogs, the systems need
to be shut down and the wipes manually removed."

The city continued, "Plaintiff believes that if the flushable
wipes were designed to degrade, similar to traditional toilet
paper, the sewer industry would no longer be faced with the rapid
spike in operating and repair expenses caused directly by the
alleged flushable wipes."

Perry seeks an order designating it as the named representative
and designating attorneys with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Audet &
Partners LLP and Hudson Mallaney Shindler & Anderson PC as class
counsel.

It also wants a declaration that the defendants' flushable wipes
do not degrade and are not sewer safe; an order enjoining the
companies from further advertising, sale or distribution of the
flushable wipes; an order requiring the companies to establish a
fund to compensate the city and the class for the cost associated
with ongoing clean-up and removal of the wipes from their sewer
systems; damages; an award of attorneys' fees and costs; pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest; and leave to amend the
complaint.


PUBLIX SUPER: "Snover" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Eric Snover, and all others similarly-situated v. Publix Super
Markets, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02434 (M.D. Fla., October 15,
2015), seeks damages and other equitable and legal remedies
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is one of the ten largest-volume supermarket chains
in the U.S. A principal part of the Defendant's business is the
provision of in-store pharmacy services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 223-5505
      Fax: (813) 222-2434
      E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com


REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-Defendant in New York State Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been named a
co-defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York State which seeks
class action status. While management believes the Company will
successfully defend itself in this lawsuit, the ultimate outcome
and legal costs to defend the Company may be material to the
future financial results of the Company, and are undeterminable at
this time. As such, no accruals have been recognized in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.


REGIS CORPORATION: Named Co-defendant in NJ and Pa. Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been named a
co-defendant and defendant in lawsuits filed in New Jersey and
Pennsylvania, respectively. Each of the suits seek class action
status. While management believes the Company will successfully
defend itself in these lawsuits, the ultimate outcome and legal
costs to defend the Company may be material to the future
financial results of the Company, and are undeterminable at this
time. As such, no accruals have been recognized in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.


RESOURCE CAPITAL: November 9 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Resource Capital
Corp. ("Resource Capital" or the "Company") (NYSE:RSO) common
stock  from March 2, 2015 through August 4, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Resource Capital investors under the federal securities laws.

If you purchased Resource Capital common stock during the Class
Period, you may, no later than November 9, 2015, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

If you want more information about the Resource Capital Securities
Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Resource
Capital and certain of its executive officers and directors issued
materially false and/or misleading information regarding the risk
of the Company's commercial loans portfolio and its processes and
controls for assessing the quality of its portfolio. On August 4,
2015, Resource Capital disclosed a GAAP net loss of $31.0 million
during the quarter ended June 30, 2015, citing the recording of a
$41.1 million allowance for loan loss.

Following this news, the price of Resource Capital common stock
fell from $3.48 per share on August 4, 2015, to a close of $3.05
per share on August 5, 2015.

                    About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.  All of the Firm's legal
endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and
consumer protection and always fight "for the people."

         Peter Safirstein, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN
         28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
         New York, NY  10036
         Phone: (212) 564-1637
         Email: psafirstein@forthepeople.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Parties Agree to Resolve "LaFrance" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Ruby Tuesday, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 2, 2015, that the parties in the case,
Kimberly LaFrance, et al. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., have agreed to
resolve the matter.

On July 23, 2014, a case styled Kimberly LaFrance, et al. v. Ruby
Tuesday, Inc., was filed against the Company in the State of New
York Supreme Court, County of Onondaga on behalf of the plaintiff
and all other similarly situated individuals.  The plaintiff is
alleging violations of certain wage notice requirements under New
York law and is seeking wages, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees.  The matter has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York.

"On November 20, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss, which was
followed by motions filed by the plaintiff on December 29, 2014,
for class certification, and on December 31, 2014, for partial
summary judgment.  The parties agreed to mediate the case, and on
March 5, 2015, the court stayed all deadlines in the matter
pending the completion of mediation," the Company said.

"On August 5, 2015, the parties agreed to resolve the matter, but
the agreement requires court approval and will take several months
to finalize.  We believe that we have accrued an appropriate
amount based on the agreement in principle."


SALEM NURSING: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------
Louise Paschall, Gayla Jean Espiritu, Connie J. Frazier, Sheila
Rozier, Angela D. Lowery and Tina Marie Jones, and all others
similarly-situated v. Salem Nursing & Rehab Center of Augusta,
Inc., Altacare Corporation, Douglas Mittleider, John Doe Corporate
Defendants 1-10, and John Doe Individual Defendants 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-00167 (S.D. Ga., October 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Salem Nursing & Rehab Center of August, Inc. is the owner and
operator of a nursing home facility doing business as "Amara
Healthcare & Rehab", located in Augusta, Georgia. Altacare
Corporation is the parent company of Salem Nursing.

Douglas Mittleider is the president of Salem Nursing and the CEO,
CFO and Secretary of Altacare Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles C. Stebbins, Esq.
      WARLICK, STEBBINS, MURRAY & CHEW, LLP
      209 Seventh Street, Third Floor
      Augusta, GA 30901
      Tel: (706) 722-7543
      Fax: (706) 722-1822
      E-mail: cstebbins@wtsmlaw.com

          - and -

      Barry Middleton, Esq.
      TISDALE MIDDLETON LAW FIRM
      207 North Belair Road
      Evans, GA 30809
      Tel: (706) 869-1348
      Fax: (706) 869-9464
      E-mail: barry@tisdalelawfirm.com


SERETUS INC: Illinois Man Sues Over HPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
Romeoville man is in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois,
alleging a home loan servicing company is sticking him and other
troubled borrowers with unneeded mortgage insurance because the
company gets a cut of the premiums.

Patrick Ciolino filed suit Oct. 19 against Seterus Inc., formerly
known as IBM Lender Business Process Services, Inc., alleging
Seterus violated the U.S. Homeowners Protection Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and breached contract with him.
Ciolino is seeking class action status for his suit.

IBM Lender Business Process Services renamed itself Seterus in
July 2011. Seterus does business in Illinois and is incorporated
in Delaware, with its main office in Beaverton, Ore. The company
offers mortgage options to distressed borrowers.

Ciolino said he took out a $226,800 mortgage in 2007 with
Marquette Bank. One of the terms to which Ciolino agreed, was to
pay for private mortgage insurance until the principal balance
decreased to $201,600, which would represent 78 percent of his
home's appraised value. The 78 percent mark is set by the
Homeowners Protection Act.

However, Ciolino fell into default and inked a modification
agreement with Seterus on Feb. 19, 2011 that raised the principal
balance from $219,064 to $220, 091. As part of the modification,
Ciolino asserted the parties would adhere to the original loan
agreement that provided Ciolino's mortgage insurance would end
when his balance reached 78 percent of his home's value -- under
the new arrangement, that would have occurred on May 1, 2012,
presuming Ciolino kept up his loan payments.

Ciolino said he maintained his payments and reached the 78 percent
mark, but Seterus never notified him of his rights to automatic
termination and of the new termination date, as required by
federal law. Further, being Seterus refrained from ending the
insurance, Ciolino said Seterus was required to inform him of the
grounds underlying the decision not to terminate the insurance,
but Seterus allegedly did not do that either.

When Ciolino contacted Seterus to inquire about ending his
insurance, Seterus replied by letter in August 2015, telling him
he must wait until the "estimated midpoint" of his loan for
termination to occur or pay a $350 appraisal fee and apply for
termination. Ciolino pointed out termination was to be automatic
and he should not be required to "apply" for it.

As of September 2015, Ciolino said his balance was $180,683 -- a
level well below the balance needed for termination. In Ciolino's
view, Seterus should have ended his insurance requirement, because
both the law and his contract with Seterus demanded such action.

Ciolino said he has had to continue unnecessarily paying the
insurance to avoid default. Worsening the situation, Ciolino said
he is trying to refinance his loan through the federal Home
Affordable Refinance Program, but under the program's rules, if he
has insurance on his current loan, he must have insurance on the
refinanced loan, which will needlessly cost him money for several
more years.

Ciolino claimed Seterus' conduct showed a "reckless indifference"
to his rights.

Ciolino said he understands it is Seterus' "standard practice" to
improperly require insurance on all modified loans it services,
because the company has a "financial interest" in mortgage
insurance, as it allegedly receives a portion of premiums.

Ciolino seeks statutory, compensatory, punitive and actual
damages, as well as reimbursement for the costs of litigation.

Ciolino's suit against Seterus is the 15th suit filed in Chicago
federal court since September 2011 naming Seterus as a defendant.

The Chicago firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin is
representing Ciolino. In lodging the suit for Ciolino, the firm
filed notice it will claim a lien for one-third of any recovery
awarded in the case.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Kessler LLP Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against SFX
Entertainment, Inc.  (Nasdaq:SFXE) ("SFX" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between February
25, 2015 and August 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

SFX shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.  For additional
information about this lawsuit, or to request information about
this action online, please visit  http://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/sfx-entertainment-inc.

SFX is engaged in the production and promotion of live music
festivals and events, production of music tours, selling event
tickets through a ticketing platform, merchandising and related
services.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, SFX and
certain of its executive officers made a series of materially
false and misleading statements in connection with a proposed
acquisition of SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman ("Sillerman"), SFX's
Chief Executive Officer and largest shareholder.  For example, the
complaint alleges that although Sillerman repeatedly affirmed his
commitment to acquire SFX, he and other SFX executive officers
knew or recklessly disregarded, and failed to disclose to
shareholders, that Sillerman did not have the requisite financing
in place at the time he made his proposal to acquire SFX, and knew
or recklessly disregarded that Sillerman would not be able to
obtain the required financing to consummate the transaction.

The Complaint further alleges that, given the Company's growing
debt and decreasing margins, it was not feasible that Sillerman
was ever going to buy the Company.  Rather, Sillerman initiated
and maintained a sham process designed to lure third party buyout
offers for SFX, all in an attempt to shed his personal SFX
investment before the truth about the deterioration of the
Company's finances could no longer be concealed.

The effect of the false and misleading statements by SFX and its
executive officers during the Class Period was to fraudulently
inflate and maintain the market price of the Company's securities
at levels that would not otherwise have prevailed based on the
true financial performance and future prospects of the Company.
As the truth about Sillerman's intentions reached the market,
shares of SFX's common stock substantially declined in value.

SFX shareholders who purchased their securities during the Class
Period may, no later than November 10, 2015, petition the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class.

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

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

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
         Email: dcheck@ktmc.com
                skaskela@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Claimants' Motion for Clarification Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that Claimants' Motion
for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the
Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual
Intentional Discrimination Claims has been granted.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the
District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where
the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The
Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed
the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held
in late February 2014.

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The
arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants
filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for
Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI
filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on
March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015.

Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015.
Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of
Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on
March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015.
Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to
Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3,
2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's
reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4,
2015. The parties await a ruling.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015.
Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was
granted on June 15, 2015.


SIGNET JEWELERS: To Defend Against "Tapia" Wage Suit v. Zale
------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend against the case, Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in
three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale
Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23,
2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include
allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour
labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former
Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits
seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result
of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any
liability, the Company reached an agreement to settle the Hodge
and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of
the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was
implemented.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action
Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on June 3, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously
defend its position in this litigation. At this point, no outcome
or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation is able to be estimated.


ST. JUDE: Received $40MM Insurance Recoveries in March 2010 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24,
2015, that during the first quarter of 2015, the Company received
insurance recoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue
collection of the remaining insurance recovery related to the
March 2010 Securities Class Action Litigation.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit related to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009.

The complaint, which sought unspecified damages and other relief
as well as attorneys' fees, alleged that the defendants failed to
disclose that the Company was experiencing a slowdown in demand
for its products and was not receiving anticipated orders for
cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members alleged that the
defendant's failure to disclose information resulted in the class
purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially inflated
price.

In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to
dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action and the discovery phase of the case closed in
September 2013. In October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion
for leave to proceed with a motion to decertify the class, which
the Court denied in December 2014.

On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a written
settlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification to
class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement,
the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve all
of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during
the fourth quarter of 2014. The Company had estimated its damages
exposure on the claims alleged to be approximately $475 million. A
preliminary order approving the settlement was entered by the
District Court on March 9, 2015 with the final settlement order
and judgment closing the case entered on June 12, 2015.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance
recoveries of $40 million and continues to pursue collection of
the remaining insurance recovery, including interest and
attorneys' fees and costs.


ST. JUDE: Feb. 2017 Trial Set in Dec. 2012 Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24,
2015, that the so-called December 2012 Securities Litigation is
expected to be ready for trial in February 2017.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period.

On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011
and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims
and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012.

In September 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled
on the motion to dismiss, denying the motion in part and granting
the motion in part.

On October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the
plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of compensation in
the second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
January 15, 2015. The Company was to file a response by September
16, 2015, plaintiffs will file a reply by November 16, 2015, and a
hearing before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certification
will be scheduled at some point in the future. Fact discovery
closes December 18, 2015 and the case is expected to be ready for
trial in February 2017. The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this matter.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to any potential
damages in connection with the December 2012 Securities Litigation
because any potential loss is not probable or reasonably
estimable. Because, based on the Company's historical experience,
the amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate a loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from
these matters.


ST. JUDE: Four Suits Pending Related to Riata
---------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24,
2015, that as of July 31, 2015, the Company is aware of four
lawsuits, of more than 70 such suits filed as of December 17,
2014, which were filed by plaintiffs in the U.S. alleging injuries
caused by, and asserting product liability claims concerning,
Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads where the
claimant elected to not participate in the settlement program.
Three of the remaining lawsuits are pending in the state courts of
Illinois, Kentucky and South Carolina. In May 2015, a new lawsuit
was commenced in state court in Florida and was removed to and is
now pending in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.


ST. JUDE: Riata Case in Canada Still Pending
--------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24,
2015, that in November 2013, an amended claim was filed in a
Canadian proposed class proceeding alleging that Riata(R) leads
were prone to insulation abrasion and breach, failure to warn and
conspiracy. The plaintiffs took no action between their 2008
filing and the amended claim they filed in November 2013. The
Company has filed its statement of intent to defend in response to
the amended claims, and the plaintiffs have not taken any further
action.


ST. JUDE: Paid $13 Million to Riata Settlement Fund
---------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24,
2015, that the Company has made an initial payment of $13 million
to the settlement fund in the Riata(R) Litigation.

On December 17, 2014, the Company entered into an agreement that
establishes a private settlement program to resolve the actions,
disputes and claims-both filed and unfiled-of certain claimants
against St. Jude Medical, Inc. relating to its Riata(R) and
Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads. The agreement was
entered into with a group of counsel representing plaintiffs in
proceedings in jurisdictions around the country as well as
claimants with Riata leads who have not initiated litigation. St.
Jude Medical, Inc. accrued $15 million in the fourth quarter of
2014 to fund the settlement and related costs. The settlement was
expected to resolve approximately 950 of the outstanding, pending
cases and claims. The time period in which eligible claimants
could submit their documentation to participate in the settlement
has now closed with the final settlement comprising 886 claimants.
The Company made an initial payment of $13 million to the
settlement fund in May 2015. Additional contributions to the fund
are not expected to be material.

Although the majority of the claimants in the suits and claims
identified no specific injuries, some of the claimants alleged
bodily injuries as a result of surgical revision or removal and
replacement of Riata(R) leads, or other complications, which they
attribute to the leads. The majority of the claimants who sought
recovery for implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata(R)
leads sought compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and
declaratory judgments that the Company is liable to them for any
past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective
medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses. Several
claimants also sought punitive damages.


SUBWAY: Settles "Sandwich Sizes" False Advertising Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging
Subway's sandwiches were falsely advertised as being six and 12
inches long.

Judge Lynn Adelman for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin signed an 11-page order preliminarily
approving the settlement agreement and certifying the settlement
class earlier.

In their complaint, lead plaintiffs Nguyen Buren, John Farley,
Vincent Gotter, Barry Gross, Jason Leslie, Ayanna Nobles, Charles
Noah Pendrak, Andrew Roseman, Richard Springer and Zana Zeqiri
alleged that foot-long sandwiches sold at Subway restaurants were
marketed as being 12 inches in length, when, in fact, they were
not.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the chain's six-inch sandwiches
were not the advertised length.

According to their complaint, Subway's alleged business practices
violated state consumer protection statutes.

The class action stemmed from a social media post in 2012,
pointing out how the chain's foot-long sandwich came up short.

The class includes anyone who has purchased a six-inch or foot-
long sandwich from Subway between Jan. 1, 2003 and Oct. 2.

Doctor's Associates Inc., or DAI, the franchisor of Subway
Sandwich Shops, noted in a statement that the court, in its Oct. 2
order, did not make any findings that any of its marketing or
practices were improper or unlawful.

"In settlement, DAI has agreed to certain practice changes for the
benefit of all Subway customers and to pay attorney's fees and
class representative service awards," the company stated.

The court appointed the following firms as class counsel:
Zimmerman Law Offices PC; DeNittis Osefchen PC; Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman; Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC; Agruss
Law Firm LLC; Ademi & O'Reilly LLP; Evans Law Firm PA; Hirsch Law
Firm PA; Marks & Klein LLP.

Zimmerman and DeNittis were appointed lead class counsel,
according to Adelman's order.

According to the settlement website, class counsel will submit an
application to the court by Dec. 7 to award payments in an amount
not to exceed $1,000 for each of the lead plaintiffs. DAI has
agreed not to oppose any request up to this amount so long as the
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses and class representative service
award sought do not total more than $525,000.

No money is available to class members under the terms of the
settlement.

However, Subway agreed to require that franchisees use a tool for
measuring bread in each restaurant to help ensure that the bread
sold to customers is either six or 12 inches long.

It also agreed to require a regular compliance inspection of each
restaurant, generally to be conducted monthly.

"The sampling will include measuring at least 10 baked breads in
total, and breads using both the Italian and Nine-Grain Wheat
loaves will be included in the sample," according to the
settlement website.

The court must approve the settlement before it becomes final.
Currently, a settlement fairness hearing has been set for Jan. 15.
Dec. 16 is the deadline for filing objections to the deal.

Though it has settled, Subway vehemently denies it has "caused
damages to anyone."

"The settlement is not an admission of any wrongdoing by the
defendant, and the court did not decide in favor of plaintiffs or
defendant. Instead, both sides mutually agreed to settle the
claims," according to the settlement website.

"By settling, they both avoid the risks, delay, and costs of a
trial, and consumers get benefits. The class representatives and
the attorneys believe this settlement is the best option for
everyone in the class."


SUPER MICRO: Gewirtz & Grossman Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Norther District of California on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super
Micro Computer" or the "Company") (nasdaqgs:SMCI), during the
period between February 15, 2014 and August 31, 2015 inclusive.
(the "Class Period").

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/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company improperly recorded expenses in its financial reports;
and (ii) as a result, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

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

Following this news, shares of Super Micro Computer fell $2.58 or
9.43% to $24.77 per share on September 1, 2015.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Super Micro Computer you have until November 3,
2015 to 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
         BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN,LLC
         144 N Beverwyck Rd
         Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
         Tel: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com


TRADE STREET: Defending Class Action in Maryland
------------------------------------------------
Trade Street Residential, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment
No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 24, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that the Company and the director defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the claim in a class action lawsuit.

On June 11, 2015, a complaint was filed naming the Company and the
members of the Company's Board of Directors as defendants in the
Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City. On July 15, 2015,
plaintiffs amended their complaint and added Senator, Monarch
Alternative Capital, LP ("Monarch") and BHR Capital LLC ("BHR") as
defendants.  The amended complaint purports to assert class action
claims alleging that the members of the Company's Board breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company and the Company's minority
stockholders by approving the Merger for inadequate consideration,
that the process leading up to the Merger was flawed, and that
three directors of the Company, by virtue of their affiliations
with certain stockholders of the Company, engaged in an alleged
self-interested scheme to force the sale of the Company. The
amended complaint alleges that the stockholder defendants aided
and abetted these alleged violations and were unjustly enriched by
the merger.

Among other relief, the complaint seeks a finding that the
individual director defendants are liable for breaching their
fiduciary duties; an order requiring that the directors affiliated
with the stockholder defendants disgorge all profits, compensation
and other benefits obtained by them as a result of their conduct
in connection with the Merger; and an award of plaintiffs' costs
and disbursements of this action, including attorney's fees. The
amended complaint does not seek an injunction against the
shareholder vote or the closing of the transaction.  The deadline
for an answer or other responsive pleading by the defendants has
not yet passed.

The Company and the director defendants intend to vigorously
defend against the claim and believe the probability of an
unfavorable outcome as less than probable. However, the Company
cannot give any assurance as to the legal or financial outcome of
this defense.


TRI-TECH HOLDING: Class Action Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-Tech Holding Inc. on October 30, 2015, said a U.S. court has
granted final approval of the settlement and dismissal of a class
action lawsuit commenced on December 20, 2013, against the Company
and its Board of Directors.

Tri-tech said in a Form 6-K Report with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities between September 10, 2009 and December 12, 2013 (the
"Class Period"). The complaint alleged, among other things, that
the Company made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that it lacked adequate disclosure and internal controls
relating to control over its funds.

On March 17, 2015, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. On April
6, 2015, the lead plaintiffs in the suit and the Company executed
a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Settlement") subject to approval
of the Court. In the Settlement, the Company denied any
wrongdoing, fault, liability, or damages associated with the
claims alleged.

Following preliminary approval by the Court, on or about July 31,
2015 the Company paid $975,000 into an escrow account to create a
settlement fund for a class of all persons and entities who
purchased the Company's common stock between September 10, 2009
and December 12, 2013 (inclusive of any attorneys' fees and
expenses awarded to counsel for the plaintiffs). Excluded from the
Settlement class were (i) persons who suffered no compensable
losses; (ii) parties that opted out of the settlement; (iii) any
named defendants or any entity in which Defendants have a
controlling interest, and the officers, directors, affiliates,
legal representatives, immediate family members, heirs,
successors, subsidiaries and/or assigns of any such individual or
entity in their capacity as such.

Pursuant to the Court's preliminary approval order, notice was
provided to class members. No objections to the proposed
settlement were received. Two class members requested exclusion
from the class.

On October 16, 2015, the Court conducted a final settlement
hearing and granted final approval of the Settlement. The Court
issued orders dismissing the class action lawsuit and entering
final judgment. Accordingly, the claims of class members (other
than the two who excluded themselves from the Settlement) against
the Company and the individual defendants were released.

Tri-Tech Holding said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that as negotiated with the
Company's directors and officers liability insurance carrier, the
Company is to pay $610,000 of that sum and the insurance carrier
to pay $365,000. The final approval hearing was scheduled for
October 16, 2015.


TRUMP HOTEL: Hit With Data Breach Class Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Tim J. St. George, David M. Gettings, David N. Anthony, Ron
Raether and John C. Lynch, writing for Consumer Financial Services
Law Monitor, reported that a new putative class action lawsuit has
been filed against the hotel chain owned by Donald Trump in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, after the hotel chain revealed that it had been the
subject of a data breach.

The suit asserts claims under "state consumer protection laws" and
"state data breach notification statutes" of the states of the
affected class members, along with claims of negligence, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.

The suit claims that the Trump Hotel Collection failed to enact
appropriate computer safeguards to prevent the breach.  The
complaint alleges that "the root cause of the data breach was
defendants' failure to fix elementary deficiencies in their
security systems, abide by industry regulations and respond to
other similar data breaches directed at retailers.  Had defendants
acted competently, criminals would have been unable to access the
[personal identifying information]."

The lawsuit claims that the stolen data has since been used by
criminals, and it also accuses the organization of not disclosing
the breach in a timely manner after it was discovered.

Parent entity The Trump Organization previously disclosed that it
had found malicious software on payment card systems at two
locations in New York and others in Chicago, Miami, Las Vegas,
Waikiki, and Toronto.  Customers who used their credit cards
between May 19, 2014, and June 2, 2015, were potentially affected.

Has already seen several data breaches and related class action
lawsuits.  Troutman Sanders LLP has extensive experience in
defending data breach class action lawsuits nationwide.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the shareholder class actions involving Ubiquiti
Networks, Inc. remains pending, Ubiquiti said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015; and in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the
court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if any, that
it may experience in connection with this litigation.


ULTA SALON: Defending "Moore" Class Action in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. continues to defend the
employment class action lawsuit (Moore v. Ulta), the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2015.

On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit
(Moore v. Ulta) was filed against us and certain unnamed
defendants in state court in Los Angeles County, California. On
April 12, 2012, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. On August
8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the proposed
class, the Company opposed the plaintiff's request and is waiting
for the court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and members of
the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt
hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated various
provisions of California's labor laws and failed to provide
plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of employees. The
suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of these
alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and
is vigorously defending the matter.


ULTA SALON: Parties in "Galvez" Agreed to Private Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015,
that parties in Galvez v. Ulta have agreed to private mediation.

On December 4, 2013, a putative employment class action lawsuit
(Galvez v. Ulta) was filed against us in the Superior Court of
California, Santa Clara County and was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
January 8, 2014. It seeks class action certification for claims
involving payment of wages using an ATM card ("pay card" related
claims); as well as claims related to allegedly failing to provide
accurate and complete wage statements; allegedly failing to pay
all minimum and overtime wages; and allegedly failing to pay meal
and rest break premiums due to exit inspections of employees (exit
inspection related claims).

On August 29, 2014, the court stayed the exit inspection portion
of the litigation, thus the case is proceeding only with respect
to the pay card-related claims. The suit alleges that Ulta was
required by law to obtain employee consent to use pay cards for
purposes of supplemental and final pay and that pay statements
issued in conjunction with pay cards did not comply with
California's Labor Code. The suit seeks to recover damages and
penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The Company
denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending the
matter. The parties have agreed to private mediation, which was
set for September 2, 2015.


ULTA SALON: Defending "Paez" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015,
that on May 19, 2015, a putative employment class action lawsuit
(Paez v. Ulta) was filed against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, San Bernardino County, and was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 24,
2015. As with the Moore class action, it also alleges that Ulta
violated various provisions of California's labor laws and failed
to provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full
meal periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime
compensation and premium pay, all related to exit inspections of
employees. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a
result of these alleged practices. The Company denies plaintiff's
allegations and is vigorously defending the matter.


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Comments on Purported False Ad Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc., a leader of wireless, cashless payment and
M2M/IoT solutions for small-ticket, self-serve retailing
industries, commented on the purported class action securities
lawsuit, Messner v. USA Technologies, Inc., et al., which was
filed on October 1, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against USAT and its executive
officers. The purported class action was brought on behalf of
purchasers of USAT stock between September 29, 2014 and September
29, 2015. The complaint alleges that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements relating to, among
other things, the failure to identify a large number of
uncollectible small balance accounts. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and unspecified damages, including
attorney's fees and other costs.

Based on its review of the complaint, USAT believes that the
claims alleged in the complaint lack merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims. USAT does not believe that
it made materially false and misleading statements as alleged in
the complaint. USAT remains committed to maintaining its
leadership position in the small ticket, self-service retailing
industries that it serves. USAT recently announced the addition of
31,000 net new connections to its ePort connect service during the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015, resulting in 333,000
connections to its ePort connect service as of June 30, 2015, an
increase of twenty-five percent from June 30, 2014.

                  About USA Technologies

USA Technologies is a leader of wireless, cashless payment and M2M
telemetry flagship service platform, a PCI-compliant, end-to-end
suite of cashless payment and telemetry services specially
tailored to fit the needs of small ticket, self-service retailing
industries. USA Technologies also provides a broad line of
cashless acceptance technologies including its NFC- ready ePort G-
series, ePort Mobile [TM] for customers on the go, and
QuickConnect, an API Web service for developers. USA Technologies
has been granted 87 patents; and has agreements with Verizon,
Visa, Chase Paymentech and customers such as Compass and others.
Visit the website at www.usatech.com.

Investor Contacts:

         Blueshirt Group
         Michael Bishop
         Tel: +1 415-217-4968
         Email: mike@blueshirtgroup.com

            -- or --

Media Contacts:

         ANW Networks
         Alicia V. Nieva-Woodgate
         Tel: +1 415-515-0866
         Email: alicia@anwnetworks.com

            -- and --

         Emily F. Porro
         Tel: +1 347-960-3603
         Email: emily@anwnetworks.com


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased USA
Technologies Inc. ("USA Technologies" or the "Company") USAT,
+0.00% between September 29, 2014 to September 29, 2015, both
dates inclusive, concerning the Company's and its officers'
possible violations of federal securities laws in connection with
the Company's recent disclosure that it lacked adequate controls
over financial reporting. USA Technologies investors are
encouraged to contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. to discuss their legal
claims for losses incurred as a result of USA Technologies'
alleged wrongdoing.

On September 29, 2015, after the market closed, the Company
disclosed that it was delaying its annual 10-K financial filing
because "management identified deficiencies in both the design and
operating effectiveness of the Company's internal control over
financial reporting, which when aggregated represent a material
weakness in internal control."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.23, or over 8%, to close
at $2.49 on September 30, 2015, thereby damaging investors.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that : (i) there were significant deficiencies in both the design
and operating effectiveness of the company's internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) the deficiencies, when aggregated,
represented a material weakness in internal control; (iii) as a
result of these deficiencies, the Company's procedures failed to
identify a large number of uncollectible small balance accounts;
and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, USA Technologies' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased shares of USA Technologies during the Class
Period you may move the Court no later than November 30, 2015 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain
legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, PA 19020
         Tel: (215) 638-4847
         Fax: (215) 638-4867
         Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


USAA AUTO: U.S. Bank Defendant in BlackRock Case
------------------------------------------------
USAA Auto Owner Trust 2014-1 said in its Form 10-D Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 20, 2015,
that U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect
to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being: BlackRock
Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National
Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action
alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts).

Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily
investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National
Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor
trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts. The plaintiffs or plaintiff
groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other
RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of
New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank
allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of
alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and
servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based
upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase
obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of
representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The
complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify
securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by
breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and
that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened
standard of care following alleged events of default.

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect
to multiple trusts as described above with the most substantial
case being: BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S.
Bank National Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class
action alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts)
and its companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S
Bank National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the
trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well
as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate
groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.
There can be no assurance as to the outcome of any of the
litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the
trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability
and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS
trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of
losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it
intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("Valeant" or the "Company")
(NYSE: VRX) who purchased shares between February 28, 2014, and
October 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period") and have been
damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price.
Valeant investors have until December 21, 2015 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

On October 14, 2015, in connection with concerns over the
Company's practice of buying drugs and dramatically increasing
prices, the Company reported that it was subpoenaed by U.S.
prosecutors seeking information on its pricing decisions, drug
distribution and patient assistance programs. The Company also
reported that it had responded to a letter from U.S. Democratic
Senator Claire McCaskill concerning Valeant's heart drugs
Nitropress and Isuprel.

On October 21, 2015, the Company was the subject of an analyst
report published by Citron Research that alleges that Valeant is
using pharmacies related to Philidor to store inventory and record
the transactions as sales. The Citron Research report further
alleges that it appears "that Valeant/Philidor have created an
entire network of phantom captive pharmacies" to create fake sales
of drugs or to avoid scrutiny from auditors. Following this news,
shares of Valeant fell $28.13, or almost 20%, to close at $118.61
per share on October 21, 2015.

On October 26, 2015, Valeant announced that it was appointing a
committee to review the Company's relationship with Philidor. The
Company also indicated that it intended to continue with its
previously announced plan to focus on developing new drugs rather
than acquiring older ones and raising their prices. On this news,
Valeant shares fell by as much as $9.56, or more than 8%, during
intra-day trading on October 26, 2015.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Valeant had deficient internal controls, (2) Valeant had a
relationship with a network of specialty pharmacies used to boost
Valeant's sales of its high-priced drugs, (3) the use of specialty
pharmacies left Valeant vulnerable to increased regulatory risks,
(4) Defendants were under government scrutiny for its financial
assistance programs for patients, pricing decisions and the
distribution of its products, (5) Valeant faced the risk of
scrutiny over its price increases, (6) without using specialty
pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance would be negatively
impacted, (7) without using specialty pharmacies, Valeant's Class
Period performance would have been negatively impacted, (8)
Valeant's true relationship with Philidor and the extent of that
relationship, (9) Valeant controlled Philidor, (10) Valeant's
subsidiary KGA had a secured lien interest on Philidor's
ownership, (11) Defendants were engaged in a scheme to manipulate
Valeant's stock price, and (12) as a result, Valeant's public
statements were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased Valeant securities during the Class Period, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Casey Sadler, Esq.
         GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone: (310) 201-9150
         Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
         Fax: (310) 432-1495
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                csadler@glancylaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Susman Godfrey Expands Class Suit to 18 States
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Brown, writing for The Manufacturer, reported that the states
included in the Volkswagen class action so far are: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois,
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New
York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Originally filed on September 24 in California, the suit claims
Volkswagen secretly used software designed to cheat emissions
tests and falsely advertised its vehicles as environmentally
friendly.

Due to those actions, consumers were allegedly deceived into
purchasing what they believed were eco-conscious "CleanDiesel"
vehicles that actually emit up to 40 times the legal limit of
nitrogen oxide.

"We are pleased to expand this lawsuit, as we know hundreds of
thousands of people across the country have been affected by
Volkswagen's deceptive actions," said Steven Sklaver, a Susman
Godfrey attorney on the Volkswagen case. "We look forward to
helping compensate these consumers for their losses."

Buyers of the 2009 to 2015 Jetta and Jetta SportWagen models, 2010
to 2015 Audi A3 and Golf models, 2012 to 2015 Beetle, Beetle
Convertible and Passat models, and the 2015 Golf SportWagen model
are alleged to have paid a significant premium for so-called
"CleanDiesel" vehicles. It now appears these consumers actually
received vehicles that cannot even pass state and federal
emissions standards and are being encouraged to join the VW class
action.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Sacks" Suit Alleges Fraud/Fraudulent Concealment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sacks, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02327 (S.D. Calif., October 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud/fraudulent
concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
violations of California False Advertising Law, violations of the
Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of
Express Warranty, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants installed a software
program in all Clean Diesel cars that detected when the cars were
undergoing emissions testing. When the software detected emissions
testing, it turned on full emissions control during the test.

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

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in
Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Zifkin, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 752-2400
      Fax: (310) 752-2490
      E-mail: dzifkin@bsfllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Weiss" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Concealment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Weiss, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08126 (S.D. Calif., October 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud/fraudulent
concealment, violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
violations of California False Advertising Law, violations of the
Song-Beverly Warranty Act, Breach of Implied Warranty, Breach of
Express Warranty, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants utilized a sophisticated
software program to deceive purchasers, as well as the
Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators, about the
true nature of the emissions from these Clean Diesel cars.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Zifkin, Esq.
      BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
      401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 850
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 752-2400
      Fax: (310) 752-2490
      E-mail: dzifkin@bsfllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wallace" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Wallace, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01808 (N.D. Ala., October 15, 2015), seeks damages
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, false advertising and consumer
fraud.

Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171.

Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as
Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place
of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the
parent corporation of Volkswagen USA.

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

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH ("Bosch") is a German multinational
engineering and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart
Germany. At all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the
present, Bosch supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Tel: (256) 532-2222
      Fax: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: Artrip@mastandoartrip.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Wood" Suit Alleges RICO Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Crystal Wood, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Robert Bosch GmbH, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01800 (N.D. Ala., October 15, 2015), seeks damages
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, fraud by concealment and breach of
contract and express warranty.

The lawsuit concerns the intentional installation of so-called
"defeat devices" on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
vehicles sold in the United States since 2009. As of October 8,
2015, Volkswagen representatives conceded that the emissions fraud
affected as many as 11 million Volkswagen vehicles worldwide,
including at least 480,000 vehicles sold in the United States.

Defendant Volkswagen USA is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20171.

Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, doing business as
Volkswagen Group and/or Volkswagen AG, is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Germany, with its principal place
of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is the
parent corporation of Volkswagen USA.

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

Defendant Robert Bosch GmbH ("Bosch") is a German multinational
engineering and electronics company, headquartered in Stuttgart
Germany. At all times from at least January 1, 2007 through the
present, Bosch supplied the defeat device to Volkswagen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George N. Davies, Esq.
      QUINN CONNOR WEAVER
      DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
      2-20th Street North, Ste 930
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      E-mail: gdavies@qcwdr.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Casteen" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ellis Casteen, Hans Schult, Sheila Schult, and all others
similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-13660 (E.D. Mich., October 16,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged fraud by
concealment and breach of contract.

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

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in
Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Amy L. Marino, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: amarino@sommerspc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Clarke" Suit Alleges Breach of Warranty
----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Clarke, Mark Gjonbalaj, John McLaughlin, Kelly
Mulliganmahoney, Sharon Ransavage, David Rien, David Sibley, Mark
Houle, Kurt Mallory, Joan Dudley, Marybeth Winkler, Catherine
Roberts, Joseph Collesano, Simon Beaven, Steve Mortillaro, Ryan
Geier, Daniel Sullivan, Barry Glustoff, Thomas Ayala, James
Bergmann, Matthew Mikulsky, Richard Grogan, Chad Dial, Lori
Edwards, Tamara Lyman, Eric White, William Preininger, Daniel
Ohlstein, Dorie Mallory, Wendy Goldner, Brian Bialecki, Dawn
Boulware, Angela Wagner, Charles Robbins, Thomas Buchberger, Carla
Berg, Kyle Tisdel, Craig Lybarger, Britney Schnathorst, Jonathon
Rodgers, Donald Allen, Luis Moreno, Charles Nicolosi, Alfred
Golden, Jack Sandelman, Linda Hunt, Daphne Marcyan, Paul Harris,
Heather Lemelle, Harry Walsh, Andrea Franz, Warren Coffin, Cesar
Olmos, Thomas Lasko, John Gamble, Leslie Maclise-Kane, Jason Hill,
Aaron Joy, Robert Miller, Ramon San Nicolas, and all others
similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07549 (D.N.J., October 16, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Clean Air
Act and state regulations and breach of express and implied
warranties, defrauded its customers, and engaged in unfair
competition under state and federal law.

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

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in
Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street, 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 584-0700
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com


ZAFGEN INC: December 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or
the "Company") common stock during the period between January 12,
2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who wish to become proactively involved in the
litigation have until December 21, 2015 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Zafgen common stock
purchased on or after January 12, 2015 and held through the
revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the
Class Period, as described below, and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our
website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.
You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.  Members of the Class will be represented by the lead
plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company common stock during the Class Period.
Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that there were more
thrombotic adverse events related to beloranib during clinical
studies than had been disclosed at the beginning of the Class
Period.

According to the complaint, following rumors that a patient had
died in an ongoing Phase 3 clinical trial of beloranib, following
the Food and Drug Administration informing the Company on October
15, 2015 that beloranib has been placed on partial clinical hold,
and following the Company's October 16, 2015 disclosure that the
patient who died was receiving beloranib, that there had been four
thrombotic adverse events in prior clinical studies of beloranib
(two more than previously reported) as well as two additional,
previously undisclosed thrombotic events in ongoing studies, for a
total of six thrombotic events out of 400 patients receiving
beloranib compared to zero thrombotic events in the approximately
150 patients treated with a placebo, the value of Zafgen shares
declined substantially.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.

         Charles J. Piven, Esq.
         BROWER PIVEN
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, MD 21153
         Tel: 410.332.0030
         Fax: 410.685.1300
         Email: piven@browerpiven.com


ZAFGEN INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Zafgen, Inc. (NASDAQ:ZFGN) securities from January 12, 2015
through October 16, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Zafgen
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Zafgen class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-752.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Zafgen made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) one
participant in the beloranib Phase 3 study, who had died, was
receiving beloranib and not a placebo; (2) while Zafgen had
reported 2 thrombotic events in prior clinical studies, there had
actually been 4 such events, as well as 2 additional thrombotic
events in other ongoing studies; and (3) consequently, Defendants'
statements about Zafgen's business, operations and prospects were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-752.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrose@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


* CFPB Takes Aim at Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------
Joseph L. Olson, Marie G. Bahoora and Benjamin A. Kaplan, writing
for The National Law Review, reported that the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau has announced that it is considering rulemaking
that would prohibit class action waivers in arbitration
agreements.

Background

Arbitration agreements frequently govern the resolution of
consumers' disputes with providers of consumer financial products
and services. The CFPB studied these agreements and submitted a
report to Congress. The CFPB's Final Report, released on March 10,
2015, concluded that consumers are better served by litigation --
particularly class action litigation -- than by arbitration
agreements in disputes regarding consumer financial contracts.

The CFPB is authorized under the Dodd-Frank Act to prohibit or
impose conditions on the use of arbitration clauses by regulation
in accordance with these findings if doing so would protect
consumers and serve the public interest.

Proposals Currently Under Consideration by The CFPB

On October 7, 2015, the CFPB announced that it is considering
rulemaking to implement a possible ban on class action waivers in
arbitration agreements in consumer financial services contracts.
The CFPB published an outline of its proposal and is currently
gathering feedback from a panel of small industry stakeholders.

The proposed rule would prohibit contracts in which consumers
forfeit their right to join a class action. For companies still
willing to offer individual arbitration, the agreements would have
to explicitly state that they do not apply to class actions.

Further, the proposed rule would require that companies choosing
to use individual arbitration clauses submit arbitration claims
and awards to the CFPB in an effort to increase transparency and
deter what it may deem as "unfair" arbitrations. Additionally, the
CFPB is considering publishing those claims and awards on its
website, making them available to the public.

Impact of the Proposed Changes

The proposed changes would affect most consumer financial products
and services that the CFPB oversees, including but not limited to
credit cards, prepaid cards, checking and deposit accounts, money
transfer services, certain auto loans, private student loans,
small-dollar or payday lenders and installment loans.

Any proposed changes likely will not take effect until late 2016
or early 2017, and compliance with any new rules will not be
required until 180 days post-issuance. In the interim, companies
that do not currently use arbitration agreements in their
financial services contracts should consider adding them, since
agreements entered into before the new rules become effective will
survive enactment of the new rules. In addition, financial service
companies that employ arbitration provisions in their customer
agreements should consider participating in the rulemaking process
and making their views part of the administrative record.



                            *********

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  * * *