CAR_Public/151111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 225


                            Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS.COM FREE: Parties in "Frank" Engaged in Discovery
509 E. 83RD: Faces "Winograd" Suit Over Maintenance Charges
9136-4802 QUEBEC: Recalls Hot Salami Product
ADVANCED SOLIDS: "Westbrook" Suit Removed to New Mexico Dist. Ct.
AGRILEUM LLC: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

ASSOCIATED HEALTH: Recalls Vascular Access & Surgical Airway Kits
AURORA IMPORTING: Recalls Wildflower Honey Products
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Merger Class Suits Consolidated
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Over Emulex Deal Dismissed
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Counsel, Plaintiff Named in Cal. Case

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Case Over PLX Acquisition Ongoing
BARNES & NOBLE: Class Cert. Hearing Held in "Nguyen"
BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Case Stayed Pending Appeal

BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Case Remanded to State Court
BED HANDLES: Recalls Products Lacking Safety Retention Straps
BEST BUY: Oral Argument Expected To Be Scheduled Later In 2015
BEST BUY: Continues to Litigate CRT Antitrust Litigation
BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Crash Risk

BRAIFORM ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Discriminatory Practices
BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Starbrights Dragon Stuffed Animal
CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Booster Seats Due to Noncompliance
CANTON LONG: "Ellison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CAPSTONE GENERAL: Faces "Dipilato" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CASEY'S GENERAL: Hearing This Month on Atty Fees in Hot Fuel Case
CASEY'S GENERAL: Mediation Scheduled in Missouri FCRA Case
CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case Under Appeal
CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Day" Case Under Appeal
CHI NAIL: Faces "Lau" Suit in California Over Age Discrimination

CONN'S INC: Remaining Defendants Seek Securities Case Dismissal
COOPER COMPANIES: 50+ Actions Filed by Contact Lens Consumers
COUCHE-TARD INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Milk
CROSSHILL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY: Sued Over False Employment Information

DELAWARE NORTH: "Santiago" Suit Removed to S.D. California Ct.
DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Age and Disability Discrimination
DOWNTOWN DELIVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "McIntyre" Suit in N.Y. Over Fantasy Sports
DUNES MOTEL: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination

ECS INVESTMENT: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EIHAB HUMAN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
EMC CORPORATION: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Proposed Dell Merger
EMERGENT CAPITAL: "Rothenberg" Shareholder Lawsuit Dismissed
ENVIVIO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Class Action Settlement

FERRING INC: Recalls Bravelle Sterile Pour Injections
FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal From Case Dismissal Order Pending
FISH HOUSE: "Yohandry" Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct.
FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
FTI CONSULTING: "Parets" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

GENEREL MOTORS: Recalls Pontiac Vibe 2009 & 2010 Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
GLOBE SPECIALTY: MOU Reached in Stockholders Litigation
GREEN FLEET: Faces "Pineda-Amaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

H&R BLOCK: Appeal Related to "Lopez" Case Pending
H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Case Still Pending in W.D. Missouri
H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Remains Stayed
HARRIS DAVIS: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Termination Policies
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Matter

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in "Salva" Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Consultant Opt-Ins Dismissed from FLSA Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Oral Argument Yet in Concrete Workers Appeal
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Nov. 13 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Litigation
HONDA: Recalls Fit 2015 and 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
HUM HOSPITALITY: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
J. C. PENNEY: Continues to Defend Johnson and Marcus Lawsuits
J. C. PENNEY: Texas Court Trims "Rodriguez" ERISA Lawsuit

J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Motion for Class Certification
J. C. PENNEY: Defending Pricing Class Action Litigation
KKHG SVI: Faces "Singletary" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
LAWRENCE, MA: Sued Over Employment Discriminatory Practices
LESLIE'S POOLMART: "Plizga" Suit Removed to E.D. California

LES PRODUITS: Recalls Sprouted Trail Products Due to Salmonella
LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Suit Filed in Delaware Chancery Court
LINKGLOBAL FOOD: Recalls Coconut Juice Products Due to Milk
LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control Systems
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action

MATERNE CANADA: Recalls Apple Grape & Apple Pear Pouch Products
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls GLE Coupe 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Airbags
MOBILTECH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Caramel Macchiato Due to Milk
N-E-WHERE TRANSPORT: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims

NEW JERSEY TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
OCEAN POWER: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought
OMNI INSURANCE: "Colter" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Has Final Court Approval
OOMA INC: Hernandez, Salina, Ramirez and Rufus Filed Class Action

PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 24 Hearing on Class Certification Motion
PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Class Action Reached Settlement
QUORUM HEALTH: Community Health Systems Defend Class Action
REGENCY SHARK: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

REMEDY TEMPORARY: Faces "Whitmore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Coupons May Be Combined with Other Promos
RKJD INVESTMENT: Faces "Yat" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
RYLAND GROUP: Faces "Hancock" Action Over Standard Pacific Merger
SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls N Latex B2-Microglobulin Products

SLEEPY'S LLC: "Gundell" Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
SPLASH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys
SUNMART INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coconut Cream Powder Due to Milk
SUPERMAN TRADING: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys
SWISHER HYGIENE: Facing Class Action Over Sale to Ecolab

THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk
THOR MOTOR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
TRANS-EXEC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Parets Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

VALBELLA GOURMET: Recalls Meat Products Due to Milk
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Opposed Motion for Award of Counsel Fees
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: To Seek Dismissal of New Class Action
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Taken Under Submission

VERMEER: Recalls BC1000XL 2008 Model Due to Crash Risk
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Wishbone Bike Recycled Edition

* CFIA Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm brand Coconut Drink


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM FREE: Parties in "Frank" Engaged in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM FREE, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended June 28 2, 2015, that the parties in the
case, In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. (Frank v.Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc., et al), are engaged in discovery.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On
December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court
entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its
entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012,
purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those
originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently
refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014
plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against
them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those
claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint on May 12, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motions and the parties are now engaged
in discovery.


509 E. 83RD: Faces "Winograd" Suit Over Maintenance Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Victor E. Winograd, Robin K. Winograd, and John W. Kaiser v. 509
E. 83rd St. Corp., Case No. 160118/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct., October
2, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
failure to adjust the maintenance charges after proper application
was made.

509 E. 83rd St. Corp. operates a residential housing cooperative
located at 509 East 83rd Street, New York, New York 10028.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Gordon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. GORDON
      21 Swan Street
      Palisades, NY 10964
      Telephone: (718) 267-9513


9136-4802 QUEBEC: Recalls Hot Salami Product
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: 9136-4802 Quebec Inc. (Delices Al-Manar)
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10104

  Brand    Common name    Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------    ----    product       ---
  -----                           ----------
  Imane    Hot Salami     450 g   22 FE 16      6 81408 00011 5


ADVANCED SOLIDS: "Westbrook" Suit Removed to New Mexico Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Zach Westbrook, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Advanced Solids Control,
LLC, Case No. 15cv868, was removed from the Fifth Judicial
District Court to the U.S. District Court District of New Mexico.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00905-LAM-GBW
to the proceeding.

Advanced Solids Control LLC is an oilfield service company
specializing in solids control for land-based oil and gas drilling
operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth Harmonson, Esq.
      HARMONSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      7170 Westwind Drive, Suite 201
      El Paso, TX 79912
      Telephone: (915) 329-2892
      Facsimile: (915) 247-2027
      E-mail: clark.harmonson@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Wayne G. Chew, Esq.
      CHEW LAW OFFICES
      PO Box X
      Albuquerque, NM 87103
      Telephone: (505) 842-6363
      Facsimile: (505) 842-8607
      E-mail: wgchew@wgchewlaw.com


AGRILEUM LLC: "Wilson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Brandon Wilson v. Agrileum, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02702-
JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Agrileum, LLC is a multi-feedstock biodiesel producer and service
provider located in Memphis, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William A. Wooten, Esq.
      WOOTEN LAW OFFICE
      120 Court Square East
      Covington, TN 38019
      Telephone: (901) 475-1050
      Facsimile: (901) 475-0032
      E-mail: wawooten@gmail.com

         - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Telephone: (901) 754-8001
      Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
      E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
              jholt@jsyc.com


ASSOCIATED HEALTH: Recalls Vascular Access & Surgical Airway Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55776

A discrepancy has been found between the expiry dates on the
package contents and the package outer labels.  The kits may
contain individually packaged components that have expiration
dates that occur before the expiration date on the outer wrap.
Inventories need to be checked on this.

Affected products:
A. CTOMS T.V.A.K (tactical Vascular Access Kit)
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 32018

Manufacturer: Associated Health Systems Inc.
              #6-8145 130th Street
              Surrey
              V3W 7X4
              British Columbia
              CANADA

B. CTOMS SAS (Surgical Airway Sets) Military
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 40307

Manufacturer: Associated Health Systems Inc.
              #6-8145 130th Street
              Surrey
              V3W 7X4
              British Columbia
              CANADA

C. CTOMS SAS (Surgical Airway Sets) EMS
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: 40306

Manufacturer: Associated Health Systems Inc.
              #6-8145 130th Street
              Surrey
              V3W 7X4
              British Columbia
              CANADA


AURORA IMPORTING: Recalls Wildflower Honey Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Aurora Importing & Distributing Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10125

  Brand     Common      Size    Code(s) on product    UPC
  name      name        ----    ------------------    ---
  -----     ------
  Aurora    Wildflower  1 kg    Lots 15104 and 15072  0 61659-
            Honey                                     01922 5


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Merger Class Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange, issued an order
coordinating and consolidating several state court actions and
designating Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al. as the lead case. Avago
and Broadcom believe these claims are all entirely without merit
and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

Avago said, "Since the announcement of our pending acquisition of
Broadcom, eleven putative class action complaints have been filed
by and purportedly on behalf of alleged Broadcom shareholders. Two
putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, captioned:
Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed
on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15, 2015. One putative class
action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Jew v. Broadcom
Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353, filed June 2, 2015. Eight
putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed
June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J. Building Laborers
Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom Corp., et
al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu,
et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791762-CU-BT-
CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case
No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 15, 2015; Seafarers'
Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00794492-CU-SL-
CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v. Broadcom Corp., et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed on July 2, 2015
(together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the "State
Actions")."

The complaints name as defendants, among other parties, Broadcom,
members of Broadcom's Board of Directors and Avago, and they
allege breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting of
those alleged breaches. Additionally, Yassian, et al. v. McGregor,
et al., which, is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, alleges violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 14-a9. The complaints seek, among other things, injunctive
relief to prevent the Broadcom Transaction from closing.

On June 22, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange dismissed the Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp. et
al., complaint at plaintiffs' request. On August 14, 2015, the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange,
issued an order coordinating and consolidating the State Actions
and designating Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al. as the lead case.
Avago and Broadcom believe these claims are all entirely without
merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Suits Over Emulex Deal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware Court
of Chancery has dismissed the consolidated action relating to the
acquisition of Emulex.

On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago
Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless,
and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows:
James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL
(Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11,
2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other
things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25,
2015, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the
Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints
seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware
Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three
Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-VCL.

On June 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated
action without prejudice.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Counsel, Plaintiff Named in Cal. Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California has granted
plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved
a lead counsel for the putative class.

On April 8, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al.,
No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The complaint names as defendants Emulex,
its directors, AT Wireless and Merger Sub, and purports to assert
claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors of Emulex failed
to provide material information and/or omitted material
information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on
Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex,
together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The complaint
seeks to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain
other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2015, the Court issued an order granting plaintiff's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approving lead
counsel for the putative class.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Case Over PLX Acquisition Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Delaware class
litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX is on-going.

In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clara
challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the court
consolidated these California actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-267079
(Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel. That
same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action, pending
resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014.

On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition
subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.
Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's 14D-9 recommendation statement
contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The
complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 3, 2015, the Court granted motions to dismiss filed
by Avago Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc., the
acquisition subsidiary and two PLX directors, and denied motions
to dismiss filed by a several PLX directors, Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P. and Deutsche Bank Securities.

The Delaware class litigation is on-going.


BARNES & NOBLE: Class Cert. Hearing Held in "Nguyen"
----------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in the case, Kevin
Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., a hearing on the
motion for class certification was scheduled on November 6, 2015.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California against the Company. The complaint is
styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California
state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for
HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August
2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and
false advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response
to the complaint on May 18, 2012, removing the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California, and
moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual
basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25,
2012. The Company also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to
transfer the action to New York. The court denied the Company's
motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the
Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action had
been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the
court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration.

On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel
arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23,
2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. The Company
then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and motion to
transfer the action to New York.

On February 17, 2015, the court denied the Company's motion to
transfer. On June 16, 2015 the court granted-in-part the Company's
motion to dismiss to the extent certain California unfair business
practices and false advertising claims sought restitution or
injunctive relief and denied-in-part the Company's motion to
dismiss as to the remaining claims. The surviving claims are for
breach of contract under New York law, violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and violation of two New York
consumer protection statutes. The parties currently are engaging
in discovery.

On July 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification; the Company's opposition was due on September 17,
2015 and a hearing on the motion was scheduled on November 6,
2015. All dates for the case have been scheduled, including a
trial date of May 3, 2016.


BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company's second
motion to dismiss in the PIN Pad Litigation is pending.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the case, Lina v.
Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al.,
has been stayed pending appeal.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at
Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to
present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay
for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.
The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011.

On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over
individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class
representative, or that a class action was a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on August 29, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed
all proceedings pending appeal.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Case Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the case, Jones et al
v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et
al., has been stayed pending appeal.

On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private
Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the
State of California making the following allegations with respect
to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in
California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to
pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time
penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of
the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees. On
May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action is
pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action and
assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served with
the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013. On
November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending appeal
in the related Lina action.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Case Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the case, Cassandra
Carag individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, remanded to state court.

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to
recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes
& Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to
present. On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the
state court and concurrently requested removal of the action to
federal court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied
Plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the Answer to the
Complaint (referring the latter motion to the lower court for
future consideration).


BED HANDLES: Recalls Products Lacking Safety Retention Straps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Posting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55502

Portable bed handles that lack safety retention straps. Recalled
models include the Original Bedside Assistant(R) (BA10W), the
Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) which is sold as a set of two bed
handles, and the Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1) sold
between January 1994 and December 2007.

Product description

This recall involves the Original Bedside Assistant(R) (BA10W),
the Travel Handles(TM) (BA11W) which is sold as a set of two bed
handles, and the Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1).

The L-shaped bed handles are made out of 1.9 centimetres (3/4-
inch) tubular steel, measure 50.8 centimetres (20 inches) wide,
40.64 to 50.8 centimetres (16 to 20 inches) tall and have 91.44
centimetres (3 feet) poles that extend under the mattress. The
Original Bedside Assistant(R) (BA10W) and the Travel Handles(TM)
(BA11W) have a white handle with white poles that go under the
mattress. The Adjustable Bedside Assistant(R) (AJ1) is gold in
color and has a black cushioned foam handle. The bed handles are
intended to assist adults with getting in and out of bed by giving
them a bar to grip. Bed Handles Inc. and the model number are
printed on a white label on the bed handles.

When attached to an adult's bed without the use of safety
retention straps, the handle can shift out of place, creating a
dangerous gap between the bed handle and the side of the mattress.
This poses a serious risk of entrapment, strangulation and death.

Neither Bed Handles Inc. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products in Canada.  There have been 4 deaths reported in
the United States.

Approximately 2000 bed handles were sold in Canada by home health
care stores, drug stores, medical equipment stores and in home and
health care catalogs.

Bed handles were sold from January 1994 through December 2007.

Manufactured in United States.

Manufacturer: Bed Handles, Inc.
              Blue Springs
              Missouri
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using all recalled bed handles
that were sold without safety retention straps. To request free
safety retention straps to secure the bed handle to the bed frame,
new assembly instructions for models BA10W, BA11W and AJ1 and a
warning label to attach to the bed handles, consumers can contact
Bed Handles Inc. online or by telephone at 1-800-725-6903 from
8:30 am to 4:30 pm CT Monday through Friday.

The bed handles should be used only with the safety retention
straps securely in place attaching the bed handle to the bed frame
in order to prevent a gap.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kOnY17


BEST BUY: Oral Argument Expected To Be Scheduled Later In 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that oral argument is
expected to be scheduled later in 2015 in a securities class
action appeal.

The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action
lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public. Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class
action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us
and certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July
2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and
Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and
served."

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice," the Company said.

"In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend
the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October 2012,
the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the court's
decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November
2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A
hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court
issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and,
contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in
part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been
made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not
subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Plaintiffs moved to certify the
purported class.

"By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of
persons or entities who acquired Best Buy common stock between
10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and
who were damaged by the alleged violations of law. The 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals granted our request for interlocutory appeal.
Briefing is complete. Oral argument is expected to be scheduled
later in 2015. The trial court has stayed proceedings while the
appeal is pending. We continue to believe that these allegations
are without merit and intend to vigorously defend our company in
this matter."


BEST BUY: Continues to Litigate CRT Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company will
continue to litigate the so-called Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust
Litigation.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit
captioned In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. We allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing
in violation of antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray
tubes for the time period between March 1, 1995 through November
25, 2007. No trial date has been set."

"In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds
net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $8 million and
$75 million in the second quarter and the first six months of
fiscal 2016, respectively. We will continue to litigate against
the remaining defendants and expect further settlement discussions
as this matter proceeds; however, it is uncertain whether we will
recover additional settlement sums or a favorable verdict at
trial."


BLUE BIRD: Recalls Vision School Bus Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015498TC
ID number: 2015498
Manufacturer recall number: R15YH-C

On certain school buses, the windshield wiper motor harness
electrical connector may have been assembled incorrectly during
manufacturing. The wiring in the terminal slides were not all
fully seated into the connector, which may result in the
windshield wipers becoming inoperative, which could limit the
driver's visibility under certain operating conditions and
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the windshield wiper
motor connector and repair as necessary.

  Make        Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----                ----------------------
  BLUE BIRD   VISION SCHOOL BUS    2016, 2017


BRAIFORM ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Discriminatory Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Nadia Georges v. Braiform Enterprises, Inc., Graeme Rutherford and
Ben Hunt, Case No. 15-cv-8030 (S.D.N.Y., October 6, 2015) is an
action for damages to remedy and redress the violation and
deprivation of rights secured to the Plaintiff by the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Executive
Law.

Braiform Enterprises, Inc. is in the business of supplying garment
hangers, packaging solutions and hanger re-use programs to the
retailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadia Georges
      PRO SE
      2 Monisa Kay Drive
      Plymouth, MA 02360
      Telephone: (508) 299-7573


BUILD-A-BEAR: Recalls Starbrights Dragon Stuffed Animal
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Posting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55460

Starbrights Dragon is covered in a blue furry fabric with silver
satin tummy, feet pads, wings and horns. The horns light up and
the toy makes a musical sound when the hand is squeezed. The
stuffed animal is 43 centimetres (17 inches) in length.

Products with tracking labels 1059337 or 1059459 in Canada, and
products with tracking labels 1059333 or 1059334 in the United
States are affected.  These numbers can be found on the label sewn
on the backside of the leg.

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

Neither Health Canada nor Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of this toy.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 990 units of the recalled toys were sold in Canada
and approximately 20,500 units in the United States.

The recalled toys were sold at Build-A-Bear Workshops and sold
online at www.buildabear.com between April 24, 2015 and August 19,
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Yangzhou Ever Toys, Co., Ltd.
              Yangzhou City
              Jiangsu Province
              CHINA

Distributor: Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc.
             St. Louis
             Missouri

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

For more information, consumers may contact Build-A-Bear toll free
at 1-866-236-5683 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. CST Monday
through Friday, on Saturday between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CT and
on Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. CST or by email.
Consumers can also visit the firm's website and click on the
Product Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/3qpDSK


CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Booster Seats Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Not Entered, Car, Booster Seat
Notification type: Compliance TC
System: Fabrics
Units affected: 11216
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015492TC
ID number: 2015492

Certain booster seats may not comply with the requirements of the
Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety
Regulations. The seat fabric does not meet flammability
requirements specified in the regulations. This could increase the
risk of injury. Correction: Owners should return the booster seat
to a Canadian Tire store for a full refund.


CANTON LONG: "Ellison" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Misty Ellison v. Canton Long Term Care, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01650 (E.D. Tex., October 12, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief,
attorney fees, and litigation expenses/costs, including expert
witness fees and expenses pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Canton Long Term Care, LLC operates a health care company located
at 800 Brazos, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
      WHITEHURST LAW FIRM
      5380 Old Bullard Road
      Suite 600, #363
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Telephone: (903)593-5588
      E-mail: whitehurstdiane@yahoo.com


CAPSTONE GENERAL: Faces "Dipilato" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Dipilato v. Capstone General Contracting, Inc., Christine
Najem and Charbel Najem, Case No. 4:15-cv-40141 (D. Mass., October
9, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Worcester
County, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shehzad S. Rajwani, Esq.
      Scott E. Regan, Esq.
      Lucia A. Passanisi, Esq.
      THE HARBOR LAW GROUP
      300 West Main Street
      Building A, Unit 1
      Northborough, MA 01532
      Telephone: (508) 393-9244
      Facsimile: (508) 393-9245
      E-mail: srajwani@harborlaw.com
              regan@harborlaw.com
              lpassanisi@harborlaw.com


CASEY'S GENERAL: Hearing This Month on Atty Fees in Hot Fuel Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015,
for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2015, that a hearing is
anticipated to occur in November 2015 to award attorneys' fees for
the plaintiffs' counsel in the Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City
has approved the settlement.  Casey's said the settlement will not
be considered final until after the hearing on counsel fees is
held and the time for appeals have expired.

The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of fuel retailers, which were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City,
Kansas as part of the multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation."

A hearing to consider whether the previously-reported settlement
involving the Company was fair, reasonable and adequate was
conducted on June 9, 2015, and on August 21, 2015, the Court
approved the same. The approved settlement includes, but is not
limited to, the commitment on the part of the Company to "sticker"
certain information on its gasoline pumps and to make a monetary
payment (which is not considered to be material in amount) to the
plaintiff class. The settlement will not be considered final until
after a hearing on the attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' counsel
is held (which is anticipated to occur in November of this year)
and all time for appeals have expired.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Mediation Scheduled in Missouri FCRA Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015,
for the fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2015, that the Company is
named as a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on
behalf of all individuals on whom the Company obtained a consumer
report for employment purposes during the last 2 years. Plaintiffs
allege that the Company has violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") disclosure requirement. The FCRA provides for statutory
damages of $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation, as well as
punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The Court recently denied
the Company's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Dismiss/Substitute a
Proper Party, and court-ordered mediation had been scheduled for
September 8, 2015. The Company believes it did not violate the
FCRA disclosure requirement and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.


CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that it subsidiary has been named
as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services,
Inc., a class action proceeding. A summary judgment was recently
granted in favor of the plaintiffs. The Company has appealed this
judgment. The Company believes that it will be successful on
appeal, but that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will
be upheld. The Company estimates the possible range of financial
exposure associated with this claim to be between $0 and
approximately $5 million. The Company currently does not have a
contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor
the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary
in the future.


CELADON GROUP: Judgment in "Day" Case Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been named
as the defendant in Day et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc.,
a class action proceeding. A judgment was recently granted in
favor of the plaintiffs. The Company has appealed this judgment.
The Company believes that it will be successful on appeal, but
that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld.
The Company estimates the possible range of financial exposure
associated with this claim to be between $0 and approximately $2
million. The Company currently does not have a contingency
reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor the progress
of this claim to determine if a reserve is necessary in the
future.


CHI NAIL: Faces "Lau" Suit in California Over Age Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennie Lau v. Chi Nail Bar & Organic Spa, Ki Nail Bar and Organic
Spa, Fawn Ton, and Does 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. BC597250
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) arises out of the Defendants'
alleged discriminatory practices based on age.

The Defendants own and operate a nail Salon in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rodney Mesriani, Esq.
      Pegah Sharifi, Esq.
      MESRIANI LAW GROUP
      A Professional Law Corporation
      510 Arizona Avenue,
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 826-6300
      Facsimile: (310) 820-1258


CONN'S INC: Remaining Defendants Seek Securities Case Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the
remaining defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the Securities
Class Action Litigation.

The Company said, "We and two of our current executive officers
are defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in the Southern District of Texas, In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated
Securities Action"). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Securities
Action allege that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
our business, operations, and prospects. They allege violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to certify a class
of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Conn's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote Conn's put
options between April 3, 2013 and December 9, 2014. The complaint
does not specify the amount of damages sought."

On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered plaintiffs to
further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling, and
the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Complaint
on July 21, 2015. The remaining defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on August 28, 2015.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of this litigation.


COOPER COMPANIES: 50+ Actions Filed by Contact Lens Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that since March 2015,
more than 50 putative class action complaints were filed by
contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens manufacturers,
in conjunction with their respective Unilateral Pricing Policy
(UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each other and
certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices at which
certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs
are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens
manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in various courts
around the United States.

"In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. CooperVision denies the allegations and
intends to defend the actions vigorously. We are not in a position
to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on our financial
condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range of
potential loss, if any," the Company said.


COUCHE-TARD INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:  October 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Couche-Tard Inc., Mac's Convenience Stores Inc.
(Central), Mac's Convenience Stores Inc. (Western)
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10136

Industry is recalling Favourites brand mountain trail mix from the
marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the
label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in nationally.

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

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

Background

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

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

  Brand       Common     Size    Code(s) on product    UPC
  name        name       ----    ------------------    ---
  -----       ------
  Favourites  mountain   198 g   All codes where milk  0 38445-
              trail mix          is not declared on    12281 0
                                 the label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ph2cxq


CROSSHILL CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Ramirez Lopez a/k/a Roberto Diaz v. Crosshill Construction
Inc. and John Hassett, Case No. 1:15-cv-08994 (N.D. Ill., October
9, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a construction company in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
      Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 South Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312)957-9005
      Facsimile: (888)826-5848
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com
              pgonzalez@law-rb.com


CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY: Sued Over False Employment Information
----------------------------------------------------------
George Daher v. Cuyahoga Community College District and Beverly
Bankston, Case No. cv-15-852177 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, October 6, 2-
15) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
practice of providing false information to the Plaintiff's
prospective employers.

Cuyahoga Community College District is an organization that exists
under the laws of the State of Ohio, regularly does business, and
engages in other persistent courses of conduct in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Caryn M. Groedel, Esq.
      CARYN GROEDEL & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA
      31340 Solon Road, Suite 27
      Cleveland, OH 44139
      Telephone: (440) 544-1122
      Facsimile: (440) 996-0064
      E-mail: lgriffin@groedel-1aw.com
              cgroedel@groedel-law.com


DELAWARE NORTH: "Santiago" Suit Removed to S.D. California Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Eduardo Santiago, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Delaware North
Companies Sportservice, Inc., California Sportservice, Inc., and
Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 37-02015-00029805-CU-OE-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-02269-JAH-WVG to the proceeding.

Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc. operates as a food,
beverage, and retail management company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek J. Emge, Esq.
      THE EMGE FIRM LLP
      501 W. Broadway, Suite 1760
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-1400
      Facsimile: (619) 595-1480
      E-mail: derek@emgelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Suzanne Katleman Emge, Esq.
      EMGE & ASSOCIATES
      225 Broadway, Suite 1350
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-1400 x203
      E-mail: suzanne@emgelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jon D. Meer, Esq.
      Jonathan Lawrence Brophy, Esq.
      SEYFATH SHAW, LLP
      2029 Century Park E, Suite 3500
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 277-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
      E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
              jbrophy@seyfarth.com

         - and -

      Michael Afar, Esq.
      2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 277-7200
      Facsimile: (310) 201-5219


DISNEY WORLDWIDE: Sued Over Age and Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Vieira Jr. v. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc., Vanessa
Moody, and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC597541 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
discriminatory practices based on age and disability.

The Defendants operate an amusement park located in the County of
Los Angeles, at 500 S. Buena Vista St., Burbank, California 1521.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patricio T.D. Barrera, Esq.
      BARRERA & ASSOCIATES, APC
      1500 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 500,
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 802-1500
      Facsimile: (310) 802-0500
      E-mail: Barrera@baattorneys.com


DOWNTOWN DELIVERY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Pierre, individually and on behalf of all other
Similarly situated persons v. Downtown Delivery Services Inc.
d/b/a A Plus Couriers, Case No. 1:15-cv-08450 (S.D.N.Y., October
27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and all
other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Downtown Delivery Services Inc. operates a messenger services
company for New York City businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      2747 Coney Island Ave.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydeskiylaw@gmail.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces "McIntyre" Suit in N.Y. Over Fantasy Sports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason McIntyre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Draftkings, Inc., and Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-
08458-UA (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) is an action for damages as
a proximate result of the Defendants' acts and omissions whereby
DFS players such as the Plaintiffs and members of the Classes are
induced to invest their money based on the illusion that the
contests offered are operated on a level playing field, and are
not subject to manipulation.

The Defendants are in the business of operating a daily fantasy
sports website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
              gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com


DUNES MOTEL: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
David Singletary v. John Juknavorian, Martin Juknavorian and
Michael Juknavorian d/b/a Dunes Motel & Coffee Shop, and Does 1
through 10, Inclusive, Case No. BC596776 (Cal. Super. Ct., October
6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory
practices based on disability.

The Defendants own and operate Dunes Inn located at 5625 Sunset
Blvd., Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA 90028.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Wakefield, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD
      10620 Treena Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (619) 241-7112
      Facsimile: (619) 342-7755
      E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com


ECS INVESTMENT: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Munoz, an individual v. ECS Investment Corporation d/b/a VIP
Motel, VIP Motel, and does 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. BC 597375
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate VIP Motel located at 2619 San
Gabriel Blvd., Rosemead, California 91770.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ricardo Y. Merluza, Esq.
      BERMEO & MERLUZA, LLP
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2745
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 380-9888
      Facsimile: (213) 380-5397
      E-mail: ricardo@bermeomerluza.com


EIHAB HUMAN: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Steffanie Johnson v. Eihab Human Services, Inc., Case No.
508554/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct., October 10, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's gender and pregnancy based employment discrimination
and retaliation of the Plaintiff during the course of her
employment.

Eihab Human Services, Inc. provides services to children and
adults who have developmental disabilities, mental retardation and
behavioral health challenges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan S. Goddard, Esq.
      NESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP
      363 Seventh Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 736-4500


EMC CORPORATION: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Proposed Dell Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Walsh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EMC Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13654-ADB
(D. Mass., October 27, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of EMC Corporation to enjoin a proposed
transaction announced on October 12, 2015, pursuant to which EMC
will be acquired by Dell Inc., through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

EMC Corporation operates an information technology company that
focuses on enabling businesses and service providers to transform
their operations.

Dell Inc. operates a computer technology company with its
corporate headquarters located at 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, TX
78682.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward F. Haber, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com

         - and -

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


EMERGENT CAPITAL: "Rothenberg" Shareholder Lawsuit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Capital, Inc., on September 11, 2015, issued a press
release announcing the dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit brought
against the Company and its directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 15-
CV-80505 styled as Harry Rothenberg v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et
al.

Boca Raton, Fla.-based Emergent Capital, Inc., formerly known as
Imperial Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: EMG), said the lead plaintiff
dismissed with prejudice of a shareholder lawsuit against the
Company and its directors brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 15-CV-80505.
Among other things, the suit challenged the board's adoption of a
bylaw requiring a shareholder to obtain the consent of holders of
3% of the Company's outstanding shares before bringing a claim on
behalf of other shareholders in a class action or on behalf of the
Company in a derivative action.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit stated: "Although I have doubts
about the benefit of the bylaw, after further investigation and
the opportunity to meet with representatives of the board of
directors, I now believe that they acted in good faith and did not
engage in any improper behavior in adopting the bylaw or
otherwise. Consequently, I have concluded that it is in the best
interest of the Company and its shareholders that the case be
dismissed."

Emergent Capital (NYSE: EMG) is a specialty finance company that
invests in esoteric asset classes, primarily life settlements.
More information about Emergent can be found at
www.emergentcapital.com.


ENVIVIO INC: Final Judgment Entered in Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Envivio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has entered
a final judgment and order granting approval of the class action
settlement.

Envivio said, "On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v.
Envivio, Inc., et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the
Company, each of our directors, our chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, and certain underwriters of our IPO. The
lawsuit purported to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of
shares issued in the IPO and generally alleged that the
registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements. The complaint purported to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and sought
unspecified damages and other relief."

On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio,
Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2,
2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California where they were
assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW.

A similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012
entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and
Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior
Court, and the Thomas case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

"On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933-
PJH," the Company said. "The complaint purported to be on behalf
of a class of purchasers of our securities between April 25, 2012
and September 7, 2012. It named as defendants the Company and our
chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and sought
unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934."

On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice. In November 2014, the Company reached an
agreement in principle to settle the actions without any admission
of any wrongdoing by the Company or any of the named defendants.
The parties subsequently entered into a formal settlement
agreement, which received final court approval on June 22, 2015.
The agreement required the Company to contribute approximately
$1.0 million toward the settlement, and such amount has been paid.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final judgment and order
granting approval of the class action settlement, releasing all
claims against the defendants, and barring class members from
asserting released claims. Without affecting the finality of the
judgment the court retained continuing jurisdiction for the
purpose of construing, enforcing and administering the settlement.


FERRING INC: Recalls Bravelle Sterile Pour Injections
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55684

Out of specification result for potency during shelf life testing.

Depth of distribution: Clinics, hospitals and/or wholesalers in
                       all provinces/territories

Affected products: Bravelle
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 02268140
Dosage form: Poudre lyophilisee sterile pour injection
Strength: Urofollitropin 75 IU
Lot or serial number: Lot H15940B
                      Lot H15940C
                      Lot K16990B
                      Lot K16990C

Recalling Firm: Ferring Inc.
                200 Yorkland Blvd., Suite 800,
                North York
                M2J 5C1
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Ferring Inc.
                                200 Yorkland Blvd., Suite 800,
                                North York
                                M2J 5C1
                                Ontario
                                 CANADA


FINISAR CORPORATION: Appeal From Case Dismissal Order Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 2, 2015, that the appeal of a
district court order dismissing securities class actions is
pending.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, have been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of persons who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010
through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are the Company and
its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer. To date, no specific amount of damages has been
alleged.

The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs
leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated
complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company
filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013,
the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the
case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's dismissal ruling,
and the appeal is pending.


FISH HOUSE: "Yohandry" Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Yohandry Cano and other
similarly situated v. The Fish House, Inc. and Jose A. Rivero,
Case No. 15-019399 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-23794-JAL to the proceeding.

The Fish House, Inc. serves food and drinks and is located in
Miami, Florida

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015508TC
ID number: 2015508
Manufacturer recall number: 15C13

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS) 210.1 - User-ready Tether
Anchorages for Restraint Systems and (CMVSS) 209 - Seat Belt
Assemblies. Front and rear seat belts may have been damaged prior
to installation and may fail to conform to CMVSS 209 assembly
performance standards, and the strength requirements of the CMVSS
210.1 standard. These issues could result in the belts not
adequately restraining occupants in a crash, increasing the risk
of injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace both front seatbelt retractors and pretensioners as well
as both rear seatbelt retractors, rear seatbelt buckles, and rear
child safety seat tether anchors.

   Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----     ----------------------
   FORD       MUSTANG    2016


FTI CONSULTING: "Parets" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Parets, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. FTI Consulting, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-24023-
CMA (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

FTI Consulting, Inc. operates a business advisory firm located at
909 Commerce Road, Annapolis, Maryland 21401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter F. Valori, Esq.
      Russell Landy, Esq.
      DAMIAN & VALORI LLP
      1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 371-3960
      Facsimile: (305) 371-3965
      E-mail: pvalori@dvllp.com
              rlandy@dvllp.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


GENEREL MOTORS: Recalls Pontiac Vibe 2009 & 2010 Models
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 8751
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015496TC
ID number: 2015496
Manufacturer recall number: 15791

On certain vehicles, inconsistent application of grease during the
manufacturing process could cause the driver's side power window
master switch to stick or become inoperative due to electrical
contact point wear. This could cause debris to accumulate between
the contact points, potentially resulting in an electrical short
circuit. If a short circuit occurs, the switch assembly may
overheat, produce smoke, melt and/or potentially lead to a fire
causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will
inspect the driver's power window master switch and apply a
specialized grease that inhibits heat build-up, or replace the
power window master switch circuit board, as necessary. Note: This
is an expansion of recall 2012-342.

  Make        Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----     ----------------------
  PONTIAC     VIBE      2009, 2010


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: RecallSubcategory:Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 101
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015503TC
ID number: 2015503

Certain vehicles with gasoline powered engines may be equipped
with a fuel tank that could prematurely corrode and leak. A fuel
leak in the presence of an ignition source could increase the risk
of fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace the fuel tank.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  GMC       W3500      2008
  GMC       W4500      2008
  ISUZU     NPR        2008
  ISUZU     NPR-HD     2008


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 125783
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015501TC
ID number: 2015501
Manufacturer recall number: 15757

On certain vehicles equipped with a 3.8L engine, degradation of
the front rocker cover gasket may result in eventual oil seepage.
Under hard braking, drops of engine oil may be deposited on the
exhaust manifold. If the manifold is hot enough and the oil runs
below the heat shield, it may ignite into a small flame and, in
some instances, the fire may spread to the plastic spark plug wire
channel and beyond. An under-hood fire could result in injury
and/or property damage. Correction: To be determined.

Note: This recall supersedes and is an expansion of recalls 2008-
081, 2009-105 and 2015-145. All vehicles having been inspected
and/or serviced under the previous recall will require re-
inspection and repair.

  Make        Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----         ----------------------
  PONTIAC     GRAND PRIX    1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
                            2003, 2004
  CHEVROLET   IMPALA        2000


GLOBE SPECIALTY: MOU Reached in Stockholders Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. (NASDAQ: GSM) on September 10, 2015,
entered into a memorandum of understanding that outlines the terms
of an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated action
pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the
"Court") captioned In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation.

On February 23, 2015, Globe entered into a business combination
agreement with, among others, Grupo Villar Mir, S.A.U. ("Grupo
VM") and FerroAtlantica, pursuant to which the parties agreed to
combine the businesses of Globe and FerroAtlantica under a new
holding company to be renamed Ferroglobe PLC ("Ferroglobe"). The
business combination agreement was amended and restated on May 5,
2015.

On September 10, 2015, Globe announced that it has amended its
business combination agreement with FerroAtlantica to, among other
things, provide additional governance provisions for the benefit
of the Globe shareholders. Globe also announced that, subject to
certain conditions, a $32.5 million aggregate cash payment would
be made by the combined companies for the benefit of the Globe
shareholders after completion of the business combination. The
amendments to the business combination agreement and the cash
payment to the Globe shareholders are made pursuant to a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") that outlines the terms of
an agreement in principle to settle the pending legal action
regarding the business combination. Globe adjourned to September
22, 2015 its special meeting of shareholders called to approve the
business combination in order to provide additional time for
shareholders to consider these matters.

The proposed terms of the settlement are subject to approval by
the Court.

Pursuant to the amended business combination agreement and the
MOU, among other things:

     * An additional designee from GrupoVM's designees to the
Ferroglobe board will be required to qualify as an independent
director under applicable NASDAQ rules, bringing the total number
of independent directors to five, with the effect that the
Ferroglobe board will be comprised of a majority of independent
directors.

     * After the fifth anniversary of the business combination,
Grupo VM will abstain from voting its Ferroglobe shares with
respect to contested elections involving the independent Globe
designees to the Ferroglobe board, providing the opportunity for
the Ferroglobe public shareholders to nominate and elect
independent directors to the Ferroglobe board.

     * Ferroglobe's articles of association will require that all
Ferroglobe shareholders will be offered the same type and amount
of consideration per share in any tender offer and will receive
the same type and amount of consideration per share in any scheme
of arrangement, merger or other business combination that results
in a change in control of Ferroglobe, ensuring equal treatment of
shareholders.

     * Subject to, among other conditions, completion of the
business combination and final approval of the settlement by the
Court, the combined companies will pay an aggregate amount of
$32.5 million to be distributed pro rata to holders of Globe
shares (other than the defendants in the pending actions and
certain related persons) as of the close of business on the
effective date of the business combination.

Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. is among the world's largest
producers of silicon metal and silicon-based specialty alloys,
critical ingredients in a host of industrial and consumer
products. Customers include major silicone chemical, aluminum and
steel manufacturers, auto companies and their suppliers, ductile
iron foundries, manufacturers of photovoltaic solar cells and
computer chips, and concrete producers. Globe is headquartered in
Miami, Florida. For further information please visit our web site
at www.glbsm.com.

Grupo FerroAtlantica, S. A., is the parent company of a group of
businesses in the following four areas: electrometallurgy, energy,
mining and photovoltaic solar power. The Group currently operates
fifteen production centres, working in the field of
electrometallurgy: five in Spain, six in France, one in Venezuela,
two in South Africa and one in China. Currently, the Group is a
world-leader in the production of silicon metal, a leading
producer of ferroalloys in the European Union, a leading
independent Spanish producer of hydroelectric energy. Grupo
FerroAtlantica, S. A. is wholly owned by Grupo Villar Mir. For
more information, visit www.ferroatlantica.es.


GREEN FLEET: Faces "Pineda-Amaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Pineda-Amaya and Laura Hernandez Pineda v. Green Fleet
Systems, LLC, and Does 1through 100, Case No. BC596958 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Green Fleet Systems, LLC performs drayage services at the Port of
Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ LAW GROUP
      853 Camino Del Mar, Suite 100
      Del Mar, CA 92014
      Telephone: (858)552-0000
      Facsimile: (858) 755-3364
      E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


H&R BLOCK: Appeal Related to "Lopez" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal
related to the case, Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc.,
remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal."

"On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion on remand. We filed an appeal, which
remains pending. We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter."


H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Case Still Pending in W.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Company continues
to defend the case, Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons
nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.

"In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In
June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining
2012 claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015. The Eighth
Circuit denied plaintiff's subsequent petition for rehearing on
August 7, 2015. We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter."


H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the so-called Form 8863
Litigation remains stayed with respect to individual plaintiffs
who agreed to arbitration.

The Company said, "A series of putative class action lawsuits were
filed against us in various federal courts and one state court
beginning on March 13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in
these lawsuits purport to represent certain clients nationwide who
filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office
or using H&R Block At Home(R) online tax services or desktop tax
preparation software, and allege breach of contract, negligence
and violation of state consumer laws in connection with
transmission of the form. The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. In August 2013, the
plaintiff in the state court action voluntarily dismissed her case
without prejudice. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
subsequently granted our petition to consolidate the remaining
federal lawsuits for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
in a proceeding styled IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION
(MDL No. 2474/Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG).

On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate
their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in October 2014.

"We filed a motion to strike the class allegations relating to
those clients who agreed to arbitration, which the court granted
on January 7, 2015. The cases remain stayed with respect to the
individual plaintiffs who agreed to arbitration. A portion of our
loss contingency accrual is related to this matter for the amount
of loss that we consider probable and reasonably estimable," the
Company said.


HARRIS DAVIS: Faces "Estrada" Suit Over Termination Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Estrada v. Harris Davis Rebar, LLC, Case No. 32889465
(Fla., 11th Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged unlawful termination practices related to the Plaintiffs
injury and medical treatment.

Harris Davis Rebar, LLC makes, installs and distributes concrete
reinforcing steel and other metal products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Perea, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD E. ZALDIVAR, P.A.
      2600 S.W. Third Ave, Ste. 900,
      Miami, FL 33129
      Telephone: (305) 856-5555
      Facsimile: (305) 856-1666
      E-mail: Jperea@zaldivarpa.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Matter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that HP has funded the
settlement in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems
Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and/or in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly
involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and
hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported
collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court
alleging similar facts. The Steavens case was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010,
the court granted conditional certification of a class consisting
of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated
Cunningham/Steavens matter.

On December 11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the
consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter,
mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court
approved the settlement on June 16, 2015 and HP funded the
settlement on July 27, 2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Funded Settlement in "Salva" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that HP has funded the
settlement in the Salva lawsuit.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems
Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and/or in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.

Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action
filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York alleging that certain information
technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or
maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December
11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated
Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these
cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated
the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and approved
the settlement on June 16, 2015 and HP funded the settlement on
July 27, 2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Case Engaged in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the parties in the
Karlbom case are engaged in discovery.

Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class
action filed on March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court
alleging facts similar to the Cunningham and Steavens matters.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Consultant Opt-Ins Dismissed from FLSA Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has
dismissed the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical
Support Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA
collective action.

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action
filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that certain
technical support employees allegedly involved in installing,
maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware
for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP violated
California law by, among other things, allegedly improperly
classifying these employees as exempt.

On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain
Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and
Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from
overtime under state law. On July 30, 2015, the court dismissed
the Technology Consultant and certain Field Technical Support
Consultant opt-ins from the conditionally certified FLSA
collective action.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Oral Argument Yet in Concrete Workers Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that oral argument has
not yet been scheduled in the appeal related to the class action
filed by Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP.

On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013.

On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant
filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the
plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral
argument has not yet been scheduled.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Nov. 13 Hearing on Securities Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has set a
hearing date of November 13, 2015 to determine whether to grant
final approval to the settlement in the HP Securities Litigation.

HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to,
among other things, its October 2011 acquisition of Autonomy and
its November 20, 2012 announcement that it recorded a non-cash
charge for the impairment of goodwill and intangible assets within
its Software segment of approximately $8.8 billion in the fourth
quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and HP's statements that, based on
HP's findings from an ongoing investigation, the majority of this
impairment charge related to accounting improprieties,
misrepresentations to the market and disclosure failures at
Autonomy that occurred prior to and in connection with HP's
acquisition of Autonomy and the impact of those improprieties,
failures and misrepresentations on the expected future financial
performance of the Autonomy business over the long term. This
stockholder litigation was commenced against, among others,
certain current and former HP executive officers, certain current
and former members of HP's Board of Directors and certain advisors
to HP. The plaintiffs in these litigation matters are seeking to
recover certain compensation paid by HP to the defendants and/or
other damages.

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services
business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by
engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors.

On July 2, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On
November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
HP's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against HP and
Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or omissions
made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the
plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements and/or
omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012.

The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on
November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, the defendants filed
their opposition to the motion.

On June 9, 2015, HP entered into a settlement agreement with the
lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action. Under
the terms of the settlement, HP, through its insurers, will
contribute $100 million to a settlement fund that will be used to
compensate persons who purchased HP's shares during the period
from August 19, 2011 through November 20, 2012. No individual is
contributing to the settlement. HP and its current and former
officers, directors, and advisors will be released from any
Autonomy-related securities claims as part of the settlement.

On July 17, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement. The court has set a hearing date of November 13, 2015
to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
HP ERISA Litigation have appealed the court's order dismissing the
case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock.

On August 16, 2013, HP filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On
March 31, 2014, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss this
action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint containing substantially similar
allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first
amended complaint.

On June 15, 2015, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs
leave to file another amended complaint. On July 2, 2015,
plaintiffs have appealed the court's order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


HONDA: Recalls Fit 2015 and 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 8081
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015499TC
ID number: 2015499

On certain vehicles, the rear grab rail brackets may not have been
manufactured to design specifications. In the event of a
collision, they could interfere with side curtain airbag
deployment and could result in a rear-seat occupant not receiving
the intended protection from the side curtain airbag, increasing
the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the rear grab
rail bracket with one that has felt applied to prevent a puncture
of the side curtain airbag.

   Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----     ----------------------
   HONDA      FIT       2015, 2016


HUM HOSPITALITY: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
David Singletary v. Hum Hospitality Group and Does 1 through 10,
Inclusive, Case No. BC597065 (Cal. Super Ct., October 6, 2015)
arises out of the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices
based on disability.

Hum Hospitality Group owns and operates a real estate property
located at 2010 North Highland Ave., Hollywood, CA 90068.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Wakefield, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD
      10620 Treena Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (619) 241-7112
      Facsimile: (619) 342-7755
      E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com


J. C. PENNEY: Continues to Defend Johnson and Marcus Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the Johnson and Marcus class actions.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division.  "The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during
the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and
alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder," the Company said.  "Plaintiff claims that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects
that caused our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices.  The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was
completed in November, 2014."

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.  "The suit is
purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquired our
securities other than common stock during the period from August
20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, generally mirrors the
allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks similar
relief," the Company said.  "On June 8, 2015, plaintiff in the
Marcus lawsuit amended the consolidated complaint to include the
members of the purported class in the Johnson lawsuit, and on June
10, 2015, the Johnson lawsuit was consolidated into the Marcus
lawsuit."

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend them. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of these matters, we believe that the final
resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Texas Court Trims "Rodriguez" ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERTO RAMIREZ and THOMAS IHLE, Plaintiffs, v. J.C.
PENNEY CORPORATION INC., MICHAEL DASTUGUE, JANET DHILLON, KENNETH
HANNAH, MICHAEL KRAMER, RONALD JOHNSON, and MYRON E. ULLMAN, III,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:14-CV-601-MHS-KNM (E.D. Tex.),
District Judge Michael H. Schneider for the Eastern District of
Texas, accepted the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, which recommends that the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be
denied as to Count I and granted without prejudice as to Count II
and the Request for Judicial Notice be granted.

The Defendants filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation.  Judge Schneider said the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections
are without merit. Judge Schneider gave the Plaintiffs leave to
amend their Complaint and replead Count II.

A copy of Judge Schneider's Sept. 29 Order is available at
http://is.gd/r9JPJIfrom Leagle.com.

J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that JCP and certain
present and former members of JCP's Board of Directors have been
sued in a purported class action complaint by plaintiffs Roberto
Ramirez and Thomas Ihle, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, which was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The
suit alleges that the defendants violated Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by breaching
fiduciary duties relating to the J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the Plan). The
class period is alleged to be between November 1, 2011 and
September 27, 2013. Plaintiffs allege that they and others who
invested in or held Company stock in the Plan during this period
were injured because defendants allegedly made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's
financial condition and business prospects that caused the
Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
The complaint seeks class certification, declaratory relief, a
constructive trust, reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan,
actual damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7,
2014, and this motion has been fully briefed.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final
resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Opposed Renewed Motion for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Employment
Class Action Litigation, the Company has opposed the Illinois
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.

JCP is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present. After the court granted JCP's motion to
transfer the Illinois claims, those claims are now pending in a
separate action in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, entitled Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits
seek compensatory damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs.
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company
opposed, to certify these actions on behalf of all employees in
California and Illinois based on the specific claims at issue.

On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
request for class certification. The Illinois court denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the
filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint in the Illinois lawsuit on April 14, 2015 and the
Company has answered. On July 2, 2015, the Illinois plaintiffs
renewed their motion for class certification, which the Company
has opposed.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Defending Pricing Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that JCP is a defendant
in a class action proceeding entitled Spann v. J. C. Penney
Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the U.S. District
Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit alleges that
JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and related state
statutes in connection with its advertising of sale prices for
private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit seeks
restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and
costs.

On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for
certification of a class consisting of all people who, between
November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in
California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or
accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the
stated original or regular price (excluding those who only
received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not
received a refund or credit for their purchases.

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. While no assurance can
be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe
that the final resolution of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


KKHG SVI: Faces "Singletary" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Singletary v. KKHG SVI LLC and Does 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Case No. BC597063 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) arises out of
the Defendants' alleged discriminatory practices based on
disability.

KKHG SVI LLC owns and operates a real estate property located at
845 N. San Vicente Blvd., West Hollywood, CA 90069.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Wakefield, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. WAKEFIELD
      10620 Treena Street, Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92131
      Telephone: (619) 241-7112
      Facsimile: (619) 342-7755
      E-mail: dcw@DMWakeLaw.com


LAWRENCE, MA: Sued Over Employment Discriminatory Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hester v. City of Lawrence, Case No. 2015-cv-1689B (Mass.
Cmmw., October 9, 2015) alleges discrimination practices,
policies, and procedures, false and adverse unfair discipline,
without just cause, retaliation, for being denied a promotional
opportunity and advancement to apply for the next highest position
in the building department because of his color and ethnicity.

City of Lawrence is a municipal corporation in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence Hester
      PRO SE
      171 Abbott Street, 2nd Floor
      Lawrence, MA 01843
      Telephone: (978) 314-1014


LESLIE'S POOLMART: "Plizga" Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Roberto Plizga, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Leslie's
Poolmart, Inc., Case No. 34-02015-00179638, was removed from the
California Superior Court, County of Riverside to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02109-TLN-EFB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Ari Moss, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
       15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
       Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
       Telephone: (310) 982-2984
       Facsimile: (310) 861-0389
       E-mail: ari@arimoss.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Damien Paul DeLaney
      Frank M. Liberatore, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
      Los Angeles, CA 90016
      Telephone: (213) 689-0404
      Facsimile: (213) 680-0430
      E-mail: ddelaney@jacksonlewis.com
              LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com


LES PRODUITS: Recalls Sprouted Trail Products Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Les Produits Bio-Sphere
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10140

Les Produits Bio-Sphere is recalling Les Produits Bio-Sphere brand
Sprouted Trail 4 Flavours from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand      Common name     Size    Code(s) on product  UPC
  name       -----------     ----    ------------------  ---
  -----
  Les        Sprouted Trail  350 g   Best before 18 SEP. 6 89051-
  Produits   4 Flavours               2016               04606 1
  Bio-Sphere

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


LIBERTY BROADBAND: "Cohen" Suit Filed in Delaware Chancery Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Broadband Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015,
that on August 21, 2015, a putative class action, entitled Cohen
v. Malone, et al., was filed against the Company and each of its
directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the disclosures made in the
Proxy Statement regarding the share issuance proposal.  The
Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and that no
further disclosure is required to supplement the Proxy Statement
under applicable laws.

The plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the vote on the share issuance proposal until
defendants made supplemental disclosures.  To eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties resulting from the preliminary
injunction motion and without admitting any wrongdoing or that
these supplemental disclosures are material or required to be
made, on September 11, 2015, the Company agreed to supplement the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement.  Consequently, the plaintiff
agreed to withdraw her motion for preliminary injunction.


LINKGLOBAL FOOD: Recalls Coconut Juice Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Link Global Food Inc.
Distribution: Manitoba, Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10094

LinkGlobal Food Inc. is recalling Orthodox Coconut Palm Brand
Coconut Juice from the marketplace because it contains milk which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk
should not consume the recalled product described below.

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

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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

  Brand     Common name    Size   Code(s) on product    UPC
  name      -----------    ----   ------------------    ---
  -----
  Orthodox  Coconut Palm   1 L    All codes where milk  6 901347-
            or Yeshu              is not declared on    880390
            (Chinese              the label.
            characters)
            Coconut juice

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


LIQUID FORCE: Recalls Kiteboard Control Systems
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Posting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General
Public Identification number: RA-55472

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

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

Neither Health Canada nor Liquid Source has received any reports
of consumer incidents of injuries related to the affected
products.

Approximately 40 products were sold in Canada and 2,050 were
distributed in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from December 2014 to February
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Well Progress Industrial Co., Ltd.
              Dong Guang City, Guang Dong
              CHINA


Distributor: Liquid Force
             Encinitas
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kiteboard
control systems and contact Liquid Force for a free replacement
chicken loop release mechanism. Consumers may contact Liquid Force
by telephone at 1-800-820-7781 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday, by email or online and click "Technical Service
Bulletin" for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iXN5W1


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended August 2, 2015, that the Company has
filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Court of Chancery
Rule 23.1 for failure to adequately plead that demand on the board
was excused.

On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs Hallandale Beach Police Officers and
Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Fund and Laborers' District
Council Industry Pension Fund filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery a derivative lawsuit on behalf of lululemon against
certain current and former directors of lululemon, captioned
Laborers' District Council Industry Pension Fund v. Bensoussan, et
al., C.A. No. 11293-CB. Plaintiffs claim that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to lululemon by
allegedly failing to investigate certain trades of lululemon stock
owned by Dennis J. Wilson in 2013. Plaintiffs also claim that Mr.
Wilson breached his fiduciary duties by making his broker aware of
certain non-public, material events prior to executing sales of
lululemon stock on Mr. Wilson's behalf.

On August 18, 2015, the individual defendants (including Mr.
Wilson) filed motions to dismiss the action pursuant to Court of
Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6) for failure to adequately plead
that demand on the board was excused and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Also on August 18, 2015,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Court
of Chancery Rule 23.1 for failure to adequately plead that demand
on the board was excused.


MATERNE CANADA: Recalls Apple Grape & Apple Pear Pouch Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Materne Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10131

Materne Canada Inc. is recalling GoGo squeeZ(R) brand Apple Grape
and Apple Pear pouch products from the marketplace due to the
presence of mould. Consumers should not consume the recalled
products described below.

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

If an infant or child has been fed the products described above,
discontinue use and monitor for symptoms. Consumption of spoiled
food may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting and
diarrhea. If you have any concerns, please seek medical attention.

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

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


  Brand      Common name   Size    Code(s) on product    UPC
  name       -----------   ----    ------------------    ---
  -----
  GoGo       Apple Grape   360 g   Best Before Dates     8 48860-
  squeeZ(R)                (4 x    between 2016 JN 30    00163 4
                           90 g)   and 2016 JL 26,
                                   inclusively
  GoGo       Apple Pear    360 g   Best Before Dates     8 48860-
  squeeZ(R)                (4 x    between 2016 JN 30    00166 5
                           90 g)   and 2016 JL 26,
                                   inclusively

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ixqT8D


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls GLE Coupe 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Powertrain
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015506TC
ID number: 2015506

On certain vehicles, the rear drive shaft bolts may not have been
tightened to specification and could loosen, which could,
overtime, cause the drive shaft to separate from the transmission.
This could cause a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will inspect and tighten the bolts as necessary.

  Make             Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----             -----        ----------------------
  MERCEDES-BENZ    GLE COUPE    2016


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 10888
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015505TC
ID number: 2015505

On certain vehicles, a defect in the supplemental restraint system
(SRS) controller could result in the inadvertent deployment of SRS
components, such as airbags and seatbelt pretensioners, or could
cause these components to fail to deploy in a crash where
deployment is warranted. Unintended seatbelt pretensioner, airbag
or other deployment, in a non-warranted (non-impact) situation,
could result in minor injuries and could also startle the driver,
which could result in a vehicle crash. Additionally, failure of
the SRS components to deploy in a crash could increase the risk of
injury. Correction: Dealers will replace the SRS control unit.
Note: This condition would cause the illumination of the SRS
warning light.

  Make             Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----             -----         ----------------------
  MERCEDES-BENZ    C CLASS       2008, 2009, 2010
  MERCEDES-BENZ    GLK CLASS     2008, 2009, 2010


MOBILTECH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Caramel Macchiato Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mobiltech International Inc.
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10142

  Brand     Common     Size     Code(s) on product     UPC
  name      name       ----     ------------------     ---
  -----     ------
  Cantata   Caramel    275 ml   All codes where milk   8 801056-
            Macchiato           is not declared on     051921
                                the label


N-E-WHERE TRANSPORT: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edberto Nunez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. N-E-Where Transport, Inc., (M.D. Fla.,
October 27, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

N-E-Where Transport, Inc. operates a transportation service
company in Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 337-7992
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


NEW JERSEY TRANSIT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Sykowski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. New Jersey Transit, Case No. 2:15-cv-07725-CCC-MF
(D.N.J., October 27, 2015) is brought against the defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

New Jersey Transit operates a public transportation company with
its principal offices located at Penn Plaza, City of Newark,
County of Essez, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin E. Barber, Esq.
      NIEDWESKE BARBER LLC
      98 Washington Street
      Morristown, NJ 07960
      Telephone: (973) 401-0064
      Facsimile: (973) 401-0061
      E-mail: kbarber@N-BLaw.com


OCEAN POWER: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought
------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and
its former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants
in consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated
actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815; Konstantinidis
v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015;
and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-04592.

On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More
Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On May 18,
2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.
The amended class action complaint alleges claims for violations
of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for
violations of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a now
terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd.
(VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the
development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project").  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On July 17, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action complaint.  Lead plaintiff filed a response to the
motion on August 31, 2015.


OMNI INSURANCE: "Colter" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Allison Colter, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Omni Insurance
Company and Omni Indemnity Company, Case No. 2015-CP-40-5273, was
removed from Richland County to the U.S. District Court District
of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:15-cv-04171-JMC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rachel G. Peavy, Esq.
      Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn Jr., Esq.
      GOODWYN LAW FIRM
      2519 Devine Street, Suite A
      Columbia, SC 29205
      Telephone: (803) 251-4517
      Facsimile: (803) 251-4527
      E-mail: rpeavy@goodwynlaw.com
              JGoodwyn@Goodwynlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brett Harris Bayne, Esq.
      J. Andrew Delaney, Esq.
      MCANGUS GOUDELOCK AND COURIE
      1320 Main Street, Tenth Floor
      Columbia, SC 29211
      Telephone: (803) 227-2281
      E-mail: brett.bayne@mgclaw.com
              adelaney@mgclaw.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement Has Final Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Omnivision Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015,
for the three months ended July 31, 2015, that a court has granted
final approval of the settlement of securities class actions.

On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and three of
its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints
alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the
Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding
the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These
actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities
Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6,
2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. On December 30, 2014,
the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement
to resolve the litigation, which was then submitted to the court
for preliminary approval. The stipulation and agreement of
settlement provides for a payment of $12.5 million to the
plaintiff class, which is funded solely by the Company's insurance
carriers. The Company also entered into a mutual release agreement
with one of its insurance carriers. In March 2015, the court
entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement
and ordering notice to the putative plaintiff class. On June 5,
2015, the court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered a final judgment and order dismissing the action.


OOMA INC: Hernandez, Salina, Ramirez and Rufus Filed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2015, that Michelle Hernandez, Ashley
Salina, John Ramirez and Andre Rufus, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed on August 13, 2015, a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Talkatone, LLC (the "TCPA Litigation").
The lawsuit alleges that the Company and Talkatone, LLC sent
unauthorized text messages to consumers on behalf of the Company
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages of $500-
$1,500 per violation, an injunction against "wireless spam
activities," and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes
that the plaintiff's claims in the complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. However, litigation is
unpredictable and there can be no assurances that we will obtain a
favorable final outcome or that we will be able to avoid
unfavorable preliminary or interim rulings in the course of
litigation that may significantly add to the expense of our
defense and could result in substantial costs and diversion of
resources. Based on our current knowledge, we have determined that
the amount of any loss or range of any losses that are reasonably
possible to result from the TCPA Litigation are not reasonably
estimable.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the
Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case, Charles
Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores
Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No.
1100527.

On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company under California's private attorney general
act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other
things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Nov. 24 Hearing on Class Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear Of California, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in the
case, Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior
Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346-
CU-OE-CXC, the hearing on the plaintiff's motion to certify will
now be held on November 24, 2015.

On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break
rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks
class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class
representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.

On February 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed her motion to certify a
class with respect to several claims. The Company's opposition to
such motion was filed on June 30, 2014 and the plaintiff's reply
to such opposition was filed on November 4, 2014. The hearing on
the plaintiff's motion will now be held on November 24, 2015. As
the ultimate outcome of this matter is uncertain, no amounts have
been accrued by the Company as of the date of this report.


PERRY ELLIS: Parties in "Ordaz" Class Action Reached Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Ellis International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the parties in
the class action, Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis International,
Inc., have reached a settlement.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry
Ellis International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012),
involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related
claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former
employee in our California administrative offices. The plaintiff
sought an unspecified amount of damages. The lawsuit has been
pleaded but not certified as a class action. Mediation was held
during the third quarter of fiscal 2015. Currently, the parties
reached a settlement on August 12, 2015. The settlement amount was
provided for in the Company's results of operations for fiscal
2015."


QUORUM HEALTH: Community Health Systems Defend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10 Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, that
Community Health Systems, Inc. is defending a securities class
action.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011.

All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of CHS
common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege
that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated
prices for CHS common stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. CHS' motion to dismiss this
case has been fully briefed and remains pending before the court.

The original district court judge has recused himself; in an order
dated May 27, 2015, the new judge continued the discovery stay
pending her ruling on CHS' motion to dismiss. CHS believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.


REGENCY SHARK: Faces "Chavez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Chavez, an individual v. Regency Shark Fire Services Inc.,
et al., Case No. BC596871 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Regency Shark Fire Services Inc. operates a full service Fire
Sprinkler, Alarm & Monitoring company in Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
      Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
      LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
      880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-22ll7
      Facsimile: (310)322-2252


REMEDY TEMPORARY: Faces "Whitmore" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Whitmore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Remedy Temporary Services, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-02161-SRB (D. Ariz., October 27, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Remedy Temporary Services, Inc. is in the business of providing
staffing and in-house services related to the human resources
processes, from worker recruitment and selection to introduction,
planning and management of workers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq,
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 726-3400
      E-mail: Tom@tomryanlaw.com


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Coupons May Be Combined with Other Promos
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that in the
case, Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, the court has ordered
that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other
promotional offers.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the
Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties'
agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to
other matters related to this proceeding. On September 5, 2014,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs,
and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in fees and costs to
plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered judgment on September 29,
2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class member filed a notice of
appeal from the judgment. As a result of the appeal, the judgment
was stayed until January 10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but
the judgment is enforceable. As a result of these developments,
during fiscal 2014, the Company recorded a $9.5 million charge
related to this matter that was subsequently decreased to
approximately $8 million. The decrease of approximately $1.5
million was based on a revision of estimated class member
response.

On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims
administrator, began mailing the class action award to class
members. The Company, through the third party claims
administrator, paid approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to
the class members and mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one
year, on purchases up to $10,000, to class members that did not
request the cash award. During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the
Court provided additional guidance regarding the manner in which
class members can use the 33% merchandise discount coupon.
Specifically, the court ordered that the 33% coupons may be
combined with the Company's other promotional offers.


RKJD INVESTMENT: Faces "Yat" Suit Over Disability Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandra Yat v. RKJD Investment Group, Inc. d/b/a Denny's
Restaurant, and Does 1- 10, Case No. CV-535713 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
discriminatory practices based on age and disability.

RKJD Investment Group, Inc. owns and operates Denny's restaurant
in South San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
      Un Kei Wu, Esq.
      LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2760 Mission Street
      San Francisco, CA 94110
      Telephone: (415) 695-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 695-1006
      E-mail: arlo@liberationlawgroup.com


RYLAND GROUP: Faces "Hancock" Action Over Standard Pacific Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ryland Group, Inc. on July 2, 2015, entered into an Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Amended Merger
Agreement") with Standard Pacific Corp., a Delaware corporation
("Standard Pacific"), which amended and restated in its entirety
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 14, 2015 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and between Standard Pacific and the
Company. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Amended Merger
Agreement, the Company and Standard Pacific have agreed to the
merger (the "Merger") of the Company with and into Standard
Pacific, with Standard Pacific continuing as the surviving
corporation in the Merger under the name CalAtlantic Group, Inc.
(the "Surviving Corporation").

The Ryland Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 8, 2015, that
Howard Hancock and Maureen Susan Hancock -- individually and on
behalf of a purported class of common stockholders of the Company,
excluding the directors of the Company and Standard Pacific as
well as persons or entities related to or affiliated with the
directors of the Company or Standard Pacific -- filed on August
31, 2015, a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, Hancock v. Jews, et al., Case No. 11452-(VCN), against
the Company's board of directors and Standard Pacific alleging,
among other things, that the Company's board of directors breached
its fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders and seeking,
among other things, a preliminary injunction to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Merger. The Company's board of
directors believes that the claims asserted in this suit are
without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.


SIEMENS HEALTHCARE: Recalls N Latex B2-Microglobulin Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55724

Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics has received complaints from
customers not being able to establish a calibration curve or to
validate an established calibration curve with the respective
controls when using one of the affected lots of N LATEX B2-
MICROGLOBULIN.

N LATEX B2-MICROGLOBULIN
Lot or serial number: 44862
                      44902
                      44968
                      45192
                      45229
                      45252
                      45291
                      45329
                      45342
                      45366
Model or catalog number: OQWU15

Manufacturer: Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Products Gmbh
              Emil-Von-Behring-Str. 76
              Marburg
              35041
              GERMANY


SLEEPY'S LLC: "Gundell" Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Gundell, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Sleepy's, LLC and Tempur-
Pedic North America, LLC, Case No. MID-L-15-5147, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County to the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-07365-MAS-DEA to the
proceeding.

Sleepy's, LLC is a privately owned, four-generation mattress
retail company founded in 1931 in Brooklyn, New York, with over
2,900 employees and over 1,000 stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC, Suite 101
      1520 U.S. Highway 130
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
      E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      N. Ari Weisbrot, Esq.
      FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP
      75 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 200
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (201) 881-7016
      E-mail: aweisbrot@foxrothschild.com


SPLASH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Posting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55462

This recall involves rubber duck squeeze toys sold in a set of
four; one large duck and three small ducks are included in a clear
plastic bag.  The ducks are yellow with orange beaks, and there is
a squeaker reed embedded in the underside of the duck.  The model
# is HAC1S and the UPC # 7-72094-06981-1.

The plastic squeaker located on the inside of each duck can easily
be removed; these small parts pose a choking hazard to young
children.

Neither Health Canada nor Splash International Marketing Inc. has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of the product in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 1,907 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled toy sets were sold between February 6, 2014 to
October 8, 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Harvest Channel International Ltd.
              WangZong Min Road, XingLong 2nd District,
              ShiPaiTow, DongGuan City
              GuangDong Province
              CHINA

Distributor: Splash International Marketing Inc.
             Markham
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should take the duck bath toy away from children and
dispose of the product in regular household garbage.

For more information, consumers may contact Splash International
Marketing Inc. by mail: 395 Cochrane Drive, Markham, Ontario L3R
9R5, telephone at 1-800-237-4115 or by email. This recall is also
posted on the Splash International Marketing Inc.'s website.

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

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

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

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


SUNMART INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Coconut Cream Powder Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sunmart International Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10122

Brand
name  Common name    Size    Code(s) on product    UPC
----- -----------    ----    ------------------    ---
  S&P      Instant        50 g    All codes where milk  9 556181-
  Santan   Coconut Cream          is not declared on    010082
           Powder                 the label


SUPERMAN TRADING: Recalls Rubber Duck Squeeze Toys
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Posting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55428

This recall involves rubber duck squeeze toys sold in a set of
four; one large duck and three small ducks are included in a
netted bag.  The ducks are yellow with red beaks, and there is a
squeaker reed embedded in the underside of the duck.

The plastic squeaker located on the inside of each duck can easily
be removed; these small parts pose a choking hazard to young
children.

Neither Health Canada nor Superman Trading has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
the product in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

The total number of units is unknown, however approximately 150
units were sold in British Columbia.

Time period sold

The recalled toy sets were sold between June, 2013 and October,
2015.

Manufacturer: Unknown company

Distributor: Superman Trading Company
             979 Crystal Court, V3C 5X5
             Coquitlam
             British Columbia
             CANADA

Consumers should take the duck bath toy away from children and
dispose of the product in regular household garbage.

For more information, consumers may call Superman Trading at 778-
552-5886.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8qOO0V


SWISHER HYGIENE: Facing Class Action Over Sale to Ecolab
--------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 10, 2015, that a
lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class action was filed on
September 8, 2015, against Swisher, the members of the Swisher
board of directors, individually, and Ecolab Inc. ("Ecolab") in
connection with the proposed sale of all of the assets primarily
used in the Company's chemical service, wholesale and hygiene
businesses (in each case outside of Canada) to Ecolab pursuant to
the Purchase Agreement by and between Swisher and Ecolab dated
August 12, 2015 (the "Purchase Agreement").

On September 8, 2015, a lawsuit seeking to be certified as a class
action was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
County Department, Chancery Division (the "Court") by Paul Berger,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, against
Swisher, the members of the Swisher board of directors,
individually, and Ecolab. The plaintiff has alleged that (i) faced
with an ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Attorney General's Office, the individual
defendants embarked upon a self-interested scheme to sell off
Swisher's assets and to liquidate Swisher, (ii) the individual
defendants, through an alleged insufficient process, caused
Swisher to agree to sell substantially all of its assets for
insufficient consideration, (iii) each member of the Swisher board
of directors is interested in the Sale Transaction and the plan of
dissolution, and (iv) the proxy statement was materially
misleading and/or incomplete. The causes of action set forth in
the complaint are (i) a claim for breaches of the fiduciary duties
of good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and due care, (ii) a claim
for failure to disclose, and (iii) a claim for aiding and abetting
breaches of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff primarily seeks to
enjoin the consummation of the Sale Transaction unless and until
defendants provide all material facts in the proxy statement, and
the plaintiff also seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages as
allowed by law for the plaintiff. This summary is qualified by
reference to the full text of the complaint as filed with the
Court (Paul Berger v. Swisher Hygiene Inc., et al., Case No. 2015
CH 13325 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co.)).


THAI INDOCHINE: Recalls Instant Coffee Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Thai Indochine Trading Inc.
Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario, Possibly National,
Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10126

The food recall warning issued on October 2, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Industry is recalling Mr. Brown Coffee brand instant coffee from
the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled product described below.

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

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

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

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

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

  Brand     Common name    Size    Code(s) on product   UPC
  name      -----------    ----    ------------------   ---
  -----
  Mr. Brown Arabica Blend  450 g   All codes where milk 4 710085-
  Coffee    Instant Coffee (15 g   is not declared on   122509
            (3 in 1)       x 30    the label
                           sachets)

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


THOR MOTOR: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motor home
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 53
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015494TC
ID number: 2015494
Manufacturer recall number: RC000106

On certain motorhomes, an incorrect electrical connection at the
transfer switch buss bar could cause the transfer switch to
overheat and melt. This could result in a vehicle fire causing
property damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will
replace the transfer switch. Note: This is an expansion of recall
2012-358.

  Make            Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----          ----------------------
  FOUR WINDS      MAGELLAN       2010
  FOUR WINDS      MANDALAY       2009, 2010
  FOUR WINDS      SERRANO        2010, 2011
  FOUR WINDS      WINDSPORT      2009, 2010, 2011
  FOUR WINDS      HURRICANE      2009, 2010, 2011


TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 315000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015493TC
ID number: 2015493
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R10

On certain vehicles, inconsistent application of grease during the
manufacturing process could cause the driver's side power window
master switch to stick or become inoperative due to electrical
contact point wear. This could cause debris to accumulate between
the contact points, potentially resulting in an electrical short
circuit. If a short circuit occurs, the switch assembly may
overheat, produce smoke, melt and/or potentially lead to a fire
causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will
inspect the driver's power window master switch and apply a
specialized grease that inhibits heat build-up, or replace the
power window master switch circuit board, as necessary. Note: This
is an expansion of recall 2012-338.

  Make       Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----           ----------------------
  TOYOTA     COROLLA         2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     CAMRY           2007, 2009
  TOYOTA     RAV4            2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     TUNDRA          2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     HIGHLANDER      2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     SEQUOIA         2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     HIGHLANDER HV   2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     MATRIX          2009, 2010, 2011
  TOYOTA     YARIS           2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011
  SCION      XB              2011
  TOYOTA     CAMRY HV        2007, 2009
  SCION      XD              2011


TRANS-EXEC: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Brown v. Trans-Exec Airservice, Inc., and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. BC597188 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 9, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Trans-Exec Airservice, Inc. owns and operates an airline company
in Van Nuys, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael B. Eisenberg, Esq.
      Daniel Nomanim, Esq.
      EISENBERG & ASSOCIATES
      3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213)201-9331
      Facsimile: (213)382-4083
      E-mail: info@laborlitigators.com


UNITEDLEX CORPORATION: Parets Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Parets, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. Unitedlex Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-24026-
KMM (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Unitedlex Corporation is a legal services provider with
headquarters and a principal place of business located at 12980
Foster Street, Overland Park, Kansas 66213.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter F. Valori, Esq.
      Russell Landy, Esq.
      DAMIAN & VALORI LLP
      1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1020
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 371-3960
      Facsimile: (305) 371-3965
      E-mail: pvalori@dvllp.com
              rlandy@dvllp.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


VALBELLA GOURMET: Recalls Meat Products Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Valbella Gourmet Foods
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10105

  Brand      Common name     Size       Code(s) on        UPC
  name       -----------     ----       product           ---
  -----                                 ----------
  Valbella   Pepper Pate     Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet                    weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Turkey Italian  Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Sausage         weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Gourmet Pate    Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet                    weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Fine Liver      Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Sausage         weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Chicken Apple   Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Sausage         weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Venison Pate    Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet                    weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Duck Liver      Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Pate            weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Curried Bombay  Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Lamb Sausage    weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label

  Valbella   Panzarotti      Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Sausage         weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Cheese Smokies  Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet                    weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Wild Boar Pate  Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet                    weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label
  Valbella   Moroccan Lamb   Variable   All codes where   None
  Gourmet    Sausage         weight     milk is not
  Foods                                 declared on the
                                        label


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jusan Yang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., J.
Michael Pearson, Howard B. Schiller, and Robert L. Rosiello, Case
No. 3:15-cv-07746-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., October 27, 2015) alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. operates a specialty
pharmaceutical and medical device company that develops,
manufactures, and markets a range of branded, generic, and branded
generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter products, and medical
devices, such as contact lenses, intraocular lenses, ophthalmic
surgical equipment, and aesthetics devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              mgorrie@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Opposed Motion for Award of Counsel Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is opposing
a motion for award of compensation and attorneys' fees in the
Israel Securities Class Action.

On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint was filed against us
in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv, Israel on behalf of
purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange. The
complaint sought compensation for damages allegedly incurred by
the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of erroneous
financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action, in light
of the proceedings already filed in the U.S., on March 31, 2008. A
hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008. Further briefing
in support of the stay motion, specifically with regard to the
threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on June 24, 2008.
On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our
favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our
liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court. Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed
on January 18, 2009. The Israeli District Court stayed its
proceedings until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs'
motion for leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing
before the Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal and addressed the case back
to the Israeli District Court. The Israeli Supreme Court
instructed the Israeli District Court to rule whether the Israel
class action should be stayed, under the assumption that the
applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an
application for reconsideration of the Israeli District Court's
ruling that U.S. law is the applicable law.

Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12, 2010,
the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending resolution of
the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice to plaintiffs'
right to appeal the Israeli District Court's decision regarding
the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme Court. On May 25, 2010,
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the decision
regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme Court. In
August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the Israeli Supreme
Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison
et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct.
2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the appeal currently
pending before the Court and requesting that this authority be
added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently filed an
application with the Israeli District Court asking that court to
reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S. law to
the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision to stay
the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action in light
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison. On August 25,
2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision denying
plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that the law
applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The Israeli
District Court also ordered that further proceedings in the case
be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S. class action.

On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We
filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the
application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status
of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
October 1, 2012. On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status
notice in the Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S.
securities class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court held a further
hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the parties meet and
confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli plaintiffs in the
federal class action pending in the U.S. On February 10, 2013, the
Israeli Supreme Court issued an order staying the case pursuant to
the joint notice submitted to the court by the parties on February
4, 2013. The plaintiff and putative class members in this action
are included in the stipulated settlement of the federal
securities class action, In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed
above unless an individual plaintiff opts out. Following the
February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S. court, in April
2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed a joint motion
requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the proceedings on
appeal concerning the determination of the applicable law. A
hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel
class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S.
class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental
pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on
August 19, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading
on September 4, 2014. On April 2, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court
ruled that the Israeli class action is estopped by the U.S. class
action settlement and dismissed the case.

On June 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the 2008 Israel Securities
Class Action filed a motion for award of compensation and
attorneys' fees based on the amount of settlement compensation
received by Israelis in the U.S. class action. We are opposing
that motion.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: To Seek Dismissal of New Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on May 13, 2015, a new
class action complaint was filed against the Company in Israel
alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli class action, and
alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived of due process in
the U.S. class action settlement proceedings.

"We intend to move to dismiss the new class action on
substantially the same grounds on which the previous case was
dismissed," the Company said.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Taken Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
VeriFone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has taken the
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the VeriFone
Securities Litigation under submission without a hearing.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us, certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV
13-1853) were filed in April 2013.

"On May 6, 2013, several putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law
firms filed motions to consolidate these three securities class
actions and requesting appointment as lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, respectively. The plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235
Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v.
VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al. voluntarily dismissed their
respective actions, without prejudice, on July 10, 2013 and July
17, 2013, respectively, and filed motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the action previously captioned Sanders v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014
and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court
took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument.
On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend.

"Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on October
7, 2014. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
on December 8, 2014. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition and we
filed our reply. The court has taken the motion under submission
without a hearing.


VERMEER: Recalls BC1000XL 2008 Model Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 26, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Equipment
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Lights And Instruments
Units affected: 1307
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015507TC
ID number: 2015507
Manufacturer recall number: IK00-3221

Certain brush chipper and stump cutter units may not comply with
the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -
Lighting System and Retro reflective Devices. During
manufacturing, the side marker LED lights installed did not
include a reflex reflector built into the lens and no other reflex
reflectors were installed on the sides of the trailers, which
fails to meet the requirements of the standard. This could reduce
vehicle conspicuity, which could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
install separate reflectors with SAE (A) marking or LED side
marker lights with reflex reflectors with an SAE (A) rated lens.

   Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----       ----------------------
   VERMEER    BC1000XL    2008


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 17240
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015504TC
ID number: 2015504

On certain vehicles, the camshaft lobe which actuates the vacuum
pump may fail, causing the pump to fail to deliver further vacuum
supply to the brake booster, potentially increasing stopping
distances. This would also result in a reduction in available
engine power. These issues could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Note: This issue would
result in the Engine Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL)
illuminating. Correction: To be determined.

  Make             Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----             -----         ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN       JETTA         2015, 2016
  VOLKSWAGEN       GOLF          2015, 2016
  VOLKSWAGEN       PASSAT        2015
  VOLKSWAGEN       GTI           2015, 2016
  VOLKSWAGEN       NEW BEETLE    2015, 2016


VOLVO TRUCKS: Recalls VNL 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015495TC
ID number: 2015495
Manufacturer recall number: RVXX1511

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

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  VOLVO     VNL        2016


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 22, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 646
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015497TC
ID number: 2015497

On certain motorhomes, the high pressure liquid propane (LP)
hose(s) could harden and leak at the crimp fitting. A propane leak
in the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
replace the high pressure liquid propane (LP) hose(s).

    Make         Model      Model year(s) affected
    ----         -----      ----------------------
    ITASCA       ELLIPSE    2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
    WINNEBAGO    ERA        2013, 2014, 2015


WISHBONE DESIGN: Recalls Wishbone Bike Recycled Edition
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Posting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Sports/Fitness, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55492

This recall involves Wishbone Design Studio Ltd.'s Wishbone Bike
Recycled Edition 3-in-1 and 2-in-1 trike-to-balance bikes made
from recycled black plastic materials with 30.5 centimetres (12-
inch), air-filled white rubber tires. The adjustable seat height
ranges from 9 to 20 inches. The bikes weigh about 4,535.9 grams
(10 pounds). The two recalled bikes include one 3-in-1 model,
which is adjustable as a 3-wheeler or 2-wheeler with a high seat
or low seat; and one 2-wheeler model, which is adjustable with a
high or low seat.

The date codes for production appear in a round dial on the front
frame of the bikes under the seat. Date codes are either 12/13
(December 2013) or 05/14 (May 2014). The year appears in the
center of the dial and the arrow points to the month. There is
also a Wishbone logo embossed on each bike fork. The affected
products have the SKU 4016 or 4116 and barcode 9421903253132 or
9421901544768.

The handlebar can pinch fingers placed at the center where the
handlebar connects to the bike frame.

Wishbone Design Studio Ltd. has received reports of four
incidents, including two injuries; one required stitches and the
other one required restorative surgery.

Neither Health Canada nor Wishbone Design Studios Ltd. has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this toy in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 114 units of the recalled products were sold at
various retailers across Canada whereas approximately 400 were
sold in the United States and 4,500 additional units were sold
worldwide.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from October 2014 to
June 2015 at various independent toy and bicycle stores.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Wishbone Design Studio Limited
              Wellington
              NEW ZEALAND

Importer Wishbone: Design Studio Limited.
                   Yardville
                   New Jersey
                   UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the bike, take it away
from children and contact Wishbone or the store where the bike was
purchased for a free neoprene cover for the handlebar.

For additional information, consumers may contact Wishbone Design
Studios Ltd. by email or visit the firm's website.

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

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

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

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


* CFIA Recalls Orthodox Coconut Palm brand Coconut Drink
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 23, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10114

  Brand      Common    Size     Code(s) on product     UPC
  name       name      ----     ------------------     ---
  -----      ------
  Orthodox   Coconut   6 x 245   All codes where milk  6 901347-
  Coconut    Drink     ml        is not declared on    990815
  Palm or                        the label
  Yeshu
  (Chinese
  characters)
  Orthodox   Coconut   1 L       All codes where milk  6 901347-
  Coconut    Drink               is not declared on    880390
  Palm or                        the label
  Yeshu
  (Chinese
  characters)



                            *********

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  * * *