---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 230


                            Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Granted Final Approval of HTEAL Settlement
BAKER HUGHES: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
BAKER HUGHES: Settlement in Ciamillo Lawsuit Has Final Approval
BAKER HUGHES: Collective Action Filed in North Dakota
BANCORP INC: "Fletcher" Litigation in Preliminary Stages

BIG LOTS: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
BIOGEN INC: "Tehrani" Class Action Filed in Massachusetts
CIENA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suits Over Cyan Deal Filed
CIENA CORP: Judgment Sought in Beaver County Fund Case
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Jury Delibirates Over Sherman Act Violation

CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
DEL TACO: To File Insurance Claim Related to "Tomasulo" Accord
DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in 2013 Action by Former Employee
DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in 2014 Suit by Former Employee
DUKE ENERGY: To Pay $81MM to Resolve Shareholder Lawsuit

EUROMOTORS OAKLAND: Suit Seeks Damages for Negligence & Fraud
FANDUEL: Pierre Garcon Files "Exploitation" Class Suit
FANDUEL INC: "Tyler" Suit Alleges Gaming Code Violation
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: California Class Actions Still Open
FOOT LOCKER: Settled "Pereira" Class Action in E.D. Pa.

FOOT LOCKER: Trial Held in Osberg Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
FTS INTERNATIONAL: "Wharton" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
GENERAL MOTORS: Certification Denied in Discrimination Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: 101 Recall Class Actions Pending Thru Oct. 16
GENERAL MOTORS: Case Management Judge Assigned to Manage Appeals

GOOGLE: Faces Class Suit From Delivery Drivers
HCSB FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 23
HELIX ENERGY: Initial Conference Held in "Izadjoo" Case
HOME PROPERTIES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Suit Seeks Damages for Copyright Infringement

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Cert. Bid in Shareholder Suit Opposed
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 90 Product Liability Suits
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Appeal in Product Liability Action Denied
KING CITY, CA: Towing Victims Settle Suit Against Police
LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Legal Fees Dispute in "Markey" Still Pending

LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Royalty Class Action in Early Stage
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Scheduling Order Entered in LBSF v. BofA Case
LEWIS ENERGY: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation
LIBERTY SILVER: Court Approved $1MM Settlement in Class Action
LIQUID HOLDINGS: "De Vito" Securities Action Filed in D.N.J.

LOOMIS ARMORED: Suit Seeks Meal and Rest Period Compensation
MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Hearing Held on Stipulation in Covidien Suits
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Claim for Injunctive Relief in "Johnson" Tossed
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defending Class Action by "Salerno" and "Lucas"
NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Evaluate Tanguilig Matter

NEIMAN MARCUS: Dismissal of "Rubenstein" Class Suit Challenged
NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending "Zaslav" Class Action in N.Y.
NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Denied Bid for Rehearing in "Remijas"
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Suit by Rand-Heart of NY Remains Pending
NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Shareholder Class Actions Dismissed

PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Securities Class Action
PETRO RIVER: Motion to Dismiss Donelson Action Remains Pending
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Federal Court Dismisses Class Action
QUICKSILVER INC: Amended Complaint Filed in C.D. Cal. Suit
RENTECH NITROGEN: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Class Suit

RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Case Goes to Mediation
RIVERSIDE, CA: Reaches Tentative Deal to Settle Civil Rights Suit
ROSS STORES: Wage and Hour Class Actions Remain Pending
RWDY INC: "York" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
SEI INVESTMENTS: Motion for Reconsideration Granted

SIRIUS XM: "Sheridan" Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement
SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
SPACE EXPLORATION: "Saporito" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
STAN CHESLEY: Faces Arrest Warrant For Not Appearing in Court
SUNRUN INC: Consumer Rights Action Pending in Los Angeles

SUNRUN INC: Employee Rights Action Pending in San Diego
SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend September 2008 Class Action
SUPERVALU INC: Plaintiffs in December 2008 Action File Appeal
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Santana" Suit Alleges BIPA Violation
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit

VALEANT PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Niegelsen" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Welch" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Siegelstein" Suit Over Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Trainer" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Truong" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Bus. Practices
W. P. CAREY: "Gaines" Withdrew Notice of Appeal


                            *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Court Granted Final Approval of HTEAL Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended August 28, 2015, that the court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the In Re High-Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation ("HTEAL").

Between May 4, 2011 and July 14, 2011, five putative class action
lawsuits were filed in Santa Clara Superior Court and Alameda
Superior Court in California. On September 12, 2011, the cases
were consolidated into In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation ("HTEAL") pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. In the
consolidated complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Adobe, along with
Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar, agreed not to
recruit each other's employees in violation of Federal and state
antitrust laws. Plaintiffs claim the alleged agreements suppressed
employee compensation and deprived employees of career
opportunities. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary
damages, treble damages, costs and attorneys fees. All defendants
deny the allegations and that they engaged in any wrongdoing of
any kind.

On October 24, 2013, the court certified a class of all persons
who worked in the technical, creative, and/or research and
development fields on a salaried basis in the United States for
one or more of the following: (a) Apple from March 2005 through
December 2009; (b) Adobe from May 2005 through December 2009; (c)
Google from March 2005 through December 2009; (d) Intel from March
2005 through December 2009; (e) Intuit from June 2007 through
December 2009; (f) Lucasfilm from January 2005 through December
2009; or (g) Pixar from January 2005 through December 2009,
excluding retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors, and senior executives of all defendants.
During the first quarter of fiscal 2015, the parties reached an
agreement to settle the litigation.

In March 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and on September 2, 2015, the court granted final
approval of the settlement.

"We expect to incur no additional losses associated with this
matter," the Company said.


BAKER HUGHES: Class Action Settlement Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
in a class action remains subject to certain conditions, including
consummation of the merger, final documentation, and court
approval.

These lawsuits have been filed in Delaware in connection with our
pending merger with Halliburton:

     * On November 24, 2014, Gary Molenda, a purported shareholder
of the Company, filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court")
against Baker Hughes, the Company's Board of Directors,
Halliburton, and Red Tiger LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Halliburton ("Red Tiger" and together with all defendants,
"Defendants") styled Gary R. Molenda v. Baker Hughes, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10390-CB.

     * On November 26, 2014, a second purported shareholder of the
Company, Booth Family Trust, filed a substantially similar class
action lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court.

     * On December 1, 2014, New Jersey Building Laborers Annuity
Fund and James Rice, two additional purported shareholders of the
Company, filed substantially similar class action lawsuits in
Delaware Chancery Court.

     * On December 10, 2014, a fifth purported shareholder of the
Company, Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, filed another
substantially similar class action lawsuit in the Delaware
Chancery Court.

     * On December 24, 2014, a sixth purported shareholder of the
Company, Annette Shipp, filed another substantially similar class
action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court.

"All of the lawsuits make substantially similar claims," the
Company said.  "The plaintiffs generally allege that the members
of the Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to our shareholders in connection with the merger
negotiations by entering into the merger agreement and by
approving the merger, and that the Company, Halliburton, and Red
Tiger aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.  More specifically, the lawsuits allege that the merger
agreement provides inadequate consideration to our shareholders,
that the process resulting in the merger agreement was flawed,
that the Company's directors engaged in self-dealing, and that
certain provisions of the merger agreement improperly favor
Halliburton and Red Tiger, precluding or impeding third parties
from submitting potentially superior proposals, among other
things.  The lawsuit filed by Annettee Shipp also alleges that our
Board of Directors failed to disclose material information
concerning the proposed merger in the preliminary registration
statement on Form S-4."

On January 7, 2015, James Rice amended his complaint, adding
similar allegations regarding the disclosures in the preliminary
registration statement on Form S-4.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
damages, injunctive relief enjoining the merger, and rescission of
the merger agreement, among other relief.  On January 23, 2015,
the Delaware lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re
Baker Hughes Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10390-CB (the "Consolidated Case"). Pursuant to the Court's
consolidation order, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
February 4, 2015, which alleges substantially similar claims and
seeks substantially similar relief to that raised in the six
individual complaints, except that while Baker Hughes is named as
a defendant, no claims are asserted against the Company.

On March 18, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Case in exchange for the Company making
certain additional disclosures. Those disclosures were contained
in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on March 18, 2015. The settlement
remains subject to certain conditions, including consummation of
the merger, final documentation, and court approval.

On November 26, 2014, a seventh class action challenging the
merger was filed by a purported Company shareholder in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division).  The lawsuit, styled Marc Rovner v. Baker Hughes Inc.,
et al., Cause No. 4:14-cv-03416 ("the Rovner lawsuit"), asserts
claims against the Company, most of our current Board of
Directors, Halliburton, and Red Tiger.  The lawsuit asserts
substantially similar claims and seeks substantially similar
relief as that sought in the Delaware lawsuits.  On March 20,
2015, counsel for Mr. Rovner filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal, and on March 23, 2015, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Rovner lawsuit without prejudice.


BAKER HUGHES: Settlement in Ciamillo Lawsuit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a collective
action alleging that the Company failed to pay a class of workers
overtime in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
was filed on April 28, 2014, titled Michael Ciamillo,
individually, etc., et al. vs. Baker Hughes Incorporated in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska ("Ciamillo").
During the fourth quarter of 2014, the parties agreed to settle
the Ciamillo lawsuit, including certain state law claims, for $5
million. The court granted final approval of that settlement on
June 19, 2015.


BAKER HUGHES: Collective Action Filed in North Dakota
-----------------------------------------------------
Baker Hughes Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class and
collective action lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to pay
a nationwide class of workers overtime in compliance with the FLSA
and North Dakota law was filed on April 30, 2015.  The case is
titled Williams et al. v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc.
in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota.

"We are evaluating the background facts and at this time cannot
predict the outcome of this lawsuit and are not able to reasonably
estimate the potential impact, if any, such outcome would have on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


BANCORP INC: "Fletcher" Litigation in Preliminary Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., is in its preliminary
stages, The Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

On July 17, 2014, a class action securities complaint, captioned
Fletcher v. The Bancorp Inc., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.  A
consolidated version of that class action complaint was filed
before the same court on January 23, 2015 on behalf of Lead
Plaintiffs Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System.  Filed under the caption of In
re The Bancorp Inc. Securities Litigation, the consolidated
complaint asserts claims against Bancorp, Betsy Z. Cohen, Paul
Frenkiel, Frank M. Mastrangelo and Jeremy Kuiper, and alleges that
during a class period beginning April 24, 2013 through July 23,
2014, the defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Bancorp had
wrongfully extended and modified problem loans and under-reserved
for loan losses due to adverse loans, (ii) Bancorp's operations
and credit practices were in violation of the BSA, and (iii) as a
result, Bancorp's financial statements, press releases and public
statements were materially false and misleading during the
relevant period.

The consolidated complaint further alleges that, as a result, the
price of Bancorp's common stock was artificially inflated and fell
once the defendants' misstatements and omissions were revealed,
causing damage to the plaintiffs and the other members of the
class.  The complaint asks for an unspecified amount of damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
March 24, 2015.

Following Bancorp's April 1, 2015 announcement that it would be
restating its financial statements, the parties entered into a
stipulation dated April 10, 2015 allowing the plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint within 28 days of Bancorp filing its restated
financial statements, and giving the defendants 28 days to respond
to the amended complaint.  The court approved the parties'
stipulation on April 14, 2015. This litigation is in its
preliminary stages.

"We have been advised by our counsel in the matter that reasonably
possible losses cannot be estimated.  We believe that the
complaint is without merit and we intend to defend vigorously,"
the Company said.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Decision on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the putative class action complaint, and
that motion is fully briefed and awaiting a decision.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed
and awaiting a decision."


BIOGEN INC: "Tehrani" Class Action Filed in Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that Nicole Tehrani filed on
August 18, 2015, an action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biogen, our Chief Executive
Officer, George A. Scangos, and the Company's Chief Financial
Officer, Paul J. Clancy, alleging federal securities law
violations under 15 U.S.C. Sec.78j(b) and Sec.78t(a) and 17 C.F.R.
Sec.240.10b-5. The plaintiff seeks declaration of the action as a
class action, certification of the plaintiff as a representative
of the class and her counsel as class counsel, and an award to the
plaintiff and the class of damages, interest, and attorneys' fees.
We have not formed an opinion that an unfavorable outcome is
either "probable" or "remote" and are unable to estimate the
magnitude or range of any potential loss.


CIENA CORP: Bid to Dismiss Class Suits Over Cyan Deal Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that from May 15 through
June 3, 2015, five separate putative class action lawsuits in
connection with Ciena's then-pending acquisition of Cyan, Inc.
("Cyan") were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware:

     * Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed
May 15, 2015

     * Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed May
15, 2015

     * Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed May 20,
2015

     * Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed May
27, 2015

     * Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed June
3, 2015

Each of the complaints named Cyan (except for the Canzano
complaint), Ciena, Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Ciena
subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the
acquisition ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of
directors as defendants. On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits
was consolidated into a single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB.

On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a verified amended class action
complaint, naming Ciena, Merger Sub and the members of Cyan's
board of directors as defendants. The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Cyan board members breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to maximize the value of
Cyan to its public stockholders, taking steps to avoid competitive
bidding, failing to properly value Cyan and obtain the best
exchange ratio, ignoring or not protecting against certain
conflicts of interest, and failing to disclose all material
information necessary for Cyan stockholders to make an informed
decision regarding the acquisition. The amended complaint also
alleges that Ciena and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Cyan board members.

The amended complaint seeks (i) preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief enjoining Cyan and Ciena from consummating the
merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated prior to the
entry of the court's final judgment, rescission of the merger or
rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an accounting of all
damages caused as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties, and (iv) costs including attorneys' fees and experts'
fees.

On August 10, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. No briefing schedule or hearing date has been
set on these motions. Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit
is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.


CIENA CORP: Judgment Sought in Beaver County Fund Case
------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the defendants have
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case by Beaver
County Employees Retirement Fund, et al.

The Company said, "As a result of our acquisition of Cyan in
August 2015, we became a defendant in a securities class action
lawsuit. On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of
directors, Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of Cyan's initial public offering. On April 30, 2014,
a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
against the same defendants."

"The two cases have been consolidated as Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-
539008. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of
purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public
offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.

"In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated
complaint, which the court overruled in October 2014 and allowed
the case to proceed. On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings based on an alleged lack of
subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Ciena believes that the
consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend it
vigorously."


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Jury Delibirates Over Sherman Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lobue, Esq. -- rplobue@pbwt.com -- and Nicole Paschal, Esq.
-- npaschal@pbwt.com -- at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, in
an article for JD Supra, reported that after a near two-week trial
in the consumer class action lawsuit against Cox Communications,
the jury began deliberations to decide whether Cox's alleged
practice of tying premium cable services to rentals of its cable
boxes violated the Sherman Act by harming competition in the set-
top box market.  As we previously reported, Cox's premium services
subscribers were not contractually obligated to rent set-top boxes
but were required to do so by Cox's internal policies in order to
receive the premium services for which they paid.  The premium
services at issue, also referred to as "two-way services," include
interactive content like video-on-demand, program guides, pay-per-
view, and parental controls.

Although the court noted in its summary judgment order that a
material factual dispute existed over whether Cox made efforts to
allow its customers access to premium cable services through set-
top boxes not manufactured exclusively for use with Cox cable, Cox
did not present particularly strong evidence of any attempts to
develop such an alternative.  For instance, Cox wrote to the
Federal Communications Commission in 2010 stating it had reached
an agreement with TiVo Inc. to allow Cox subscribers to use TiVo
boxes, but the deal did not go into effect until five years later.
Cox effectively conceded that its consumers did not have an
alternative to renting its set-top box but argued that Cox was not
to blame for the lack of alternatives in the market.  Rather, Cox
claimed that box manufacturers, including the manufacturer of its
own boxes, elected not to sell set-top boxes at retail and failed
to develop a uniformly compatible alternative.  Cox further argued
to the jury that Cox's alleged high-level decision to block set-
top boxes purchased on eBay was merely to prevent the use of
possible stolen boxes rather than evidence of an illegal tying
arrangement as the plaintiffs contended.

The plaintiffs pointed to Cox's economic power in the relevant
geographic market, which the court defined as Cox's Oklahoma City
subsystem, where its market power averaged 65.3% from 2005 to
2012.  The plaintiffs argued that they proved that Cox tried to
impede competition in the market and "destroyed any realistic
market alternatives" by delaying the TiVo deal five years and
blocking eBay-bought boxes.  As a result, the plaintiffs argued
that nearly 500,000 people were overcharged for Cox's premium
services.  The plaintiffs are seeking nearly $49 million in
damages, and any damages awarded will be trebled by the court.


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Midstream Partners LP filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission a Current Report on Form 8-K in connection
with a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of
litigation relating to, among other things, the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of May 5, 2015, by and among Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the
"Partnership" or "Midstream"), Crestwood Midstream GP, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of
Midstream ("Midstream GP"), Crestwood Equity Partners LP, a
Delaware limited partnership ("CEQP"), Crestwood Equity GP LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and the general partner of CEQP
("CEQP GP"), CEQP ST SUB LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and a wholly owned subsidiary of CEQP ("MergerCo"), MGP GP, LLC. a
Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of
CEQP ("MGP GP"), Crestwood Midstream Holdings LP, a Delaware
limited partnership ("Midstream Holdings") and Crestwood Gas
Services GP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and wholly
owned subsidiary of Midstream GP ("CGS GP"), pursuant to which,
among other things, MergerCo, MGP GP and Midstream Holdings agreed
to merge with and into Midstream with Midstream surviving the
merger (the "merger").

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the
Partnership on August 28, 2015 (the "proxy statement/
prospectus"), Lawrence Farber and Isaac Aron, two purported
unitholders of Crestwood Midstream, each filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division (the "Court"), on behalf of a purported class of
Midstream unitholders. These lawsuits, which name as defendants
Midstream, Midstream GP, CEQP, CEQP GP, MergerCo, MGP GP,
Midstream Holdings, CGS GP and the members of the board of
directors of Midstream GP as defendants (collectively, the
"defendants"), assert claims relating to the merger. They were
consolidated into a single action captioned: Aron v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-cv-1367 (the
"Unitholder Action"), and Plaintiff Farber subsequently dismissed
his claims against all the defendants.

Plaintiff in the Unitholder Action generally alleges, among other
things, that Midstream GP and certain individual defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by disseminating a
false and materially misleading proxy statement in connection with
the merger.

On September 22, 2015, the parties to the Unitholder Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding with respect to a
proposed settlement of the Unitholder Action. The Partnership
believes that the claims asserted in the Unitholder Action are
without merit and that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws.
However, to avoid the risk that the putative unitholder class
action delays or otherwise adversely affects the consummation of
the merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action,
the Partnership has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger.

The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement that will contain customary
terms, including, but not limited to, the certification of a
settlement class and a release, and be subject to customary
conditions, including but not limited to, court approval and the
closing of the merger. The foregoing terms and conditions will be
defined by the stipulation of settlement, and class members will
receive a separate notice describing the settlement terms and
their rights in connection with the approval of the settlement. In
connection with the settlement, the parties also contemplate that
plaintiff's counsel will file a petition with the Court for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Midstream will pay or cause
to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Court.
There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


DEL TACO: To File Insurance Claim Related to "Tomasulo" Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (f/k/a Levy Acquisition Corp.) said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 8, 2015, that the Company is in the process of filing a
claim with the insurance company to recover amounts incurred in
excess of the deductible related to the settlement in the class
action filed by Jeffery Tomasulo.

On April 23, 2015, a purported class action and derivative
complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F.
Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon, Craig J. Duchossois, Ari
B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G. Flynn, Del Taco Holdings,
Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp. ("Complaint"), was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Circuit Court"),
relating to the then proposed Business Combination pursuant to the
Merger Agreement. The Complaint, which purported to be brought as
a class action on behalf of all of the holders of the Company's
common stock, generally alleged that the Company's pre-merger
directors breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by
facilitating the then proposed Business Combination and in
negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The Complaint also
alleged that the Company's preliminary proxy statement that was
filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 is materially misleading
and/or incomplete. The Complaint further alleged that DTH and Levy
Acquisition Sponsor LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches by
the Company's pre-merger directors. The Complaint sought (a) a
declaration that the Company's pre-merger directors breached their
fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining the Business
Combination until corrective disclosures were made; (c)
compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs
and attorney's fees.

The Company reached a settlement in principle of all claims
asserted in the Complaint. The settlement resolved all claims that
the June 11, 2015 definitive proxy filed by the Company is
misleading or incomplete, as well as all other causes of action
asserted in the case. The settlement in principle does not provide
for any monetary payment to the plaintiff or the putative
plaintiff class, but the plaintiff may request that the Circuit
Court order the Company to pay its attorneys' fees and costs. Any
final settlement will be subject to the Circuit Court's approval.
The amount of attorney's fees and costs that the court might award
is not currently estimable.

The Company has a directors and officers liability insurance
policy to cover legal defense costs and settlements stemming from
covered claims, subject to an insurance deductible of $0.25
million per claim. The Company has incurred $0.7 million and $0.1
million in legal defense fees during the twenty-six weeks ended
June 30, 2015 (of which $0.3 million was incurred during the two
weeks ended June 30, 2015) and ten weeks ended September 8, 2015,
respectively, of which $0.1 million is accrued as of September 8,
2015. The legal defense fees incurred are reported in transaction-
related costs on the accompanying condensed consolidated
statements of comprehensive income (loss). The Company is in the
process of filing a claim with the insurance company to recover
amounts incurred in excess of the deductible, but there can be no
assurance that the insurance company will approve the claim in
full.


DEL TACO: Discovery Completed in 2013 Action by Former Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (f/k/a Levy Acquisition Corp.) said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 8, 2015, that the parties in the class action filed by a
former employee are preparing their motions for and opposition to
class certification.

In July 2013, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has failed to pay overtime
wages and has not appropriately provided meal breaks to its
California general managers. Discovery has been completed and the
parties are preparing their motions for and opposition to class
certification.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis.

"Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company
is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the
unresolved matter. However, based on management's current
understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company
does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable or
estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows.
Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as
of September 8, 2015," the Company said.


DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in 2014 Suit by Former Employee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. (f/k/a Levy Acquisition Corp.) said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 19, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 8, 2015, that discovery is in process in a class action
filed by a former employee in 2014.

In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately
provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California
hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to
assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the
individual claims.

Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes
should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the
potential assessment of any damages on a class basis.


DUKE ENERGY: To Pay $81MM to Resolve Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation and Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. said in their
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 21, 2015, that they have entered into a settlement
agreement in which the Corporation agreed to pay approximately $81
million out of shareholder funds to end a class action, Anthony
Williams et al. v. Duke Energy Corp. et al., in which the
plaintiffs asserted that contracts between Duke Energy Retail
Sales, LLC, a former subsidiary of the Corporation, and certain
large industrial and business customers of the Corporation
violated state and federal antitrust and other laws by providing
financial benefits through those contracts that other customers
did not receive. The Corporation and Duke Energy Ohio denied the
allegations and maintained that they had complied with all state
and federal laws but agreed to settle the case to avoid the costs
and uncertainties of continued litigation.

Under the agreement, the Settlement Amount would be allocated as
follows:

     * Up to $25 million to Duke Energy Ohio's residential
customers who were customers at any time during the period
beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31, 2008;

     * Up to $25 million to Duke Energy Ohio's non-residential
customers (such as businesses and local governments) who were
customers at any time during the period beginning January 1, 2005,
and ending December 31, 2008;

     * $8 million to fund energy-related programs to benefit Duke
Energy Ohio's customers who were customers at any time during the
period beginning January 1, 2005, and ending December 31, 2008;
and

     * Remaining funds to pay plaintiffs' legal fees, settlement
fund distribution costs and other expenses.

The Corporation previously recognized cumulative pre-tax charges
of $81 million to account for the settlement of this matter. As a
result, no additional charges will be recognized due to the final
settlement provisions.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.


EUROMOTORS OAKLAND: Suit Seeks Damages for Negligence & Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Saucer-Bilbo, and all others similarly-situated v.
Euromotors Oakland, Inc., David J. Barsotti, John Jackson, Garland
Steiding, Darin Sparrow, DJ Fisher, Greg Colbert, and Does 1-30,
Case No. RG15789944 (Cal. Super., October 19, 2015), seeks damages
for conversion, trespass to chattels, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligence, fraud by intentional
misrepresentation, breach of contract and unfair business
practices.

Euromotors Oakland, Inc. -- trade name Mercedes Benz of Oakland
-- is in the Automobiles, New and Used business. The Individual
Defendants are employees of Euromotors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tyler Rougeau, Esq.
      520 Frederick Street #3
      San Francisco, CA 94117
      Tel: (510) 301-2493
      E-mail: tyler@trougeaulaw.com


FANDUEL: Pierre Garcon Files "Exploitation" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reported that the challenges
facing the daily fantasy industry have taken yet another twist.
For one of the major DFS companies.

Washington receiver Pierre Garcon has filed a class-action lawsuit
in Maryland against FanDuel. The complaint alleges that player
"names and likenesses have been misappropriated" and that FanDuel
"knowingly and improperly exploits the popularity" of players at
"offensive skilled position" absent their permission.

The press release announcing the lawsuit, posted by Mike Garafolo
of FOXSports.com, contends that FanDuel "routinely uses the names
and likenesses of some of these NFL players without authorization
to promote FanDuel's commercial enterprise, collecting huge
revenues from entry fees."

The press release states that FanDuel "continues to promote and to
operate its daily fantasy football gaming product on the backs of
NFL players like Mr. Garcon, whose popularity and performance make
FanDuel's entire business model possible."

DraftKings presumably was not sued because it has struck an
advertising deal with the NFL Players Association, allowing
DraftKings to use player images and names. The next question
becomes whether the lawsuit was in any way instigated by
DraftKings or the NFLPA, as part of an effort to help DraftKings
prevail in the cola war that has been unfolding between the two
primary DFS companies.


FANDUEL INC: "Tyler" Suit Alleges Gaming Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Tyler, Owen McGrew, and all others similarly-situated v.
FanDuel, Inc. and DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02159 (N.D.
Ohio, October 19, 2015), seek damages for Defendants' violation of
the Ohio Revised Code section 3763: Gaming and unjust enrichment.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
      CONNICK LAW, LLC
      25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
      Cleveland, OH 44122
      Tel: (216) 364-0512
      Fax: (216) 609-3446
      E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: California Class Actions Still Open
--------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.,
Ferrellgas, L.P., and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2015, that
the Companies continue to defend class actions in California
relating to residual propane remaining in the tank after use.

The Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") initiated an investigation
into certain practices related to the filling of portable propane
cylinders. On March 27, 2014, the FTC filed an administrative
complaint alleging that Ferrellgas and one of its competitors
colluded in 2008 to persuade a customer to accept the cylinder
fill reduction from 17 pounds to 15 pounds. The complaint did not
seek monetary remedies. Ferrellgas reached a settlement with the
FTC during the three months ended October 31, 2014 without any
financial payment; the settlement has been approved by a vote of
the Commission and became final after a public comment period.

"We have also been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple
jurisdictions," the Company said.  "The complaints, filed on
behalf of direct and indirect customers of our tank exchange
business, reference the FTC complaint. The lawsuits allege that we
and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in
barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to
accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs
to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one
case by a multidistrict litigation panel. We believe we have
strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend
against the consolidated case. We do not believe loss is probable
or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class
action lawsuit."

"In addition, putative class action cases have been filed in
California relating to residual propane remaining in the tank
after use. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and
intend to vigorously defend against the consolidated case. We do
not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time
related to the putative class action lawsuit.

"We were also named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas. The
complaint was the subject of a motion to dismiss which was
granted, in part, in August 2011. The surviving claims alleged
breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith
and fair dealing, both of which allegedly arise from the existence
of an oral contract for continuous propane service. We recently
prevailed in a trial to determine whether the claims were required
to be arbitrated, resulting in a dismissal of this case. There is
no probable or reasonably estimable loss relating to this matter."


FOOT LOCKER: Settled "Pereira" Class Action in E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that certain of the
Company's subsidiaries are defendants in a number of lawsuits
filed in state and federal courts containing various class action
allegations under federal or state wage and hour laws, including
allegations concerning unpaid overtime, meal and rest breaks, and
uniforms. In Pereira v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff
alleged that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws and
sought compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs. Additional purported wage and hour
class actions were filed against the Company that assert claims
similar to those asserted in Pereira and seek similar remedies.
With the exception of Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in
Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot Locker filed in state court in
California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker filed in federal court in
New York, all of these actions were consolidated by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira
under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wage and Hour Litigation. The Company and plaintiffs entered
into a settlement agreement resolving Hill and the consolidated
cases, which was approved by the court during the second quarter
of 2015.


FOOT LOCKER: Trial Held in Osberg Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that trial has been held in
the Osberg class action.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York) in which the
plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of
the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance
formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly
advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the
conversion. Plaintiff's current claims are for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description. The trial was held in
July 2015, and the court has not yet delivered a decision.


FTS INTERNATIONAL: "Wharton" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wharton, and all others similarly-situated v. FTS
International Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00790 (N.D. Tex.,
October 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an oil service company that provides multi-stage,
unconventional well stimulation and completion services. A more
common name for Defendant's well stimulation process is
"fracking."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 523-0001
      Fax: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Certification Denied in Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Janice, Esq. -- cjanice@seyfarth.com -- and Gerald
Maatmana, Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
in an article for JD Supre, reported that in an order recently
issued in James Robinson III, et al. v. General Motors Company, et
al., Case No. 15-CV-158-Y (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2015), Judge Terry
R. Means of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas denied class certification to two employees of General
Motors Company ("GM"), who sought to represent a nationwide class
of employees seeking unpaid leave to observe religious holy days.
The Court further granted GM's motion to dismiss the class action
complaint, but granted Plaintiffs leave to file an amended
complaint.

This case is instructive for employers defending class actions and
dealing with requests for religious accommodation in the
workplace.

Case Background

In 2008, two employees of GM's Arlington, Texas facility began
making requests for unpaid leave to observe their respective
religious holy days. GM employee James Robinson, III ("Robinson")
alleged that he requested and received unpaid leave for religious
holy days, including. Id. at 1 - 2. GM employee Chris Scruggs
("Scruggs") alleged that he requested but was denied unpaid leave
for religious holy days until GM began granting his requests for
unpaid leave in 2010. Id. at 2. The two plaintiffs are of
different faith communities; Robinson a member of the Seventh Day
Sabbatarian community of Tyler Sabbath Fellowship, and Scruggs a
member of Messianic Jewish Beth Yeshua Congregation. Id. at 1 - 2.

Plaintiffs alleged that in 2013 GM began denying Robinson's
requests for unpaid leave to observe holy days and, once
Robinson's attorney identified Scruggs as another employee being
denied similar unpaid leave, that GM resumed denial of Scruggs'
requests for unpaid leave to observe holy days. Id. Plaintiffs
filed their class action complaint against GM in March 2015,
alleging that GM violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by denying them the religious accommodation of unpaid leave
to observe their respective holy days, despite the availability of
volunteers to cover their shifts. The lawsuit demanded damages and
a class-wide injunction ordering GM to allow unpaid leave on holy
days, to inquire about the availability of volunteer coverage, and
to seek no-cost methods of allowing religious leave. Id. at 2 - 3.

Plaintiffs sought certification of a class of "all General Motors
workers within the United States subject to the 2011 UAW-GM
National Agreement and who may seek unpaid leave for a holy day
because of a religious belief." Id. at 5. GM opposed the motion by
arguing that the class that Plaintiffs purported to represent
constituted an impermissible "hypothetical -- i.e., the
possibility that GM employees may seek unpaid religious leave at
some time the future," and would require individualized inquiries
not suited for class treatment. Id. (emphasis in original.)

The Court's Decision

Finding that the Plaintiffs' class definition "includes any GM
employees who might request unpaid religious leave in the future,"
the Court determined that the class was not adequately defined or
ascertainable. Id. at 6. (emphasis in original.)  Noting that in
this case the Court would be required to evaluate each class
member's religion, that religion's holy days, and the days each
member requested for leave, the Court determined that Plaintiffs
failed to identify common questions of law or fact applicable to
the class, and further failed to prove numerosity. Id. at 6, n. 1.
The Court further observed that "[c]lass relief is most
appropriate where the issues in the case turn on questions of law
or fact 'applicable in the same manner to each member of the
class'" Id. (internal citations omitted).  The Court's order,
however, allows Plaintiffs until November 23, 2015, to file an
amended complaint, and the opportunity to propose a definition of
a more ascertainable class. Id. at 7.

Implications For Employers

Religious accommodation under Title VII requires employers to
engage in factual inquiries to determine if a requested
accommodation is appropriate under Title VII or similar state law.
For this reason, and as illustrated by the ruling in Robinson,
these individualized factual inquiries precluded class-wide
treatment of religious accommodation claims. Carefully
articulating neutral policies and managing to consistent
procedures for investigating and responding to requests for
religious accommodation best enable employers both to respond to
the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce, and to develop
internal business records that may help avoid costly litigation.


GENERAL MOTORS: 101 Recall Class Actions Pending Thru Oct. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company was
aware of 101 putative class actions pending through October 16,
2015, against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the
U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been
economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
those recalls (economic-loss cases). Additionally, through October
16, 2015, the Company was aware of 21 putative class actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief
similar to that sought in the economic-loss cases in the U.S.

"In the aggregate these economic-loss cases seek recovery for
purported compensatory damages, such as alleged diminution in
value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive
relief and other relief," the Company said.

"Additionally there are two civil actions brought by governmental
entities relating to the 2014 recalls which seek injunctive relief
as well as economic damages for alleged violations of state
consumer protection statutes, as well as attorneys' fees.

"Through October 16, 2015 we were aware of 208 actions pending in
various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. against GM
alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the
subject of recalls announced in 2014 (personal injury cases).
Additionally, through October 16, 2015 we were aware of 9 actions
pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief
similar to that sought in the personal injury cases in the U.S. In
the aggregate these personal injury cases seek recovery for
purported compensatory damages, punitive or exemplary damages and
other relief.

"Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) has issued orders from time to time directing
that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal
lawsuits involving faulty or allegedly faulty ignition switches or
other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in the
year ended December 31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated
in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the
multidistrict litigation). Through October 16, 2015 the JPML has
transferred 233 pending cases to, and consolidated them with, the
multidistrict litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties
to the multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in
discussions of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation.

"On September 17, 2015 we announced that we had reached a
memorandum of understanding with certain personal injury
claimants.

"Because many plaintiffs in the actions described in the above
paragraphs are suing over the conduct of General Motors
Corporation or vehicles manufactured by that entity for
liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved to enforce the
terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction issued by the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from being asserted
against us for, among other things, personal injuries based on
pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims based on acts or
conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims asserting
successor liability for obligations owed by General Motors
Corporation (successor liability claims). On April 15, 2015 the
Bankruptcy Court issued a decision precluding claims against us
based upon pre-sale accidents, claims based upon the acts or
conduct by General Motors Corporation and successor liability
claims, except for claims asserting liabilities that had been
expressly assumed by us in the July 2009 Sale Agreement and claims
that could be asserted against us only if they were otherwise
viable and arose solely out of our own independent post-closing
acts and did not in any way rely on acts or conduct by General
Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed the Bankruptcy
Court's decision. We have filed a notice of cross appeal to
preserve our rights on appeal. The Second Circuit has accepted a
direct appeal of the matter. The parties have moved for expedited
briefing on the appeal. Further, the Bankruptcy Court has pending
before it various motions and pleadings which may further define
GM's potential liabilities in various lawsuits.

"In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Shareholder Class Action), the court appointed the New York State
Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15,
2015 the New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current
and former officers and employees (Defendants). On behalf of
purchasers of GM common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24,
2014, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges that
Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to
problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings
and other public statements.  On September 17, 2015 we announced
that we had entered into a binding term sheet regarding settlement
of this matter.

"With regard to the shareholder derivative actions, the two
shareholder derivative actions pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan have been
consolidated and all proceedings, including those related to the
motion to dismiss we filed in that court in October 2014, remain
suspended pending disposition of the parallel action being
litigated in Delaware Chancery Court. With regard to that pending
litigation in Delaware Chancery Court, the four shareholder
derivative actions pending in that court were consolidated and
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on October 13,
2014. On June 26, 2015 the Delaware Chancery Court granted our
motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs
have appealed that decision. With regard to the two derivative
actions filed in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan,
those actions have been consolidated and remain stayed pending
disposition of the federal derivative actions.

"In connection with the 2014 recalls, various investigations,
inquiries and complaints from the United States Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York (the Office), Congress, the
SEC, Transport Canada and 50 state attorneys general are ongoing.
We have received subpoenas and requests for additional information
and we have participated in discussions with various governmental
authorities. On June 3, 2015 we received notice of an
investigation by the Federal Trade Commission concerning certified
pre-owned vehicle advertising where dealers had certified vehicles
allegedly needing recall repairs. We continue to investigate these
matters and believe we are cooperating fully with all requests for
information in ongoing investigations. Such matters could in the
future result in the imposition of material damages, fines, civil
consent orders, civil and criminal penalties or other remedies.

"Substantial activity took place during the three months ended
September 30, 2015 that resulted in total or partial resolution of
several matters including the recognition of additional
liabilities for such matters.

"First, with regard to the investigation by the Office, without
prior notice, the Office approached us during the quarter with a
specific proposal. We were provided limited time to consider the
proposal, which we accepted on September 16, 2015 and entered into
a deferred prosecution agreement (the DPA) with the Office
regarding its investigation of the events leading up to certain
recalls regarding faulty ignition switches announced in February
and March 2014. Under the DPA we consented to the filing of a two-
count information (the Information) in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the Court) charging GM with:
(1) a scheme to conceal material facts from a government
regulator, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1001; and (2) wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1343. We have pled not guilty to the charges alleged
in the Information. Under the DPA we agreed to pay the United
States $900 million as a financial penalty. Prior to this quarter
there had been little to no discussions concerning potential
resolution of the matter such that no possible range of potential
liability could be determined.

"Pursuant to the DPA, the Office agreed to recommend to the Court
that prosecution of GM on the Information be deferred for three
years. The Office also agreed that if we are in compliance with
all of our obligations under the DPA, the Office will, within 30
days after the expiration of the period of deferral (including any
extensions thereto), seek dismissal with prejudice of the
Information filed against GM. The DPA further provides that, in
the event the Office determines during the period of deferral of
prosecution (or any extensions thereof) that we have violated any
provision of the DPA, the Office may, in its discretion, either
prosecute GM on the charges alleged in the Information or impose
an extension of the period of deferral of prosecution of up to one
additional year, but in no event will the total term of the
deferral-of-prosecution period under the DPA exceed four years.

"In the DPA, we also agreed to retain an independent monitor (the
Monitor) to review and assess our policies, practices or
procedures related to statements about motor vehicle safety, the
provision of information to those responsible for recall
decisions, recall processes and addressing known defects in
certified pre-owned vehicles. The Monitor's authority will extend
for a period of three years. The Office has the authority to
lengthen the Monitor's term for up to one year if the Office
determines we have violated the DPA. Likewise, the Office may
shorten the Monitor's term if the Office determines that a monitor
is no longer necessary. We are required to pay the compensation
and expenses of the Monitor and of the persons hired under his or
her authority.

"Second, with regard to the Shareholder Class Action described
previously, prior to the quarter there had been no discussions
concerning potential resolution of the matter such that no
possible range of potential liability could be determined. During
this quarter, the parties both commenced and reached a proposed
settlement of the lawsuit. On September 17, 2015 we announced we
had entered into a binding term sheet for the settlement of the
Shareholder Class Action for $300 million. The final settlement of
the matter remains subject to a formal agreement and court
approval.

"Third, GM and attorneys representing certain personal injury
claimants in the multidistrict litigation engaged in substantive
settlement discussions during the quarter in which agreement was
reached as to both material financial and non-financial terms. On
September 17, 2015 we announced we had reached a memorandum of
understanding regarding a $275 million settlement of these claims
that could potentially cover approximately 1,400 personal injury
claimants who have lawsuits pending in the multidistrict
litigation or who have otherwise asserted claims related to the
ignition switch recall or certain other recalls announced in 2014.
Prior to this quarter the parties had a substantial gap in their
respective positions on financial issues such that no possible
range of potential liability could be determined. Further, prior
to the quarter the parties had also either not engaged in
meaningful discussions concerning material non-financial issues
necessary for any agreement or had opposing positions on these
issues.

"In total, we recorded charges of approximately $1.5 billion in
Automotive selling, general and administrative expense in
Corporate as a result of the DPA financial penalty and the
settlements of the Shareholder Class Action and the multidistrict
litigation and other litigation associated with the ignition
switch recalls described previously. These charges were treated as
adjustments for earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT)-adjusted
reporting purposes in the three months ended September 30, 2015.

"We believe it is probable that we will incur additional
liabilities with regard to at least a portion of the remaining
investigations, claims, and/or litigation relating to the ignition
switch recalls and other recalls, whether through settlement or
judgment. However we are currently unable to estimate a range of
possible loss above the initial approximately $1.5 billion for the
ongoing lawsuits, claims and investigations because these matters
involve significant uncertainties. The resolution of these matters
could have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

"The uncertainties referenced above include the legal theory or
the nature of the claims, the complexity of the facts, the results
of any investigation or litigation, and the timing of resolution
of the investigations or litigation. For example, the appeal from
the Bankruptcy Court's judgment that is currently pending before
the Second Circuit (discussed previously), as well as the various
motions and pleadings pending before the Bankruptcy Court could
have a substantial impact in further clarifying issues such as the
potential liability of GM for acts or conduct of General Motors
Corporation and what claims plaintiffs may pursue against GM in
the multidistrict litigation and other courts. Further, there have
been little or no discussions to date concerning any potential
resolution of the SEC investigation, the state attorneys general's
investigations, the various claims for economic loss, or the
claims concerning death or personal injury not covered by the
memorandum of understanding, discussed previously. We will
continue to consider potential resolution of open matters
involving ignition switch recalls and other recalls where it makes
sense to do so."

             Deferred Prosecution Agreement with USAO

On September 17, 2015, General Motors Company ("GM") announced
that it entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (the "DPA")
with the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern
District of New York (the "Office"). The DPA relates to the
Office's investigation into certain recalls announced in 2014
concerning ignition switches that could, under certain
circumstances, unintentionally move from the "run" position to the
"accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of power,
which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of
a crash.

Under the DPA, GM consents to the filing of a two-count
information (the "Information") in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court") charging GM with (1) a
scheme to conceal material facts from a government regulator, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, and (2)
wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section
1343. GM is pleading not guilty to the charges made in the
Information. Under the DPA, GM agrees to pay the United States
$900 million as a financial penalty and will record a charge for
this amount in the three months ending September 30, 2015.

Pursuant to the DPA, the Office has agreed to recommend to the
Court that prosecution of GM on the Information be deferred for
three years. The Office has also agreed that, if GM is in
compliance with all of its obligations under the DPA, the Office
will, within 30 days after the expiration of the period of
deferral (including any extensions thereto), seek dismissal with
prejudice of the Information filed against GM. The DPA further
provides that, in the event the Office determines during the
period of deferral of prosecution (or any extensions thereof) that
GM has violated any provision of the DPA, an extension of the
period of deferral of prosecution of up to one additional year may
be imposed in the sole discretion of the Office, but in no event
will the total term of the deferral-of-prosecution period under
the DPA exceed four years.

GM has agreed to retain an independent monitor (the "Monitor") to
review and assess GM's policies, practices or procedures related
to statements about motor vehicle safety, the provision of
information to those responsible for recall decisions, recall
processes, and addressing known defects in certified pre-owned
vehicles. The Monitor's authority will extend for a period of
three years subject to early termination or extension. The Office
has the authority to lengthen the Monitor's term for up to one
year if the Office determines GM has violated the DPA. Likewise,
the Office may shorten the monitorship if the Office determines it
is no longer necessary. GM will be required to pay the
compensation and expenses of the Monitor and of the persons hired
under his or her authority.

Over this same period, pursuant to the DPA, GM has also agreed to
cooperate fully and actively with the Office, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation, the Department of Transportation, the Office of
the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief
Program, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and
any other agency of the government designated by the Office.

                   MOU Reached with PI Claimants

In addition, on September 17, 2015, GM announced it had reached a
memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of claims that
will potentially cover approximately 1,380 death and personal
injury claimants who have lawsuits pending in the Multi District
Litigation ("MDL") in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, or who have otherwise asserted
claims related to the ignition switch recall or certain other
recalls announced in 2014.

Finally, on September 17, 2015, GM announced it had entered into a
binding term sheet for the settlement of the putative shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Lead plaintiff, the New York State
Teachers' Retirement Fund System, alleged certain securities law
violations in connection with the ignition-switch defect and the
events leading up to the ignition-switch recalls announced
beginning in February 2014. The final settlement of the matter
remains subject to a formal agreement and court approval.

GM expects to record a $575 million charge in the three months
ending September 30, 2015 in connection with the settlements
related to the shareholder class action and certain claims in the
MDL.

GM's news release announcing its entry into the settlements
related to the shareholder class action and the certain claims in
the MDL is attached as Exhibit 99.2.

Proceedings related to the ignition switch recall and other
recalls, as previously disclosed in our Form 10-Q for the period
ended June 30, 2015, are ongoing and new information or resolution
of these matters could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows beyond the
amounts disclosed in this Form 8-K.


GENERAL MOTORS: Case Management Judge Assigned to Manage Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a case management
judge has been assigned to manage appeals related to the so-called
GMCL Dealers' Claim.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GMCL on behalf of a purported class of
over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had
entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the
context of the global restructuring of the business and the
possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency
proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down
agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network
and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly
fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved
but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers
allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly
terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain
disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair
dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers'
statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff
Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff
Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are
rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes
reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD $750 million, without
explanation of any specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover
damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual
damages). A number of former dealers opted out of participation in
the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial
of the class issues was completed in the three months ended
December 31, 2014.

On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff
Dealers' claim against GMCL, holding that GMCL did not breach any
common law or statutory obligations toward the class members. The
court also dismissed GMCL's counterclaim against the Plaintiff
Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by
GMCL as well as for other relief. All parties have filed notices
of appeal. A case management judge has been assigned to manage the
appeals.


GOOGLE: Faces Class Suit From Delivery Drivers
----------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Raw Story, reported that a driver for
Google's same day delivery service filed a proposed class action
lawsuit against the company, alleging it improperly classified her
as an independent contractor and owes expenses.

The case, filed in a Massachusetts state court, comes days after
Amazon Prime Now drivers filed a similar lawsuit against
Amazon.com Inc in California.

The level of benefits owed to workers in the on-demand economy has
been the subject of litigation in the courts, and debate in the
U.S. presidential race.

Like drivers in the Amazon case, Google Express driver Anna Coorey
said in her lawsuit that she was hired by an intermediary courier
service but is required to work only for Google during her shift.
Drivers wear Google Express uniforms and are required to accept
every delivery assigned to them during each shift, the lawsuit
said.

That makes drivers employees under Massachusetts state law,
attorneys for Coorey argue, who should be paid overtime and other
expenses.

A Google spokesman could not immediately comment on the lawsuit.

Ride services Uber and Lyft face similar lawsuits from drivers,
brought by the same law firm which filed the case against Google.

The case in Suffolk County Superior Court is Anna Coorey vs.
Google Inc and Beavex Inc.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for Nov. 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2015, that
effective as of September 16, the Company, Horry County State
Bank, James R. Clarkson, Glenn Raymond Bullard, Ron Lee Paige,
Sr., and Edward Lewis Loehr, Jr., the President and Chief
Executive Officer, Senior Executive Vice President, Executive Vice
President, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and the
Bank, respectively (collectively, the "Defendants") entered into a
Class Action Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") in
potential settlement of the previously disclosed putative class
action lawsuit pending in the Court of Common Pleas for the
Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of
Horry (Case No. 2014-CP-26-00204). As previously disclosed by the
Company, Jan W. Snyder, Acey H. Livingston, and Mark Josephs, on
behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated purchasers of the Company's subordinated debt
notes (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), filed an action seeking an
unspecified amount of damages resulting from alleged wrongful
conduct associated with purchases of the Company's subordinated
debt notes, including fraud, violation of state securities
statutes, and negligence.

On September 16, 2015, the Court signed its Preliminary Order of
Approval (the "Preliminary Approval Order") with respect to the
proposed settlement. In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement, the form of
notice, and the plan for giving persons within the class notice of
the settlement and an opportunity to opt out of or object to the
settlement. A final hearing is scheduled for November 23, 2015, at
which the Court will be asked to finally approve the settlement of
the class action lawsuit and to enter judgment accordingly.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company will
establish a settlement fund of approximately $2.4 million, which
represents 20% of the principal of subordinated debt notes issued
by the Company. Owners of subordinated debt notes will be entitled
to receive 20% of their notes, which will be paid from the
settlement fund. In order to participate in the settlement, class
members must grant the Defendants a full and complete release of
all claims that were asserted or could have been asserted in the
lawsuit. The Company will separately pay the approved attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses of class counsel up to an aggregate of
$250,000. The settlement is expressly contingent on the following
events occurring before the final hearing by the Court: (1) the
signing of an agreement between the Company and holders of certain
trust preferred securities issued by the Company for the
repurchase of such securities by the Company for an amount not to
exceed 10% of the outstanding principal balance owed thereon, or
$618,600, plus reimbursement of attorneys' fees and other expenses
incurred by the holders of the trust preferred securities not to
exceed $25,000; (2) the signing of an agreement between the
Company and the Department of Treasury for the repurchase of the
shares of Series T preferred stock issued by the Company in
conjunction with the TARP Capital Purchase Program in an amount
not to exceed 1% of the aggregate initial liquidation preference
of the Series T preferred stock, or $128,950, plus reimbursement
of attorneys' fees and other expenses incurred by Treasury not to
exceed $25,000; and (3) the receipt of signed agreement(s) for an
investment in the Company of no less than $30 million through a
sale of Company stock to investors or the execution of a merger
agreement with another financial institution. In addition, the
Company and the Bank must receive the necessary regulatory
approvals or non-objections for each of above transactions before
any payments can be made from the settlement fund, although such
approvals do not have to occur before the final hearing by the
Court.

The Settlement Agreement does not constitute a concession or
admission of wrongdoing or liability by the Defendants. The
Defendants have entered into the Settlement Agreement solely to
avoid future inconvenience and protracted, costly litigation and
to help facilitate a proposed recapitalization of the Bank.


HELIX ENERGY: Initial Conference Held in "Izadjoo" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
purported stockholder, Parviz Izadjoo, filed on July 31, 2015, a
class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo v. Owen Kratz and Helix
Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the Company and Mr. Owen
Kratz, our Chief Executive Officer, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of a putative
class of all purchasers of shares of our common stock between
October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuit
asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to
both us and Mr. Kratz, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against Mr. Kratz based on alleged misrepresentations and
omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures regarding
projections for 2015 dry docks of two of the Company's vessels
working in the Gulf of Mexico, which allegedly caused the price at
which putative class members bought stock during the proposed
class period to be artificially inflated. The complaint seeks,
among other relief, undisclosed damages. The deadline to apply for
appointment as lead plaintiff was September 29, 2015. A lead
plaintiff has not yet been appointed in this case. The Court has
set an initial conference on November 16, 2015. We believe this
lawsuit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend
against it.


HOME PROPERTIES: Entered Into MOU to Settle Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Home Properties, Inc. on September 21, 2015, entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs and
other named defendants regarding the settlement of a purported
class action lawsuit related to the previously announced Agreement
and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 22, 2015, among Home
Properties, Inc., Home Properties, L.P., LSREF4 Lighthouse
Acquisitions, LLC, LSREF4 Lighthouse Corporate Acquisitions, LLC,
LSREF4 Lighthouse Operating Acquisitions, LLC and UDR, Inc. (as
amended, the "Merger Agreement").

On September 16, 2015, the purported class action and five other
lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes pursuant to an order
entered by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.

Under the MOU, the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the
Consolidated Lawsuit and release the defendants of all claims
related to the proposed transaction, subject to court approval.
If the court approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the
Consolidated Lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant
to the terms of the MOU, the Company has agreed to make available
additional information to the Company's stockholders and provide
plaintiff's counsel limited additional confirmatory discovery.
The additional information is set forth below and should be read
in conjunction with the definitive proxy statement, which should
be read in its entirety.  In addition, the defendants in the
Consolidated Lawsuit have agreed to negotiate in good faith with
plaintiffs' counsel regarding an appropriate amount of fees, costs
and expenses to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel by the Company or
its successor.

The amended complaint in the Consolidated Lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that the preliminary proxy statement filed on August
4, 2015 failed to disclose material information about the proposed
transaction, including the proposed merger of the Company with an
affiliate of Lone Star Funds (the "Merger").  The Company strongly
believes that its disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement
and the definitive proxy statement are appropriate and adequate
under applicable law and, along with the other defendants, denies
all of the allegations in the Consolidated Lawsuit.  Nevertheless,
in order to lessen the risk of any delay of the closing of the
Merger as a result of the litigation, the Company has decided to
make available to its stockholders certain additional information
in connection with the Merger and other transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to the Company's stockholders in connection with the Merger or the
timing of the special meeting of the Company's stockholders,
scheduled for October 1, 2015, to, among other things, consider
and vote on a proposal to approve the Merger and the Merger
Agreement.


IHEARTMEDIA INC: Suit Seeks Damages for Copyright Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, and all others similarly-
situated v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07574 (D.N.J.,
October 19, 2015), seeks actual and punitive damages for common
law copyright infringement/unfair competition and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are suing iHeartMedia, Inc. for their unauthorized
and unlawful use of sound recordings initially created before
February 15, 1972.

iHeartMedia, Inc. is an American mass media company headquartered
in San Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Class Cert. Bid in Shareholder Suit Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
has filed its opposition to class certification in the purported
shareholder class action lawsuits filed April 26, 2013, and May
24, 2013.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against a number of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the court appointed the Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and
appointed lead counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part
and denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not
to further amend their complaint.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26,
2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December
15, 2014, and discovery is ongoing. The plaintiffs moved for class
certification on September 1, 2015, and the Company filed its
opposition to class certification on October 15, 2015. The case is
moving forward on the claims that remain. No trial date has been
set.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 90 Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in approximately 90 individual
product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal
courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member
underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical
System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some
cases death, as a result of such surgery. The Company has also
received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys, many of which are subject to certain
tolling agreements. The Company has also been named as a defendant
in a multi-plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court.

On May 1, 2015, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add 25
additional plaintiffs. In total, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf
of 45 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 20 different states.
The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying
degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects
in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's
part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare
professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases
further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose
and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the
da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of
causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on
purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages.

The Company has reached confidential settlements in many of the
filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor case,
the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of
pretrial activity.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in well-funded national
advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci
Surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims
relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with
certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments
that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a
market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the
subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a
significant number of claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it
believes are a result of these advertising efforts. In an effort
to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple
lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the
applicable statutes of limitations for these claims and engaged in
confidential mediation efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal
counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling
agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of
2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the
costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be
appropriate. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company
recorded pre-tax charges of $82.4 million, of which $77.0 million
was recorded in the nine months ended September 30, 2014, to
reflect the estimated cost of settling a number of the product
liability claims covered by the tolling agreements. During the
nine months ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded pre-tax
charges of $13.8 million, of which $7.2 million was recorded in
the first quarter of 2015 and $6.6 million in the second quarter
of 2015, related to these product liability claims. No charges
were recorded during the three months ended September 30, 2015,
and 2014.

The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of resolving these
claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for claimants who
have participated in the mediation process. Nonetheless, it is
possible that more claims will be made by additional individuals
and that the claimants whose claims were not resolved through the
mediation program, as well as those claimants who have not
participated in mediations, will choose to pursue greater amounts
in a court of law.  Consequently, the final outcome of these
claims is dependent on many variables that are difficult to
predict and the ultimate cost associated with these product
liability claims may be materially different than the amount of
the current estimate and accruals and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial position, and
future results of operations. Although there is a reasonable
possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists,
the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of
loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time.

As of September 30, 2015, and December 31, 2014, a total of $29.9
million and $49.5 million, respectively, were included in other
accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Appeal in Product Liability Action Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the appeal in
a product liability action has been denied.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action that had originally been filed in
Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the
healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff's
decedent's surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the
Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-
03136-5).  In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and
product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging
that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of
injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was
conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The
plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in
whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly
train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought
unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering,
loss of consortium as well as punitive damages.

A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23,
2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the
Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's
favor on June 7, 2013. Subsequent to the verdict, the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal. That appeal was denied on July 7, 2015.
As of the date of this filing, no further appeal has been filed.


KING CITY, CA: Towing Victims Settle Suit Against Police
--------------------------------------------------------
Sara Rubin, writing for Monterey County Weekly, reported that in
January of 2012, Jesus Garcia was driving through King City when a
police officer pulled him over. He was cited for a minor traffic
infraction, and within minutes, a tow truck showed up.
Nobody told him why his car was being towed. They did tell him he
could retrieve his car after 30 days -- if he paid towing, impound
and storage fees and charges.

But Garcia never saw his car again: It was sold or given away by
the tow company and police officers.

That's all according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed
against the city of King City, the police department and a long
list of former and current cops, alleging the police targeted
poor, Latino immigrants, seized their cars and kept, gifted or
sold many of them for their own personal profit.

The suit was filed March 10, 2014, just a few weeks after the Feb.
25 arrests of the retired chief, acting chief, acting chief's
brother and four other police officers.

More than a year and a half later, that lawsuit has settled. A
settlement agreement was recorded Oct. 21 in a federal court
entry:

"The case settled; the appropriate government approvals for the
settlement have been obtained. The parties are finalizing the
releases and the written settlement agreement."

The parties have until Dec. 3 to file documents connected to the
settlement, and attorneys are not authorized to speak about the
details--like how much money is involved--until the settlement is
approved by the court.

But people familiar with the case say that the city will create a
pool of money and allow victims whose cars were towed to file
claims and be paid out of that pool; any money leftover at a
certain date will be returned to the city.

Individuals named in the case will not have to pay anything,
sources say.

The individuals named, current or former police, are numerous:
former acting chief Bruce Miller; Bobby Carrillo; Mario Mottu Sr.;
Jaime Andrade; retired chief Nick Baldiviez; Jesus Yanez; Jerry
Hunter; Joey Perez; and one civilian, Brian Miller, who is Bruce
Miller's brother and who formerly operated the towing company that
was involved.

Also as part of the settlement, retired chief Nick Baldiviez will
drop his cross-complaint against King City.

In March, he sued the city of King City, arguing that if something
illegal really did happen, it wasn't his fault and his former
employer (the city) should have to pay. If he had done anything
wrong, he alleged, it was by accident: "The conduct of
[Baldiviez], if any, was passive, secondary, and derivative only."
A criminal trial against Baldiviez ended in a hung jury. After
that, he took a plea deal in July, pleading no contest to two
misdemeanor counts, one for embezzlement of a police car and one
of obstruction of justice for lying to investigators..

Of the seven people arrested and charged in February 2014, all
have agreed to plea bargains except one, Officer Bobby Carrillo,
who is scheduled to go to trial in January.

Carrillo and his wife Julie Carrillo filed for Chapter 13
bankruptcy in April, and U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee Devin Derham-Burk
approved a payment plan on remaining debt on Oct. 9.

The Carrillos held about $1.1 million in debt, including $45,000
owed to the IRS, and nearly $50,000 in credit card debt, according
to bankruptcy filings. The majority of the debt was owed on
mortgages for three homes the couple owns in King City. (They live
in Soledad.)

In January, just weeks before he was arrested, Carrillo opened a
workmen's comp claim for a back injury and stress, according to
bankruptcy papers.

While on disability leave, Carrillo was not being paid, according
to bankruptcy papers. (He remains on leave, pending an internal
KCPD investigation.)

One other defendant in the case, Brian Miller (who formerly owned
and operated Miller's Towing, implicated in the alleged scheme),
also filed for bankruptcy.


LAPOLLA INDUSTRIES: Legal Fees Dispute in "Markey" Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint initially entitled Neil and Kristine Markey,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. Lapolla industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation;
Lapolla International, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Delfino
Insulation Company, Inc., a New York Corporation, Defendants, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York and served on or about October 10, 2012 and amended
last on November 11, 2013.  Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit only
individually, having amended out any request for a class action.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that Lapolla designed,
labeled, distributed, and manufactured spray polyurethane foam
insulation, which created a highly toxic compound when applied as
insulation resulting in exposure to harmful gases. Plaintiffs
sought: actual, compensatory, and punitive damages; injunctive
relief; and attorney fees. Lapolla considered the allegations to
be without merit and vigorously defended the allegations.

On February 4, 2015, the Court dismissed the litigation with
prejudice, per the voluntary request of Plaintiffs upon the advice
of their new counsel and after their original litigation counsel
withdrew citing irreconcilable differences with the Plaintiffs.
The Court retained jurisdiction to address a pending motion for
sanctions filed by Lapolla.  The primary basis for Lapolla's
motion for sanctions is the Plaintiffs' and their original
attorney's filing of the lawsuit without sufficient factual basis
for the claims of personal injury and for failing to comply with
discovery obligations to produce numerous potentially dispositive
documents that Plaintiffs knew existed and their original counsel
either knew or should have known existed.  Lapolla seeks to
recover over $700,000 in legal fees for the defense of the
lawsuit.

The final outcome of this litigation cannot be determined at this
time, Lapolla said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 18,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Royalty Class Action in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that an individual
person filed on April 17, 2013, a purported class action suit
against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other companies
supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004
to the present. The plaintiff essentially alleges that Layne and
two other companies allocated the market for mineral leasing
rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of
Kansas. The plaintiff seeks certification as a class and
unquantified damages. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed one of the other two company defendants without
prejudice. Since this litigation is at an early state, Layne is
currently unable to predict its outcome or estimate its exposure.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Scheduling Order Entered in LBSF v. BofA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Plan Trust said in an exhibit to its
Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 24, 2015, that among the actions filed by Lehman
Brothers Special Financing Inc. ("LBSF") was a defendant class
action entitled LBSF v. Bank of America National Association et
al, in which various indenture trustees and noteholders were
named, the latter as representatives of a class of noteholders who
received distributions from the relevant trusts (the "Distributed
Deals action"). On July 14, 2014 the Bankruptcy Court entered an
Order in the Distributed Deals action lifting the stay in that
action and providing for the action to proceed in specific phases.
The July 2014 Order directed that Phase I of the action is to be
devoted exclusively to the motion for class certification,
followed by Phase II, which is to encompass motions to dismiss
pursuant to FRCP 12(b) and/or the filing of answers to the
Complaint. Merits discovery, dispositive motions and trial are to
take place during Phase III, as directed by the July 2014 Order.

On October 27, 2014, LBSF filed its Motion to Certify Defendant
Class in the Distributed Deals action; the defendants filed their
opposition to LBSF's motion on January 30, 2015 and LBSF filed its
Reply Brief on March 31, 2015. On December 17, 2014, a group of
named Defendants (the "Ad Hoc Group") filed a Motion to Withdraw
the Reference to the Bankruptcy Court. LBSF filed its Opposition
to the Motion on February 3, 2015 and the Ad Hoc Group filed their
Reply Brief on February 20, 2015. The Motion to Withdraw was
argued before the US District Court for the Southern District of
NY on May 4, 2015, and on June 5, 2015 the US District Court
denied the motion in its entirety.

At a status conference on July 7, 2015, Judge Chapman advised the
parties that she was going to put aside temporarily the class
certification motion, and directed counsel to meet and confer in
an effort to create a case management protocol that would allow
the merits of the case to be adjudicated without the need of class
certification. On August 28, 2015, the Court entered a scheduling
order that was negotiated by the parties and which will govern the
conduct of the litigation going forward, initially by allowing the
defendants to submit a unified motion to dismiss on various issues
common to the defendant group. The motion shall be filed with 60
days after the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint by LBSF, which
in turn must be filed on or before October 12, 2015.


LEWIS ENERGY: "Villarreal" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Villarreal, and all others similarly-situated v. Lewis
Energy Group, L.P. and Lewis Resource Management, LLC, Case No.
5:15-cv-00240 (S.D. Tex., October 19, 2015), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Lewis Energy Group is an oil and gas exploration and production
company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY SILVER: Court Approved $1MM Settlement in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that a court has approved the
settlement class, and fully and finally dismissed with prejudice
all claims against Liberty Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William
Tafuri in the litigation.

On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were
named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit
filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13-
cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.).  The action alleged
violations of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and rules thereunder relating to anomalous trading activity and
fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through
October 2012.

On December 8, 2014, without in any way acknowledging any fault or
liability, the Company reached a settlement in principle,
providing for a payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the
Company's D&O insurance carriers.  On August 17, 2015, with no
admission of fault or liability by the Liberty Silver Parties, the
Court approved the settlement class and fully and finally
dismissed with prejudice all claims against Liberty Silver,
Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation.  Although
defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the Company
believed it was in the best interests of its stockholders to focus
its attention on its business and put the matter behind it.


LIQUID HOLDINGS: "De Vito" Securities Action Filed in D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 24, 2015, that
a securities class action complaint was filed on September 21
against Liquid, certain of the Company's former and current
officers and directors and the underwriter of the Company's
initial public offering (collectively, the "Defendants") in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Robert De Vito v. Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. et al. (No. 2:15-
cv-06969-KM-JBC)).

The Company said, "The named plaintiff's complaint brings claims
on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons, other
than the Defendants and other officers and directors of Liquid,
who purchased or acquired our securities: (i) pursuant and/or
traceable to the our registration statement and prospectus filed
with the SEC in connection with our initial public offering;
and/or (ii) between July 26, 2013 and December 23, 2014. The
complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of: (i) Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act");
(ii) Section 15 of the Securities Act; (iii) Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act; and (iv)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. As relief, the complaint
requests compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, reasonable
costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees, and such
other relief as the Court deems just and proper. We intend to
vigorously defend this lawsuit. Due to the inherent uncertainties
in litigation and because the ultimate resolution of this
proceeding is influenced by factors outside of our control, we are
currently unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this
litigation or its impact on our financial position or results of
operations."


LOOMIS ARMORED: Suit Seeks Meal and Rest Period Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
John Reynaga, and all others similarly-situated v. Loomis Armored
US, LLC and Does 1-50, Case No. 115CV287016 (Cal. Super., October
19, 2015), seeks meal and rest period compensation, damages for
inaccurate wage statements and unreimbursed expenses, interest,
related penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California
Code of Regulations, California Business and Professions Code,
California Code of Civil Procedure and various provisions of the
California Labor Code.

Loomis Armored US, LLC is a Texas corporation which offers
armored-car services throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin R. Allen, Esq.
      VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
      525 W. Remington Drive, Suite 106
      Sunnyvale, CA 94087
      Tel: (408) 505-7892
      Fax: (408) 228-1930


MEDTRONIC PUBLIC: Hearing Held on Stipulation in Covidien Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9,
2015, for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that a
stipulation of settlement was filed with the district court in
Massachusetts to resolve shareholder class action complaints filed
against Covidien plc.

A hearing on the Stipulation had been scheduled in September 2015
at which the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement, including attorneys' fees and expenses that will be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel.

Putative shareholder class action complaints were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by purported
shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v. Covidien
plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-
13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc, et al., 14-
cv-13490.

On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the Rosenfeld action and
another purported shareholder of Covidien filed a motion seeking
to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and Rosenfeld actions, and on
November 14, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted that motion consolidating the actions (the
Consolidated Action). On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached
an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of
understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by
the memorandum of understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the Transactions, which are
contained in Covidien's Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23,
2014. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought by Covidien shareholders challenging any aspect
of the Transactions. There can be no assurance that U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts will approve the
settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Claim for Injunctive Relief in "Johnson" Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that a court has
dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief in the case
by Matthew B. Johnson, et al.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson
Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos.
A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756).  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing
practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words "free"
and "regular price."  The Complaint seeks, among other relief,
certification of the complaint as a class action, compensatory
damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and
disbursements (including attorneys' fees).  On August 19, 2014,
the Court dismissed the class claims and certain other breach of
contract claims.  On June 9, 2015, the Court also dismissed the
plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief.

"Based on the two favorable court rulings, we do not believe that
this case will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or cash flows," the Company said.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defending Class Action by "Salerno" and "Lucas"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend the class action filed by David Lucas and Eric
Salerno.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of
themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed
a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB
JLB).  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A.
Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price
advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions.  The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory
damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust
enrichment, costs and attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case.  The range of loss, if
any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows," the Company said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Continues to Evaluate Tanguilig Matter
-----------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2015, that the Company will
continue to evaluate the Tanguilig case.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for
the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20,
2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County.

This complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit
originally filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary
and injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking
employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts.  The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed
"related" cases and were then brought before the same trial court
judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).  Following the court's order,
Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association (AAA) seeking to arbitrate not
only their individual claims, but also class claims, which the
Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings in the
trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by the
trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order compelling
arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its
order compelling arbitration due to a recent California appellate
court decision.  Following this ruling, the Company timely filed
two separate appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with
respect to Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal,
asserting that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change
its earlier determination of the enforceability of the arbitration
agreement. The appeal with respect to Mr. Pinela has been fully
briefed, and oral argument was held on June 9, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, the California Court of Appeal issued its order
affirming the trial court's denial of our motion to compel
arbitration and awarding Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal.

"On July 13, 2015, we filed our petition for rehearing with the
California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 29, 2015. On
August 10, 2015, we filed our petition for review with the
California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his answer on
August 31, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the California Supreme
Court denied our petition for review. The appeal with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final approval of the class
action settlement was granted."

Notwithstanding the appeal, the trial court decided to set certain
civil penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for trial on April
1, 2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's
alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest
breaks in compliance with California law. On December 10, 2013,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of Ms. Tanguilig's
claims, including the civil penalty claims, based on her failure
to bring her claims to trial within five years as required by
California law. After several hearings, on February 28, 2014, the
court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the case and
vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court has awarded the
Company its costs of suit in connection with the defense of Ms.
Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an attorneys' fees
award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal
from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as a second notice
of appeal from the award of costs, both of which are pending
before the California Court of Appeal. Should the California Court
of Appeal reverse the trial court's dismissal of all of Ms.
Tanguilig's claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig
will seek class certification of the claims asserted in her Third
Amended Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her class claims
will likely be reduced by the class action settlement and release
in the Monjazeb case; however, that settlement does not cover
claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations
from approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the start
of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on
the appeals is underway, but no date has been set for oral
argument.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the
Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26,
2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company.
A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an
order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with
her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the
Monjazeb settlement. On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her
motion for catalyst attorneys' fees. A hearing on the motion was
held on July 23, 2015 and the motion was denied by the court on
July 28, 2015.

Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms. Monjazeb's
class action claims, we recorded our currently estimable
liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb
matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and
have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with
the settlement.

"We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter, and our
recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent events, new
information and future circumstances," the Company said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Dismissal of "Rubenstein" Class Suit Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2015, that Linda Rubenstein
filed a notice to appeal a court ruling on the motion to dismiss
her second amended complaint in its entirety.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

"On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. On October 17, 2014,
we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court
granted on December 12, 2014," the Company said.

In its order dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms.
Rubenstein leave to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein
filed her first amended complaint on December 22, 2014.

"On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015," the
Company said.  "In its order dismissing the first amended
complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second
amended complaint, which she filed on March 17, 2015. On April 6,
2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety, without leave to amend,
and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice to appeal the
court's ruling."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Defending "Zaslav" Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2015, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Bergdorf
Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav seeks monetary
relief and alleges that she and other similarly situated
individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from minimum wage
requirements instead of as employees and, therefore, were not
provided with proper compensation under the New York Labor Law.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter.


NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Denied Bid for Rehearing in "Remijas"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 1, 2015, that the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals has denied the Company's petition for rehearing
on the appeal in the "Remijas" case related to the 2014 cyber-
attack.

Three class actions relating to the cyber-attack were filed in
January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards and sought monetary and injunctive relief.

Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint.

Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 27,
2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on March 11,
2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint.

Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right to
re-file a complaint.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v.
Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael
Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1,
2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and
without prejudice as to Shields.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC,
was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The
Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2,
2014.

On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury.
On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's
order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. On August 3, 2015, the Company
filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On September 17, 2015, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company's petition for
rehearing.

Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
December 30, 2014, alleging negligence and other claims in
connection with Mr. McClease's purchase by payment card. On March
9, 2015, the McClease case was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice by stipulation of the parties.


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Suit by Rand-Heart of NY Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
remains pending, NetSol said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.

On July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and three of its current or former officers
and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
consolidated complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 premised on
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
next generation product, NFS Ascent, and whether it was truly
available on a global basis when stated. After several successful
motions by the Company, the Court granted the plaintiff a final
opportunity to amend the complaint on a narrowed basis. The
amended complaint was filed which contained a much narrowed class
period from October 2013 to November 8, 2013, eliminated all but
one of the individual defendants from the suit, and limited the
scope of the alleged claims. The Company has filed an answer to
this final amended complaint.

The Company continues to believe the amended allegations are
meritless and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given
the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the
Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not
possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings
will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.


NEW ORIENTAL EDUCATION: Shareholder Class Actions Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder class actions against New Oriental Education &
Technology Group Inc. have been dismissed, the Company said in its
Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on September 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2015.

"On July 23, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
against our company, Michael Minhong Yu and Louis T. Hsieh, Wong
v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
06316-MMM-JEM, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California," the Company related.
"Shortly thereafter, three more putative shareholder class action
suits against the same defendants were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York: Sax v. New
Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-05724-JGK
(S.D.N.Y. filed July 25, 2012); Gabel v. New Oriental Education &
Technology Group, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-05963-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug.
3, 2012); and Tardio v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group,
Inc., No. 1:12-cv-06619-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 29, 2012)."

"The four actions contain similar factual allegations, allege
virtually the same class period, are brought against the same
defendants, and advance the same theories of liability. These
actions seek to represent a class of persons who suffered damages
as a result of their trading activities related to our ADSs from
July 21, 2009 to July 23, 2012. All four actions allege violations
of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5 (2012), and section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a). The complaints
allege that various press releases, financial statements and other
related disclosures made by our company during the class period
contained material misstatements and omissions, in violation of
the federal securities laws, and that such press releases,
financial statements and other related disclosures artificially
inflated the value of our company's ADSs and affected the trading
prices of our ADSs. The complaints generally seek monetary damages
on behalf of the class of persons who suffered losses during the
class period.

"On September 17, 2012, we moved the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation ("MDL") to have the four actions transferred
and consolidated for pretrial purposes in a single jurisdiction
before a single judge. On September 21, 2012, various plaintiffs
filed separate motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and, in some
instances, for consolidation of the lawsuits. Plaintiffs
subsequently submitted a stipulation seeking to consolidate the
actions pending in the Southern District of New York ("SDNY") and
appoint a lead plaintiff. On October 12, 2012, the Wong action in
the Central District of California was voluntarily dismissed,
rendering the Company's MDL motion moot and leaving the remaining
three actions pending in the Southern District of New York. On
October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs' actions were consolidated as a
single action in the SDNY and a lead plaintiff was appointed."

On December 10, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC"), which is the operative
complaint in the consolidated action. Defendants moved to dismiss
the CAC on January 25, 2013. Defendants' motion to dismiss has
been fully briefed and currently remains pending before the Court.
The action otherwise remains at its preliminary stages.

On March 8, 2013, Plaintiff Julio Tardio, the named plaintiff in
Tardio v. New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc., No.
1:12-cv-06619-JGK (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 29, 2012) (the "Tardio
Action"), which was ultimately consolidated into the Consolidated
Class Action, filed a motion to be appointed co-lead plaintiff in
the Consolidated Class Action. Plaintiff Tardio sought to
represent the interests of New Oriental options traders who were
excluded from the putative class proposed in the CAC. After a
round of briefing from all parties, the Court ordered that the
Tardio Action be severed from the Consolidated Class Action so
that Plaintiff Tardio can bring an individual or class action
lawsuit on behalf of New Oriental options traders. The Court
ordered, however, that any answer to Plaintiff Tardio's complaint
be stayed until the Court resolves the pending motion to dismiss
in the Consolidated Class Action. Plaintiff Tardio subsequently
filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on June 6, 2013.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
remains pending before the Court.

On December 23, 2013, the Court entered an order granting in part,
and denying in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the CAC.
Specifically, the Court dismissed the allegations regarding
alleged misstatements concerning the company's ownership of our
schools and learning centers. The Court denied the motion as to
the remaining allegations.

In April 2014, parties in both the Consolidated Class Action and
the Tardio Action reached a settlement of both actions. The
parties submitted an executed settlement agreement and
accompanying papers to the Court on May 23, 2014. On November 14,
2014, the Court entered judgments granting final approval of both
settlement agreements and dismissing the Actions with prejudice.
The Company did not admit to any wrongdoing and continue to deny
the allegations made in both actions.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend the securities related class action.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2012, three complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against us and certain of our executive officers and
one consultant (collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of
certain purchasers of our common stock. The complaints have been
brought as purported stockholder class actions, and, in general,
include allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results of our
bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby artificially
inflating the price of our common stock. The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and other relief."

"On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions
with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)).
After the court issued two separate orders granting the
Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the
court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.

"On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the court's order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal
was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief
was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief
on February 27, 2015.

"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action."


PETRO RIVER: Motion to Dismiss Donelson Action Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that there is no specific
timeline by which a federal court must render a ruling on the
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators,
including the Company, as well as all Osage County lessees and
operators who have obtained a concession agreement, lease or
drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA")
in Osage County allegedly in violation of National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that
the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases, concession
agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12, 2014, without
satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal regulations or
NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab initio.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for alleged
nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The
potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the
corresponding leases.

On October 7, 2014 Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss the August 11, 2014 Proceeding on various
procedural and legal arguments.  Plaintiffs filed their response
to the motion to dismiss on October 27, 2014.  Spyglass filed its
reply brief on November 10, 2014 and the plaintiffs were granted
leave until November 19, 2014 to file a reply to Spyglass' reply
brief.  Once the briefing cycle concluded on November 19, 2014,
the motion to dismiss became ripe for determination by the court.
Oral arguments may be ordered by the court.  There is no specific
timeline by which the court must render a ruling.


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Federal Court Dismisses Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina has granted PowerSecure International, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a purported securities class action lawsuit filed against
it and certain of its executive officers. The amended complaint,
filed on December 29, 2014, alleged that certain statements made
by the defendants during the purported class period from August 8,
2013 through May 7, 2014 violated federal securities laws.

The purported securities class action lawsuit was dismissed with
leave to amend, Powersecure said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 18, 2015.  The
federal court gave the plaintiff until October 16, 2015 to file an
amended complaint.


QUICKSILVER INC: Amended Complaint Filed in C.D. Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Quiksilver, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2015, that in April 2015, two
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
Company and two of its former officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California under the
following captions: Leiland Stevens, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et al. and
Shiva Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Quiksilver, Inc., et al.

On June 26, 2015, the court consolidated these lawsuits and named
Babulal Parmar as the lead plaintiff. On August 25, 2015, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the consolidated action.
The amended complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The putative class
period in this action is from June 6, 2014 through March 26, 2015.
The complaint seeks designation of this action as a class action,
an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and such
other relief as the court deems appropriate. The Company cannot
predict the outcome of this matter or estimate the potential
impact on its results of operations, financial position or cash
flows. The Company has not recorded a liability for this matter.


RENTECH NITROGEN: Brodsky Smith Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of all holders of Rentech
Nitrogen Partners, LP ("Rentech" or the "Partnership") common
units in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California relating to the proposed acquisition by CVR
Partners, LP ("CVR") (the "Proposed Transaction").

If you are a Rentech unitholder and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from. If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90 by visiting http://brodsky-
smith.com/997-rnf-rentech-nitrogen-partners-lp.html, or via e-mail
at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com. There is no cost or
obligation to you. Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rentech is a nitrogen fertilizer company formed by Rentech, Inc.
as a publicly traded master limited partnership. The complaint
alleges that Rentech and its Board violated its Limited
Partnership Agreement and breached their duties to Rentech
unitholders and that Rentech and CVR aided and abetted such
violation, in connection with their attempt to consummate the
Proposed Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an
unfair price. In addition, the complaint alleges that Rentech and
the Board, through CVR, disseminated a false and misleading
Registration Statement on Form S-4 (the "S-4") in violation of
Sec14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

On August 9, 2015, Rentech and CVR entered into a definitive
agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby CVR would acquire all
outstanding units of Rentech. Thereafter, on September 17, 2015,
defendants caused the S-4 to be filed with the SEC and
disseminated in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The
complaint alleges the S-4 contains a number of false and
misleading statements that are material to unitholders who are
expected to rely upon the S-4 to determine whether to approve the
Proposed Transaction. The S-4 omits a number of material facts
necessary to make statements made therein not false and
misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement,
the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and
Rentech's prospective financial information.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and case action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and successfully
recovered millions of dollars for our clients and shareholders.

         Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
         BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
         Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
         Phone: 610.667.6200
         Fax: 610.667.9029
         Email: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com


RADIANT LOGISTICS: "Barahona" Case Goes to Mediation
----------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that mediation was scheduled
for October 2015 in the case, Ingrid Barahona v. Accountabilities,
Inc. d/b/a Accountabilities Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global
Logistics, Inc. and DBA Distribution Services, Superior Court of
the State of California, Los Angeles County, Case No. BC525802.

On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona filed a purported
class action lawsuit against Radiant Global Logistics, Inc.
("Radiant"), DBA, and two third-party staffing companies
(collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom Radiant and
DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the lawsuit, Ms.
Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative class, seeks
damages and penalties under California law, plus interest,
attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable remedies,
alleging that she and the putative class were the subject of
unfair and unlawful business practices, including certain wage and
hour violations relating to, among others, failure to provide meal
and rest periods, failure to pay minimum wages and overtime, and
failure to reimburse employees for work-related expenses. Ms.
Barahona alleges that she and the putative class members were
jointly employed by the staffing companies and Radiant and DBA.

"Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their
entirety, deny that we are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative
class members in any way and are vigorously defending against
these allegations based upon our preliminary evaluation of
applicable records and legal standards," the Company said.

"If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims we,
as well as our co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured
damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated
against either our assets or current and expected level of annual
earnings, could be material when judged against our earnings in
the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at
all," according to the Company.

"However, based upon our preliminary evaluation of the matter, we
do not believe we are likely to incur material damages, if at all,
since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages
remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii)
we do not believe as a matter of law we should be characterized as
Ms. Barahona's employer; (iii) any settlement will be properly
apportioned between all named defendants and Radiant and DBA will
not exclusively fund the settlement; (iv) wage and hour class
actions of this nature typically settle for amounts significantly
less than plaintiffs' demands because of the uncertainly with
litigation and the difficulty in taking these types of cases to
trial; and (v) Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this
matter through a mediated settlement, with a mediation scheduled
for October 2015. Nevertheless, due to the early stage of the
proceeding, we are unable to express an opinion as to the likely
outcome of the matter."


RIVERSIDE, CA: Reaches Tentative Deal to Settle Civil Rights Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Schiavone, writing for Patch, reported that a lawsuit filed
against Riverside County over alleged inadequate treatment for
inmates with general and mental health disorders is close to
resolution, county officials announced.

A tentative settlement proposal between the county and the San
Quentin- based Prison Law Office is slated to be submitted to a
U.S. District Court judge in Riverside for certification.

According to county Executive Office spokesman Ray Smith, the
Board of Supervisors signed off on the terms of the settlement
agreement during its closed session.

"I'm happy that we have resolved the case as counties across the
state grapple with California's evolving correctional system,"
board Chairman Marion Ashley said. "The county is committed to the
terms of settlement and implementing them as soon as possible."

The Prison Law Office, in partnership with Los Angeles-based Akin,
Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, filed a class-action suit on behalf
of all inmates within the Riverside County correctional system in
2013.

The plaintiffs alleged civil rights violations because of what
they viewed as substandard disability and mental health care in
local detention facilities. The suit was one of several filed in
multiple jurisdictions.

According to Smith, under the proposed settlement terms, the
county will be obligated to ensure inmates diagnosed with
psychiatric deficiencies and other medical conditions receive
appropriate treatment under new policies adopted and implemented
by agencies and funded by the board in successive budget cycles.

"We are pleased that the county has made firm commitments to
improve care for people in the jails," said Sara Norman, managing
partner at the Prison Law Office. "Our clients have suffered from
inadequate treatment for too long, and this agreement is a
positive and important measure."

County officials could not immediately determine the likely costs
of funding new treatment protocols. According to Smith, the
settlement calls for an expansion of "tele-medicine and tele-
psychiatry" services within the correctional system. He noted that
detainees with various disabilities will also receive necessary
accommodations.

Fulfillment of the lawsuit's terms will be monitored by a federal
judge.

Smith pointed out that the county has been struggling to find
funding for increasing correctional demands stemming from the
state's public safety realignment overhaul that shifted many
previous state responsibilities onto counties four years ago. One
of the most significant impacts has been a provision mandating
that inmates whose crimes are classified as "non-serious, non-
violent" and non-sexually oriented serve their time in local
detention facilities.

The county has five jails with less than 4,000 inmate beds
available. Up to a quarter of those beds are occupied at any given
time by so-called "realigned" felons, including those locked up on
parole and probation violations, a few of whom are serving
sentences of 10 years or more, according to sheriff's officials.

In a report reviewed by the board, safety officials said that
mental health treatment regimens were improving in the jails.

However, Supervisor Kevin Jeffries fumed that while more emphasis
was being placed on meeting inmates' needs, residents in some
communities were being victimized on a wider level due to the high
number of "low-level" offenders being turned out of jails to make
space.


ROSS STORES: Wage and Hour Class Actions Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended August 1, 2015, that the Company has been
named in class action lawsuits, primarily in California, alleging
violation of wage and hour laws and consumer protection laws.
Class action litigation remains pending as of August 1, 2015.


RWDY INC: "York" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy York, and all others similarly-situated v. RWDY, Inc., Brian
Owen and/or Marathon Oil Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-03076 (S.D.
Tex., October 19, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation
and all other available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

RWDY Inc. is a consulting service company. Its president is Brian
Owen.

Marathon is an international energy company engaged in exploration
and production of oil and gas. Marathon has operations across the
United States, including in Texas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming
and Colorado. It also operates in the Gulf of Mexico as well as in
Africa, Europe and the Middle East.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 908-9861
      Fax: (817) 394-2412
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Motion for Reconsideration Granted
---------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that -- at the
behest of SEI and SPTC -- a Louisiana district court granted a
motion for reconsideration and dismissed claims under Section
714(A) of the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss,
or certify for interlocutory appeal, claims under Section 714(B)
of the Louisiana Securities Law.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.
All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition,
another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial
District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI and SPTC
and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform
fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in
all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing
back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions
allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise
participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by
Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court
deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion
would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class
certification. After the Court held a hearing on class
certification, it certified a class composed of persons who
purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates
of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the
class certification judgments.

On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a
First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they
asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims
against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013,
the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for
leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First
Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of
the action. On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier
defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana.
SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI
filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt
the state court's order regarding class certification, which the
court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel
transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of
Texas.

On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the
Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on
June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion
challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class,
which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their
answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the
Northern District of Texas. On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also
filed motions seeking reconsideration of the District Court's June
17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking
leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the
denial, as well as a motion seeking partial judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with
respect to claims brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana
Securities Law.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to
dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify
for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B)
of the Louisiana Securities Law.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SIRIUS XM: "Sheridan" Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, and all others similarly-
situated v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-07576 (D.N.J., October 19, 2015), seeks actual and
punitive damages for common law copyright infringement/unfair
competition and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are suing the Defendants for their unauthorized and
unlawful use of sound recordings initially created before February
15, 1972.

Pandora Media, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Oakland, California. Pandora Media owns and
operates an internet radio service.

Sirius XM Radio Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in New York, New York. Sirius XM owns and
operates satellite and internet radio services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com


SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
SouFun Holdings Limited (NYSE: SFUN) American Depositary Shares
from May 20, 2015 through October 27, 2015, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
SouFun investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the SouFun class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-762.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SouFun employees routinely
created "fake contracts"; (2) Defendants were aware that SouFun
employees routinely created "fake contracts"; and (3) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-762.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free
at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


SPACE EXPLORATION: "Saporito" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Saporito, and all others similarly-situated v. Space
Exploration Technologies Corp. and Does 1-50, Case No. BC598297
(Cal. Super., October 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code.

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. designs, manufactures, and
launches advanced rockets and spacecraft. The company's products
include Falcon 9, a two-stage rocket and Dragon, a free-flying
spacecraft. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. was founded in
2002 and is based in Hawthorne, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (858) 551-1223
      Fax: (858) 551-1232


STAN CHESLEY: Faces Arrest Warrant For Not Appearing in Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
WCPO reported that Boone County judge issued an arrest warrant for
former famed attorney Stan Chesley after he failed to appear in
court, records show.

Chesley was due in court because he has been sued by a group of
clients he once represented in a class action lawsuit against the
maker of diet drug combination Fen-Phen.

Chesley was charged with contempt and the judge set his bail at
more than $647,000.

Chesley worked as an attorney for 53 years, and his success with
large class action lawsuits earned him nicknames like the "Master
of Disaster" and the "Prince of Torts."

He first made a name for himself representing the victims of a
1977 fire at the Beverly Hills Supper Club by suing the club's
owners and the aluminum electrical wire industry, too, winning $49
million in verdicts and settlements.

Over decades, Chesley won billions of dollars in cases that
included a suit against Pan Am over the Lockerbie bombing and Dow
Corning over breast implants. He bought an $8 million Indian Hill
mansion, at one point owned more than 20 cars and married a
federal judge.

Chesley's success turned two years ago. The Kentucky Supreme Court
disbarred him because he was paid more than $7 million beyond what
he was entitled for in the Fen-Phen suit. He has since retired.


SUNRUN INC: Consumer Rights Action Pending in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. continues to defend a consumer rights class action,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

On January 4, 2013, a consumer rights class action law firm filed
a class action complaint against Sunrun in Los Angeles Superior
Court. The complaint asserts the claims of one named plaintiff and
all others similarly situated, and alleges claims under the
California state contractor licensing statute, the California
unfair competition statute and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

The Company believes that it is not probable that a loss will be
incurred in connection with this action and is not able to
estimate the ultimate outcome or a range of possible loss at this
point. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
against this action and will continue to vigorously defend it.


SUNRUN INC: Employee Rights Action Pending in San Diego
-------------------------------------------------------
Sunrun Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that on March 11, 2015, an employee
rights class action law firm filed a class action complaint
against two of the Company's subsidiaries in San Diego Superior
Court.  The complaint asserts the claim of one named plaintiff and
others similarly situated under the California wage and hour laws,
specifically, that the Company's subsidiaries: (i) miscalculated
and underpaid overtime wages by failing to include certain bonuses
in base pay; (ii) failed to provide meal periods; and (iii)
required employees to work off the clock without paying them. On
April 27, 2015, the employee rights class action law firm filed an
amended class action complaint against two of the Company's
subsidiaries in San Diego Superior Court. The Company is currently
reviewing the allegations and the amount of any potential
liability is not currently estimable.


SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Defend September 2008 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 12, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend a class action complaint filed in
September 2008.

In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC
("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.;
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United
States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The
plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a
grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company
that allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and
the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for
coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were
part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive
relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit;
however, all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the
result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of
IOS.


SUPERVALU INC: Plaintiffs in December 2008 Action File Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period (12 weeks) ended September 12, 2015, that the
plaintiffs in a class action filed December 2008 have lodged an
appeal to the Eighth Circuit from the denial of the request to add
an additional New England plaintiff and to seek class
certification for a group of New England retailers.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the
Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy
to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction,
the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as
part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold
certain assets of the Company to C&S that were located in New
England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed
similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases were
consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District
Court in Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was
concealed and continued through the use of non-compete and non-
solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution
facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other.
Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration
agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District
Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on
January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non-
arbitration plaintiffs. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit
reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with
arbitration agreements to arbitrate and remanded to the District
Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court
ordered mandatory mediation, which was not successful in resolving
the matter.

On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the
District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of
the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision
denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers
located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery
products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September
13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider
whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from
the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center and
potentially other distribution centers.

On January 16, 2015, the Company filed a Petition for Certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court seeking to appeal certain
aspects of the 8th Circuit decision and on June 8, 2015, the
United States Supreme Court denied the Petition. On June 19, 2015,
the District Court Magistrate Judge entered an order that decided
a number of matters including granting plaintiffs' request to seek
class certification for certain Midwest Distribution Centers and
denying plaintiffs' request to add an additional New England
plaintiff and denying plaintiffs' request to seek class
certification for a group of New England retailers.

On August 20, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's order. In September 2015, the plaintiffs appealed to the
8th Circuit the denial of the request to add an additional New
England plaintiff and to seek class certification for a group of
New England retailers.


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: "Santana" Suit Alleges BIPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hadit Santana, Vanessa Vigil, and all others similarly-situated v.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-08211
(S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2015), seeks damages for Defendant's
alleged violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act ("BIPA").

Take-Two is a publisher, developer and distributor of numerous
video games, including the "NBA 2K15" and "NBA 2K16" video games
for the Sony PlayStation 4 and Microsoft Xbox One gaming
platforms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John C. Carey, Esq.
      CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 372-7474
      Fax: (305) 372-7475
      E-mail: jcarey@careyrodriguez.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of TerraForm
Global, Inc. ("TerraForm Global") pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
TerraForm Global's July 31, 2015 initial public stock offering
(the "IPO").  TerraForm Global operates as an indirect emerging
markets subsidiary of SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose material
information in its Registration Statement, including failure to
disclose that by the time of the IPO: (a) the IPO sponsor
SunEdison was experiencing unprecedented losses that would be
revealed just days after the finalization of the IPO; (b)
SunEdison was experiencing liquidity and debt issues that ended
its ability to develop projects to sell to TerraForm Global, thus
the Company's "Yield Co" business model was effectively moribund
from the outset; and (c) the aggressive growth plans for SunEdison
and TerraForm Global were unachievable.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 28, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

         Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
         Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
         GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON LLP
         440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 983-1300
         Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
         Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com


VALEANT PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. ("Valeant" or the "Company")
(NYSE:VRX) (TSX:VRX) during the period February 22, 2015 through
October 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  A copy of the
Complaint filed in this action can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com.

If you purchased the shares of Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. during the period February 22, 2015 through
October 21, 2015, inclusive, you may, no later than December 21,
2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class.

The Company is dually-listed in the United States and Canada.
Shareholders who incurred losses on shares purchased on either the
New York Stock Exchange or Toronto Stock Exchange within the Class
Period are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774.

The complaint charges Valeant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Valeant is 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 complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information about the Company's business and prospects,
including that the Company was using a network of specialty mail-
order pharmacies that it actually controlled to prop up sales of
its high-priced drugs and to keep patients and their insurance
companies from switching to less costly generic drugs, that
Valeant's undisclosed use of specialty pharmacies left it subject
to increased regulatory risks, and that without the use of the
specialty pharmacies, Valeant's financial performance and Class
Period financial guidance would have been negatively impacted.  As
a result of these false and misleading statements and/or
omissions, Valeant stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching over $260 per share.

Then on October 19, 2015, the Company issued a press release
reporting its third quarter 2015 financial results.  The same day,
Valeant hosted an earnings call during which, for the first time,
defendants revealed the previously undisclosed and direct
relationship between Valeant and certain specialty pharmacies.  On
this news, the price of Valeant common stock fell over 10% in one
day, from a close of $163.83 per share on October 19, 2015 to a
close of $146.74 per share on October 20, 2015.  Additional news
concerning Valeant's unique relationships with specialty
pharmacies reached the market on October 21, 2015, causing the
price of Valeant stock to drop sharply, falling to a close of
$118.61 per share, a 55% decline from the high of $263.81 reached
on August 6, 2015.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at
(800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to "Valeant litigation."

         Patrick Donovan, Esq.
         WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
         270 Madison Ave.
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-545-4708
         Email: donovan@whafh.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Niegelsen" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------
Chad Niegelsen, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen of America,
Inc., Audi AG, and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13714
(E.D. Mich., October 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for common law fraud, breach of express warranty, unjust
enrichment and violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

          - and -

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: "Welch" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Charla Welch, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen AG
and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04818
(N.D. Calif., October 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and violation of the California False Advertising Law.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE S. KREGER, P.A.
      100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 940
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 917-1083
      Fax: (310) 917-1001
      E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com

          - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI
      2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 973-0900
      Fax: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Siegelstein" Suit Over Common Law Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Siegelstein, Debra J. Hunter, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.'s dba Volkswagen of
America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07582
(D.N.J., October 19, 2015), seek actual damages, compensatory
damages, statutory damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs as a
result of Volkswagen's common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and violations of the New Jersey's Consumer
Fraud Act and the Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
      1520 U.S. Hwy. 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Tel: (732) 545-7900
      Fax: (732) 545-1030

          - and -

      Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. McGINN
      75 Raritan Avenue, Suite 220
      Highland Park, NJ 08904
      Tel: (732) 937-9400


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Trainer" Suit Alleges Fraud by Concealment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Trainer, Roberto Santana, Caasi Parr, and all others
similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-13692 (E.D. Mich., October 19,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for fraud by concealment,
breach of contract and breach of express warranty.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Tel: (877) 561-0000
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com

          - and -

      Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
      23000 Telegraph Road, Suite 5
      Brownstown Township, MI 48134
      Tel: (734) 692-9200
      E-mail: Bryan@Yaldoulaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Truong" Suit Alleges Fraudulent Bus. Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duc Truong, Eric Kelly, Dorothy Fajerman, Camille Zenobia, and all
others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.'s
and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07517 (D.N.J., October 19,
2015), seek to recover damages for Defendants' alleged unlawful,
deceptive, fraudulent and unfair business practices.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 524-5777
      Fax: (504) 524-5763

          - and -

      John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
      KEEFE BARTELS
      170 Monmouth Street
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (732) 224-9400
      Fax: (732) 224-9494

          - and -

      Nicholas A. Grieco, Esq.
      GRIECO & DEFILIPPO
      414 Eagle Rock Road, Suite 200
      West Orange, NJ 07052
      Tel: (973) 243-2099
      Fax: (973) 243-2095


W. P. CAREY: "Gaines" Withdrew Notice of Appeal
-----------------------------------------------
W. P. Carey Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2015, that Ira
Gaines and entities affiliated with him have withdrawn with
prejudice the Notice of Appeal they had filed on November 24, 2014
in connection with the purported class action (Ira Gaines, et al.
v. Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated, Index.
No. 650001/2014, N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County) that the plaintiffs
had filed against the Company, its subsidiary, WPC REIT Merger Sub
Inc., Corporate Property Associates 16 - Global Incorporated
("CPA(R):16 - Global"), and the directors of CPA(R):16 - Global
regarding the Company's merger with CPA(R):16 - Global.

The Notice of Withdrawal was filed on August 21, 2015.  The merger
was completed on January 31, 2014.

"As a result, the decision that the trial court rendered in our
favor on October 15, 2014 is now final, and the case has been
dismissed," the Company said.


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *