CAR_Public/151125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, November 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 235


                            Headlines


ACT INC: CA Affirms Denial of "Right to Publicity" Claim
ALCOA INC: Superior Court Dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaints
AMERICAN AIRLINES: 100 Suits Filed Over Air Passenger Capacity
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Request to Consolidate "Fjord" Suit Denied
APOLLO EDUCATION: Suits Allege Violations of Ky. Wage & Hour Laws

APOLLO EDUCATION: To Seek Reimbursement from Insurers
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Paredes" Class Action Dismissed
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Azich" TCPA Class Action Dismissed
APOLLO EDUCATION: Barton and Abdullah Class Action Dismissed
ARCHER DANIELS: Reaches Out-of-Court Settlement with Sugar Cos.

AUTOLIV INC: Reached More Settlements to Resolve Antitrust Claims
AUTOLIV INC: Class Action Filed by Truck Dealers in E.D. Mich.
AUTOLIV INC: Four Antitrust Class Actions Pending in Canada
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Wytas and Yassian Actions Consolidated
C. R. BARD: 90 Lawsuits Over Hernia Products Pending at Oct. 1

C. R. BARD: 12,850 Women's Health Product Claims Still Pending
C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 65 Plaintiffs Pending
CORELOGIC INC: Must File Amended Answers in "Stevens" by Dec. 1
CORESITE REALTY: Class Action Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Levy" Action

CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Defendants Have Yet to Answer Del. Complaints
DRAFTKINGS INC: Taps Gibson's Randy Mastro to Defend Biz Model
ELIV GROUP: Valente Gets 20-Year Sentence for Securities Fraud
ENCOMPASS INSURANCE: Court Remands "Zarelli" to Pierce County
FANDUEL INC: Faces Multiple Consumer Fraud Class Actions

FIXODENT: Court Affirms Dismissal of Dental Cream Adhesive Suits
FLAGLER COUNTY, FL: Court Grants Approves Revised Settlement
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Petition to Appeal Class Certification Filed
HARMONY GOLD: Certification Application Hearing Held
HUBBELL INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Reclassification

J.B. HUNT: Class Action Appeal Pending Before 9th Cir.
JANSSEN PHARMA: Ordered to Produce Risperdal "Reanalysis" Records
KINDER MORGAN: Kenneth Walker Class action Stayed
KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs Take Appeal in Delaware Suit
KINDER MORGAN: $27.5MM Settlement Reached in Capex Litigation

LEAR CORP: Settlement with Indirect Purchasers Awaits Final OK
LENDING TREE: HLC Appeals Judgment in "Dijkstra" Case
LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
LOGMEIN INC: $25,000 Settlement Reached in C.D. Cal. Class Action
M-I LLC: Discovery Deadline Extended to Feb. 22

MCNEIL CONSUMER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Tylenol Bellwether Case
MEL S. HARRIS: "Sewer Service", "Robo-Signing" Suit Settled
MERCK SHARP: Judge Tosses 750 Diabetes Drug Failure-to-Warn Suits
MICROSOFT CORP: Taps Orrick Partner to Defend Sex-Bias Claims
MICROSOFT CORP: Says Remaining Settlement Costs Total $100MM

MICROSOFT CORP: British Columbia Case Scheduled for Trial in 2016
MICROSOFT CORP: Proceedings Stayed in US Cell Phone Litigation
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
ONESOURCE TECHNOLOGY: "Schartel" Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo Ruling
PANDORA MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Case Stayed Pending 9th Cir. Review

PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 1st Class Action in N.D. Cal.
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 2nd Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 3rd Class Action in N.D. Ill.
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 4th Class Action in D. N.J.
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal

SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Denies Final Approval of Settlement
SIRIUS XM: Still Defending TCPA Actions in Va., Fla., and Ill.
SIRIUS XM: Flo & Eddie and Sheridan Cases Seek $100MM in Damages
SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Tackles Standing Doctrine in FCRA Suit
TARGET CORPORATION: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement

TEREX CORP: Provides Updates to Class Suits
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Stay Lifted on Action by Illinois Counties
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by City of Stratford Still Pending
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by La Crosse County Still Pending
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Transferred to Texas

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taxi Company Files Suit Over Licensing Issue
VIZIO INC: Faces Suit Over Tracking Software in Smart TVs
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces More Woes Over Emission Tests Scandal
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Freedman" Case Settled for $120MM
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Defending Suits Over Front Load Washing Machines

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Lawsuits Over Product Sales

* Lawyers for Tobacco Cos. Want Judge to Recuse in FDA Dispute



                            *********



ACT INC: CA Affirms Denial of "Right to Publicity" Claim
--------------------------------------------------------     Judge
Michael Stephen Kanne of the United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court
denying Plaintiffs' motion for proposed right to publicity claim
in the case captioned, CATHLENE SILHA, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. ACT, INC. and THE COLLEGE BOARD, Defendants-
Appellees., Case No. 15-1083 (7th Cir.).

On January 23, 2014, a group of former information exchange
program participants -- Cathlene Silha, Arie Wolf, Karoline
Kamzic, and Elyse Stevens filed a putative class action complaint
against Defendants. They alleged that Defendants deceived them and
the putative class by concealing the sale or licensing of
students' PII under the cover of the information exchange
programs. Specifically, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants sold or
licensed their PII for a profit of at least $0.33 per student, per
buyer. Plaintiffs relied on several theories of relief, including
unfair and deceptive business practices, breach of contract,
invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

Defendants responded on March 28, 2014, by filing motions to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6) which was granted by the district court.

On September 22, 2014, Plaintiffs moved to alter or amend the
district court's judgment, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)(6). At the same time, Plaintiffs sought
leave to amend their original complaint in response to the
district court's dismissal for lack of injury. The proposed
amended complaint included new allegations that Plaintiffs had the
opportunity to sell their PII. Plaintiffs also sought to add a new
claim under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act. The district
court denied Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that nothing in the
proposed amended complaint would plausibly establish injury in
fact. Furthermore, the district court found that Plaintiffs'
proposed right to publicity claim was time-barred.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that they pled standing by alleging
that Defendants had "deceived" them by not disclosing the sale of
their PII and seeking damages from the income Defendants derived
from this alleged deception.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2nznlpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kanne found that
Plaintiffs fail the second prong of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009), because Plaintiffs' well-pleaded factual allegations
do not support injury in fact sufficient for standing under
Article III of the Constitution and that Plaintiffs actually
benefited from participation in the information exchange programs,
in contrast to their allegations of harm.


ALCOA INC: Superior Court Dismissed Plaintiffs' Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the Superior Court of the
Virgin Islands, St. Croix Division, has dismissed the class action
plaintiffs' complaints without prejudice to re-file the complaints
individually, rather than as a multi-plaintiff filing.

On January 14, 2010, Alcoa was served with a multi-plaintiff
action complaint involving several thousand individual persons
claiming to be residents of St. Croix who are alleged to have
suffered personal injury or property damage from Hurricane Georges
or winds blowing material from the St. Croix Alumina, L.L.C.
("SCA") facility on the island of St. Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands)
since the time of the hurricane. This complaint, Abednego, et al.
v. Alcoa, et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin
Islands, St. Croix Division. Following an unsuccessful attempt by
Alcoa and SCA to remove the case to federal court, the case has
been lodged in the Superior Court. The complaint names as
defendants the same entities that were sued in a February 1999
action arising out of the impact of Hurricane Georges on the
island and added as a defendant the current owner of the alumina
facility property.

On March 1, 2012, Alcoa was served with a separate multi-plaintiff
action complaint involving approximately 200 individual persons
alleging claims essentially identical to those set forth in the
Abednego v. Alcoa complaint. This complaint, Abraham, et al. v.
Alcoa, et al., was filed on behalf of plaintiffs previously
dismissed in the federal court proceeding involving the original
litigation over Hurricane Georges impacts. The matter was
originally filed in the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, St.
Croix Division, on March 30, 2011.

Alcoa and other defendants in the Abraham and Abednego cases filed
or renewed motions to dismiss each case in March 2012 and August
2012 following service of the Abraham complaint on Alcoa and
remand of the Abednego complaint to Superior Court, respectively.
By order dated August 10, 2015, the Superior Court dismissed
plaintiffs' complaints without prejudice to re-file the complaints
individually, rather than as a multi-plaintiff filing. The order
also preserves the defendants' grounds for dismissal if new,
individual complaints are filed.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: 100 Suits Filed Over Air Passenger Capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. has been named as defendants in 100
putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements with
respect to air passenger capacity, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

In June 2015, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand
(CID) from the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) as part
of an investigation into whether there have been illegal
agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity. The CID
seeks documents and other information from the Company, and other
airlines have announced that they have received similar requests.
The Company intends to cooperate fully with the DOJ investigation.

Subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs by the DOJ, the
Company, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co.,
United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation filed in
Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in approximately
100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful agreements
with respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S. lawsuits were the
subject of multiple motions to consolidate them in a single forum,
and they have now been consolidated in the Federal District Court
for the District of Columbia. Both the DOJ process and these
lawsuits are in their very early stages and the Company intends to
defend the lawsuits vigorously.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Request to Consolidate "Fjord" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has denied a
request to consolidate the case, Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., with putative class action lawsuits,
American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint named as defendants US Airways Group and US Airways, and
alleged that the effect of the Merger may be to substantially
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. The relief sought in the
complaint included an injunction against the Merger, or
divestiture.

On August 6, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the
Bankruptcy Court, adding AMR and American as defendants, and on
October 2, 2013, dismissed the initial California action. On
November 27, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to preliminarily enjoin the Merger.

On August 19, 2015, after three previous largely unsuccessful
attempts to amend their complaint, plaintiffs filed a fourth
motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint to
add a claim for damages and demand for jury trial, as well as
claims similar to those in the putative class action lawsuits
regarding air passenger capacity. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a
request with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
to consolidate the Fjord matter with the putative class action
lawsuits. The JPML denied that request on October 15, 2015.

Plaintiffs have indicated that they will seek further relief from
the JPML. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Suits Allege Violations of Ky. Wage & Hour Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015, that the Company faces
class action alleging violations of Kentucky wage and hour laws.

On June 9, 2015, two former University of Phoenix employees filed
an action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Kentucky
alleging that they were wrongfully terminated from their positions
with the University in violation of Kentucky and federal law. In
this action, which is captioned Aldrich et al. v. The University
of Phoenix, 15-C-2839 (Jefferson Cty. Circuit Court), plaintiffs
also allege that the University violated Kentucky wage and hour
law by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime and other required
wages, and in connection with these wage and hour claims, they
seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
individuals employed by the University within the past five years
who performed a substantial part of their job duties in Kentucky.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf in
connection with their alleged wrongful termination and past due
wages, overtime compensation and other relief on behalf of the
class in connection with the wage and hour claims.


APOLLO EDUCATION: To Seek Reimbursement from Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. intends to pursue reimbursement of
the settlement amount from its insurance carriers in the
securities class action filed by the Teamsters Local 617 Pensions
and Welfare Funds, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint alleging that we and certain
of our current and former directors and officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this
ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012. On
April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

During the pendency of this appeal, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter for an immaterial
amount and, at the request of the parties, the Ninth Circuit
issued an order staying the appeal on April 30, 2014.

On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court granted on
April 14, 2015. On July 29, 2015, the district court entered an
order approving the settlement and dismissing with prejudice the
claims against defendants. Accordingly, the settlement amount that
we had previously deposited into a common fund account during the
third quarter of fiscal year 2015 was released.

"We intend to pursue reimbursement of the settlement amount from
our insurance carriers, although the outcome of any such recovery
efforts is uncertain at this point," the Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Paredes" Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015, that the court has
dismissed the class action by Ashley Paredes alleging unfair and
deceptive practices.

On November 13, 2014, Ashley Paredes filed a class action
complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education
Group, Inc. alleging unfair and deceptive business practices in
violation of California law. Captioned Paredes v. The University
of Phoenix, Inc., the action was initially filed in California
Superior Court in San Bernardino County, but was subsequently
removed to Federal District Court in the Central District of
California. The parties subsequently resolved this matter for an
immaterial amount and, on October 6, 2015, the Court dismissed the
action.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Azich" TCPA Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015, that George Azich has
voluntarily dismissed his Class Action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

On May 27, 2015, George Azich filed a class action lawsuit, Azich
v. The University of Phoenix, 2:15-at-616 (E.D. Cal.) in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, alleging that University of Phoenix violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting class members on
their cellular telephones using automated dialing technology
without obtaining their express written consent. On September 14,
2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Barton and Abdullah Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015, that Barton and
Abdullah voluntarily dismissed their class action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On February 28, 2015, Thomas Barton and Leon Abdullah filed a
class action complaint, Barton et al. v. The University of
Phoenix, 1:15-cv-939-NJV (N.D. Cal.) against University of Phoenix
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The complaint alleged that University of Phoenix
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting
plaintiffs on their cellular telephones using automated dialing
technology without their express written consent, and sought to
recover damages on behalf of plaintiffs and other members of the
putative class. On July 24, 2015, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their complaint.


ARCHER DANIELS: Reaches Out-of-Court Settlement with Sugar Cos.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Melley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
bitter billion-dollar battle in the sweetener wars came to an end
on Nov. 20 as sugar processors and the makers of high fructose
corn syrup announced a secret out-of-court settlement.

The deal midway through a trial in Los Angeles federal court was
announced in a short statement that sugar-coated the hostility
that emerged from dueling lawsuits over losses each side blamed on
efforts by their rival to win over consumers.  By bringing the
case to a close privately, the foes avoided the uncertainty of a
jury verdict that could have had broader market implications for
products that are ubiquitous on the ingredient labels of countless
food items in U.S. stores.

Sugar processors had sought $1.5 billion in a false-advertising
claim against corn refiners and agribusinesses giants Archer
Daniels Midland and Cargill and other companies after they tried
to rebrand their publicity-plagued product as "corn sugar."

Western Sugar Cooperative and other sugar processors said they
lost money when corn refiners launched a "sugar is sugar" ad
campaign that stated, "Your body can't tell the difference."

Corn refiners and the companies countersued for $530 million,
saying they suffered after the sugar industry made false and
misleading statements that included a comment that high fructose
corn syrup was as addictive as crack cocaine.  They blamed the
sugar industry for being behind the "junk science" that associated
the product with diabetes and obesity.

Any rancor evident during the four-year legal skirmish wasn't
evident in the joint statement that announced commitments to
"practices that encourage safe and healthful use of their
products, including moderation in the consumption of table sugar,
high fructose corn syrup and other sweeteners."

Attorneys on both sides refused to discuss terms of the settlement
or whether any money would be exchanged.

Eric Rose, a spokesman for the sugar processors, said they
"achieved a satisfactory settlement of the disputes in the
lawsuit."

Big Sugar and Big Corn have battled in the marketplace since the
1970s when high fructose corn syrup was introduced as a cheaper
alternative to sugar.

The fortunes for corn began slipping when studies in the mid-2000s
began connecting the product to health problems such as obesity.

Corn refiners launched the ad campaign to support its bid before
the Food and Drug Administration to change the name to "corn
sugar."

The FDA rejected the request in 2012, finding that sugar was a
solid, dried and crystallized food, not syrup.

Although some consumers passionately favor one product over the
other, science has determined they are nearly identical and are
metabolized the same way, said Roger A. Clemens, a University of
Southern California research professor of pharmacology and
pharmaceutical science.  Sugar is sucrose, which is half fructose,
half glucose. High fructose corn syrup is typically 55 percent
fructose and 45 percent glucose.

The trial had presented a chance for jurors to weigh in on the
vexing debate and side with one sweetener after years of dispute
in the court of public opinion over the evils of both.

A big win by one side over the other could have had a broader
impact on the food industry, the law and advertising.

Attorney Dan Herling, who was not involved in the case but has
handled suits alleging false or misleading labeling or advertising
of foods, said a jury verdict could have provided a model for
lawyers looking to take on foods with genetically modified or non-
organic ingredients.

"I would also imagine that people who come up with marketing
campaigns would have to take a step back and say if we do this not
only how is the market going to react, but is it going to lead to
a lawsuit," Mr. Herling said.

Attorney Mark Lanier, who represented sugar processors, predicted
before the trial that if he prevailed, other companies would the
follow the likes of Hunt's ketchup and Capri Sun juices and switch
to sugar from high fructose corn syrup.

"I think both sides will get massive PR out of the win or the
loss," he said.  "Good PR or bad PR. Both sides have a lot hanging
on it."

The settlement essentially brings the case to a draw in the public
eye.

The outcome was similar to one between the sugar industry and the
makers of Splenda seven years ago.

Sugar processors alleged that McNeil Nutritionals engaged in
misleading advertising for promoting the sweetener as a natural
food product with the slogan "tastes like sugar because it's made
from sugar."

Terms of that deal have never been disclosed.


AUTOLIV INC: Reached More Settlements to Resolve Antitrust Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Plaintiffs in these
civil antitrust class actions generally allege that the defendant
suppliers of occupant safety systems have engaged in long-running
global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant safety systems
or components thereof in violation of various antitrust laws and
unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs in these
civil antitrust class actions make allegations that extend
significantly beyond the specific admissions of the Company's DOJ
plea. The Company denies these overly broad allegations.

Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases seek to represent purported classes
of direct purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors (i.e. consumers)
who purchased occupant safety systems or components either
directly from a defendant or indirectly through purchases or
leases of new vehicles containing such systems. Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs in the Canadian cases seek to represent purported
classes encompassing direct and indirect purchasers of such
products and seek similar relief under applicable Canadian laws.

Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its
competitors are defendants in a total of 19 purported antitrust
class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and June 2015.
Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and have been
consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability,
entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives
of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL, not
including the recent truck dealer class action, subject to final
approval by the MDL court following notice to the settlement
class, an opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement, and
a fairness hearing. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the
Company agreed to pay:

     $40 million to the direct purchaser settlement class,
      $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class, and
     $19 million to the end-payor settlement class,

for a total of $65 million.

This amount was expensed during the second quarter of 2014. In
exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the
settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding
their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on
behalf of the class in the MDL.

In July 2014, the three settlements received preliminary court
approval. Following notice to the direct purchaser settlement
class and the receipt of opt-out notices from members of that
class, the class settlement amount was by the terms of the
settlement agreement reduced to approximately $35.5 million.

Following a fairness hearing on December 3, 2014, the MDL court on
January 7, 2015 entered an order granting final approval to the
direct purchaser class settlement. Notices to the settlement
classes and the fairness hearings for the other two class
settlements have been deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL court
for processing with additional, future settlements due to the cost
of giving notice to large settlement classes. The three class
settlements will not resolve any claims of settlement class
members who opt out of the settlements or the claims of any
purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise
included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities.

In March 2015, Autoliv reached agreements regarding additional
settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global
(including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims which were not
covered by its U.S. direct purchaser settlement. The total amount
of these additional settlements was $81 million. In entering into
these agreements, Autoliv did not admit any liability and settled
for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainty, risk, expense and
distraction of potential litigation or other adversarial
proceedings and in the interest of maintaining positive
relationships with its customers.

No further updates were provided in Autoliv's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.


AUTOLIV INC: Class Action Filed by Truck Dealers in E.D. Mich.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
lawsuit was filed in June 2015 against the Company in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by
truck dealers seeking to represent a class of truck and equipment
dealers that directly or indirectly purchased occupant safety
products in the U.S.

As in the other class actions, plaintiffs generally alleged that
the Company and its competitors who were also named as defendants
have engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices
of the subject products in violation of antitrust laws and unfair
or deceptive trade practice statues. Plaintiffs are seeking treble
damages for their direct purchases and for their indirect
purchases in states whose laws permit antitrust damages claims by
indirect purchasers.

This lawsuit was assigned to the MDL court and will be processed
as part of the ongoing Automobile Parts Antitrust MDL. The Company
is currently unable to predict the duration or ultimate outcome of
this lawsuit and the Company cannot estimate the financial impact
this class action will have, including an amount of loss or range
of loss. No provision for a loss has been recorded as of September
30, 2015.


AUTOLIV INC: Four Antitrust Class Actions Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that four antitrust
class action lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet
Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v.
Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of Quebec on
March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18, 2013; and Cindy
Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP, Inc. et al.,
filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of Regina in the
province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014).

The Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of
both direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems.
The Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits
and intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable
that the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian
antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases
currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a
loss has been recorded as of September 30, 2015. There is
currently no timeline for class certification or discovery in the
Canadian cases. These class actions have been stayed pending
proceedings in certain earlier-filed auto parts cases.


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Wytas and Yassian Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Wytas and
Yassian actions have been consolidated and are proceeding in
federal court.

Following the May 28, 2015 announcement of the Avago Agreement,
multiple shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange
against Broadcom, our Board of Directors, and other parties to the
Merger Agreement (collectively "the Defendants") under the
following captions:  Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No.
30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC; N.J. Building Laborers Statewide
Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 00791484-CU-SL-CXC; Yiu
v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 00791490-CU-SL-CXC; Seafarers'
Pension Plan v. Samueli et al., Case No. 30-2015-00794492-CU-SL-
CXC; and Engel v. Broadcom Corp. et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00797343-CU-SL-CXC.

Another putative class action was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Jew v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 115-CV-281353.  Two complaints
have also been filed in federal district court for the Central
District of California, captioned Wytas and Crombie v. McGregor,
et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979 and Yassian v. McGregor, et. al.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01303.

The Company said, "The complaints in the cases generally allege:
(i) that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to
Broadcom's shareholders by pursuing a flawed sale process and
failing to obtain adequate consideration, and (ii) that Broadcom
and the other parties to the Avago Agreement aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by our Board of Directors.
The Wytas and Yassian complaints also name Henry T. Nicholas III,
one of our co-founders, as a defendant and allege that the S-4
registration statement filed in connection with the Transaction
contains false and misleading statements in violation of the U.S.
federal securities laws.  The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits
seek to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with the proposed
transaction set forth in the Avago Agreement.  The plaintiffs also
seek damages and attorney's fees."

In August 2015 the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange issued an order coordinating and consolidating
the actions that had been filed in state court. On September 25,
2015, the Superior Court, County of Orange granted Broadcom's
motion to stay the state court proceedings. The Wytas and Yassian
actions have been consolidated and are proceeding in federal
court.


C. R. BARD: 90 Lawsuits Over Hernia Products Pending at Oct. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 1,
2015, approximately 35 federal and 55 state lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 90 plaintiffs, as well as one
putative class action in the United States, are currently pending
against the company with respect to its Composix(R) Kugel(R) and
certain other hernia repair implant products (collectively, the
"Hernia Product Claims"). The company voluntarily recalled certain
sizes and lots of the Composix(R) Kugel(R) products beginning in
December 2005.

As of October 1, 2015, all but one of the putative class actions
pending against the company were dismissed. The remaining putative
class action, which has not been certified, seeks: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees. In April 2014, a settlement was reached with
respect to the three putative Canadian class actions within
amounts previously recorded by the company. Approximately 30 of
the state lawsuits, involving individual claims by approximately
30 plaintiffs, are pending in the Superior Court of the State of
Rhode Island, with the remainder in various other jurisdictions.
The Hernia Product Claims also generally seek damages for personal
injury resulting from use of the products.

In June 2007, the Composix(R) Kugel(R) lawsuits and, subsequently,
other hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

In June 2011, the company announced that it had reached agreements
in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to settle the
majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each agreement was
subject to certain conditions, including requirements for
participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum
number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage
in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation. There are two trials
currently scheduled for the first quarter of 2016. The company
cannot give any assurances that the resolution of the Hernia
Product Claims that have not settled, including asserted and
unasserted claims and the putative class action lawsuit, will not
have a material adverse effect on the company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: 12,850 Women's Health Product Claims Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 1,
2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 12,850 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of certain of the
company's surgical continence products for women.

The company also has limited information regarding the nature and
quantity of unfiled or unknown claims. In addition, five putative
class actions in the United States and five putative class actions
in Canada have been filed against the company, and a limited
number of other claims have been filed or asserted in various non-
U.S. jurisdictions. The lawsuits, unfiled or unknown claims,
putative class actions and other claims, together with claims that
have settled or are the subject of agreements or agreements in
principle to settle, are referred to collectively as the "Women's
Health Product Claims". The Women's Health Product Claims
generally seek damages for personal injury resulting from use of
the products. The putative class actions, none of which has been
certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii) compensatory
damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial finding of defect
and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees.

In April 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in one Canadian
putative class action. These plaintiffs may appeal this decision
or may file an alternatives motion with the Ontario Superior Court
to redefine the class. With respect to certain Women's Health
Product Claims, the company believes that two subsidiaries of
Medtronic plc (as successor in interest to Covidien plc)
("Medtronic"), each a supplier of the company, have an obligation
to defend and indemnify the company with respect to any product
defect liability.

In July 2015 the company reached an agreement with Medtronic
regarding certain aspects of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation.

In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims involving
solely Avaulta(R) products pending in federal courts nationwide
were transferred into an MDL in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia (the "WV District
Court"), the scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits
involving all women's surgical continence products that are
manufactured or distributed by the company. The first trial in a
state court was completed in California in July 2012 and resulted
in a judgment against the company of approximately $3.6 million.

On appeal the decision was affirmed by the appellate court in
November 2014. The company filed a petition for review to the
California Supreme Court on December 24, 2014, which was denied on
February 18, 2015. The judgment in this matter, including interest
and costs, was paid on March 20, 2015 within the amounts
previously recorded by the company. The first trial in the MDL
commenced in July 2013 and resulted in a judgment against the
company of approximately $2 million. The company has appealed this
decision. The company does not believe that any verdicts entered
to date are representative of potential outcomes of all Women's
Health Product Claims.

On January 16, 2014 and July 31, 2014, the WV District Court
ordered that the company prepare 200 and then an additional 300
individual cases, respectively, for trial (the "WHP Pre-Trial
Orders") (the timing for which is currently unknown). The WHP Pre-
Trial Orders resulted in significant additional litigation-related
defense costs beginning in the second quarter of 2014 and
continuing through the second quarter of 2015. In February 2015,
the WV District Court appointed a Special Master to assist with
settlement resolution.

In June 2015, the WV District Court issued an order staying the
requirement to prepare a significant portion of the cases covered
by the WHP Pre-Trial Orders, which stay could be modified at the
court's discretion. The WHP Pre-Trial Orders may result in
material additional cost in future periods in defending Women's
Health Product Claims. The WV District Court may also order that
the company prepare additional cases for trial, which could result
in material additional cost in future periods.

As of September 30, 2015, the company has reached agreements or
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle their respective inventories of cases totaling
approximately 6,470 Women's Health Product Claims, including
approximately: 560 during 2014; 2,880 in respect of the second
quarter of 2015; and 3,030 in respect of the third quarter of
2015. The company believes that these Women's Health Product
Claims are not the subject of Medtronic's indemnification
obligation. These settlement agreements and agreements in
principle include unfiled and previously unknown claims held by
various plaintiffs' law firms, which have not been included in the
approximate number of Women's Health Product Claims set forth in
the first paragraph of this section. Each agreement is subject to
certain conditions, including requirements for participation in
the proposed settlements by a certain minimum number of
plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage in
discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding potential
resolution of unsettled Women's Health Product Claims, which may
include additional inventory settlements. Notwithstanding these
settlement efforts, the company anticipates that additional
trials, including one or more possible consolidated trials, may
occur in the future.

In July 2015, as part of the agreement, Medtronic agreed to take
responsibility for pursuing settlement of certain of the Women's
Health Product Claims that relate to products distributed by the
company under supply agreements with Medtronic and the company
agreed to pay Medtronic $121 million towards these potential
settlements. The company also may, in its sole discretion,
transfer responsibility for settlement of additional Women's
Health Product Claims to Medtronic on similar terms. The agreement
does not resolve the dispute between the company and Medtronic
with respect to Women's Health Product Claims that do not settle,
if any. As part of the agreement, Medtronic and the company agreed
to dismiss without prejudice their previously filed litigation
with respect to Medtronic's obligation to defend and indemnify the
company.

The approximate number of lawsuits set forth in the first
paragraph of this section does not include approximately 705
generic complaints involving women's health products where the
company cannot, based on the allegations in the complaints,
determine whether any of those cases involve the company's women's
health products. In addition, the approximate number of lawsuits
set forth in the first paragraph of this section does not include
approximately 1,160 claims that have been threatened against the
company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. In
addition, the company has limited information regarding the nature
and quantity of these and other unfiled or unknown claims. During
the course of engaging in settlement discussions with plaintiffs'
law firms, the company has learned, and may in future periods
learn, additional information regarding these and other unfiled or
unknown claims which could materially impact the company's
estimate of the number of claims against the company. While the
company continues to engage in discussions with other plaintiffs'
law firms regarding potential resolution of unsettled Women's
Health Product Claims and intends to vigorously defend the Women's
Health Product Claims that do not settle, including through
litigation, it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of
these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the
company's business, results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Filter Product Claims by 65 Plaintiffs Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
C. R. Bard, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of October 1,
2015, product liability lawsuits involving individual claims by
approximately 65 plaintiffs are currently pending against the
company in federal and state jurisdictions alleging personal
injuries associated with the use of the company's vena cava filter
products (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Filter Product
Claims").

In August 2015, the Judicial Panel for Multi-District Litigation
("JPML") ordered the creation of a Multi-District Litigation for
all federal Filter Product Claims (the "IVC Filter MDL") in the
District of Arizona. There are approximately 50 cases that have
been, or shortly will be, transferred to the IVC Filter MDL. The
remaining approximately 15 cases are pending in various state
courts across the country.

The first Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012
and resulted in a judgment for the company. During the second
quarter of 2013, the company finalized settlement agreements with
respect to more than 30 Filter Product Claims and made payments
with respect to such claims within the amounts previously recorded
by the company. The case numbers set forth above do not include
approximately 130 claims that have been threatened against the
company but for which complaints have not yet been filed. The
company expects additional trials of Filter Product Claims to take
place over the next 12 months. While the company intends to
vigorously defend Filter Product Claims that do not settle,
including through litigation, it cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


CORELOGIC INC: Must File Amended Answers in "Stevens" by Dec. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion
to strike affirmative defenses in the case captioned, ROBERT
STEVENS and STEVEN VANDEL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORELOGIC, INC.,
Defendant., Case No. 14-CV-1158-BAS-JLB (S. D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Robert Stevens, Steven Vandel, and Affordable Aerial
Photography, Inc., allege that Defendant CoreLogic, Inc.
falsified, removed, or altered Plaintiffs' copyright management
information in violation of 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1202. Plaintiffs are
professional photographers who provide real estate photography
services to real estate brokers and agents. CoreLogic, a Delaware
corporation, is the nation's largest provider of software and
technology services to real estate multiple listing services.

Plaintiffs allege that CoreLogic had the requisite mens rea under
the statute. CoreLogic denies that it violated Sec. 1202 and
asserts fourteen affirmative defenses primarily intended to negate
the mens rea element of Plaintiffs' Sec. 1202 claims.

In the motion, Plaintiffs move to strike all 14 of CoreLogic's
affirmative defenses primarily on three grounds. First, Plaintiffs
argue that affirmative defenses one through nine and fourteen are
"copyright infringement defenses" inapplicable to the 17 U.S.C.
Sec. 1202 claim brought by Plaintiffs. Second, Plaintiffs contend
that nearly all of CoreLogic's affirmative defenses are proffered
to negate the mental state element of Plaintiffs' Sec. 1202 claim
and so are not affirmative defenses at all, but rather denials
pled as affirmative defenses. And third, Plaintiffs argue that
many of the defenses do not meet the fair notice standard.

In her Order and Reasons dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Zcsiqjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found that
affirmative defenses one, three, and five through thirteen are
improper affirmative defenses because they are proffered to negate
elements of Plaintiffs' complaint, rather than defeat Plaintiffs'
claims assuming all the allegations are true and that affirmative
defenses two, four, 10 and 14 must be stricken on the grounds that
they do not provide fair notice.

The Court directed CoreLogic to file amended answer revising one
or more of its affirmative defenses no later than December 1,
2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Darren James Quinn, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DARREN J QUINN
12702 Via Cortina #105,
Del Mar, CA 92014
Tel: (858) 509-9401

     - and -

Joel B. Rothman, Esq.
SCHNEIDER ROTHMAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP PLLC
4651 North Federal Highway
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 404-4350

Corelogic, Inc. is represented by Daralyn J. Durie, Esq. --
ddurie@durietangri.com -- Joseph Charles Gratz, Esq. --
jgratz@durietangri.com -- Michael Aaron Feldman, Esq. --
mfeldman@durietangri.com -- DURIE TANGRI LLP


CORESITE REALTY: Class Action Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CoreSite Realty Corporation is defending a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"On July 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, against us, alleging various employment law violations
related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely
payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records and business
expenses," the Company said. "The lawsuit is in the early stages
and we have not yet filed a responsive pleading."

"We intend to vigorously defend both of these legal proceedings.
While it is not feasible to predict or determine the outcome of
these legal proceedings, as of September 30, 2015, we estimate
that the ultimate resolution of these litigation matters and other
disputes could result in a loss that is reasonably possible
between $0.0 million and $2.0 million in the aggregate, of which
$1.1 million has been accrued in accounts payable and accrued
expenses in our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of
December 31, 2015."


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Filed Motion to Dismiss "Levy" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. on July 29, 2015, announced it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Solvay SA ("Solvay") and its wholly owned subsidiary, Tulip
Acquisition Inc. ("Merger Subsidiary").

Cytec Industries said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an alleged
stockholder of Cytec filed on September 17, 2015, a complaint
related to the merger in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic
County on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
stockholders. The lawsuit, captioned Levy v. Cytec Industries
Inc., et al., names as defendants the Company, its directors,
Solvay and Merger Subsidiary.

"The Levy complaint generally alleges that our directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting a flawed
sales process and approving the merger agreement at an inadequate
price, agreeing to a transaction through which the individual
defendants will receive certain change of control benefits, and by
disseminating a preliminary proxy statement in connection with the
merger that is allegedly inaccurate or misleading in various
respects," the Company said.

The complaint further alleges that these supposed breaches of duty
were aided and abetted by Solvay and Merger Subsidiary. The
complaint generally seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages and an award of attorneys' fees.

On October 13, 2015, the Cytec defendants filed a motion to
dismiss this action. "We believe that the claims asserted in the
litigation have no merit," the Company said.


CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Defendants Have Yet to Answer Del. Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. on July 29, 2015, announced it had entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Solvay SA ("Solvay") and its wholly owned subsidiary, Tulip
Acquisition Inc. ("Merger Subsidiary").

Cytec Industries said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the first of two
putative class actions related to the merger was filed on October
6, 2015, by an alleged stockholder of the Company in the United
States District Court, District of Delaware.

The first lawsuit, captioned Lagarde v. Cytec Industries Inc.,
names as defendants the Company and its directors, and the second
lawsuit, filed on October 21, 2015 and captioned Andersen v. Cytec
Industries Inc. et al., names as defendants the Company, its
directors, Solvay and Merger Subsidiary.

The two Delaware complaints generally allege that our directors
made, and exercised control over other persons who also made,
untrue statements of fact and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading in the
preliminary proxy statement relating to the merger, supposedly in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78-n(a) & 78t(a). The
Andersen complaint also includes claims that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
agreeing to the merger at an inadequate price and following an
insufficient sale process, and by making allegedly inadequate or
incomplete disclosures relating to the merger in the preliminary
proxy statement, and that the Company, Solvay and Merger
Subsidiary aided and abetted those purported breaches of duty.

The complaints generally seek, among other things, equitable
relief to enjoin Cytec and Solvay from consummating the merger,
damages and an award of attorneys' fees. The defendants have not
yet answered or otherwise responded to the complaints. The
defendants believe that the claims asserted in the litigation have
no merit.


DRAFTKINGS INC: Taps Gibson's Randy Mastro to Defend Biz Model
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that in the
daily fantasy sports industry, online players pore over statistics
and build virtual lineups by picking and choosing athletes from
across teams.  In the face of questions about data security and a
legal and regulatory crackdown, the leading DFS companies,
DraftKings and FanDuel, are doing the same thing.

Call it fantasy litigation.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman accused the companies
of running illegal gambling operations and ordered them to stop
taking bets in the state.  DraftKings came out swinging, on
Nov. 11 that it had hired Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Randy Mastro
to defend its business model in New York and beyond.  Late on
Nov. 12, the company told ESPN that it had hired both David Boies
and Jonathan Schiller as well, adding litigation powerhouse Boies,
Schiller & Flexner to its roster of firms.

Both DraftKings and FanDuel fired off complaints against
Schneiderman on Nov. 13 in Manhattan state court, seeking
declarations that their business is legal and asking a judge to
block the AG's actions.  The FanDuel complaint was filed by a
Debevoise & Plimpton team led by litigation heavyweight John
Kiernan, along with ZwillGen's Marc Zwillinger. (The Debevoise
team also includes Eric Dinallo, Schneiderman's formal rival in
the 2010 NYAG race.) The company has also reportedly hired Sharon
Levin of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

With Gibson Dunn's Mastro, DraftKings is buying itself a bulldog
litigator with a formidable track record.

Known for turning the tables on Chevron Corp.'s accusers in
multibillion-dollar environmental litigation, and for his internal
investigation into the New Jersey "Bridgegate" scandal, Mr. Mastro
is a former New York federal prosecutor and a former New York City
deputy mayor under the Rudolph Giuliani administration.  He
recently led a successful challenge against the city's attempted
ban on Styrofoam containers, and he's currently fighting the
state's efforts to institute a $15 per hour minimum wage for fast
food workers.  In one of his biggest ongoing cases, he's now
seeking more than $2 billion for an American International Group
unit that was allegedly misled by a leader in the "life
settlements" industry.

The Boies hire, meanwhile, sends the clearest signal yet that
DraftKings is willing to play this game to the bitter end if
necessary.

FanDuel is also pulling out the big guns with the Debevoise's
Kiernan, co-chair of the firm's litigation department, and
Wilmer's Levin, who spent the last 19 years running Justice
Department anti-money laundering and asset seizure operations as a
top federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York.
Mr. Levin left the DOJ in April to join Wilmer's financial
institutions practice. Zwillinger, meanwhile, is an expert in
Internet and information security law and a veteran of Kirkland &
Ellis, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and the DOJ's computer crime
and intellectual property section.  He co-founded ZwillGen in 2010
with Christian Genetski, who subsequently left the firm and now
serves as FanDuel's chief legal officer.

Beyond those hires, DraftKings and FanDuel have assembled lawyers
from a growing list of firms to conduct investigations and wage
battles on multiple fronts, from state courthouses and regulatory
agencies to Capitol Hill.  The companies together are relying on a
team from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, led by partner
Jeremy Kudon, as coordinating counsel for efforts in all 50 state
legislatures.

As reported, DraftKings has turned to Greenberg Traurig's A. John
Pappalardo to conduct an internal investigation of its business
practices, while New York-based FanDuel tapped Debevoise &
Plimpton's Michael Mukasey to do the same.  FanDuel also hired
Kirkland & Ellis' Michael Garcia to lead an internal advisory
board.  Boston-based DraftKings followed by hiring Foley Hoag
partner Martha Coakley, a former attorney general for
Massachusetts, as an adviser.  DraftKings is also relying on Lori
Kalani of Cozen O'Connor's state attorneys general practice to
handle AG investigations.

On the lobbying front, FanDuel hired Steptoe & Johnson partner
James Barnette and government affairs director Lisa Mortier on
Oct. 9, according to Senate records, which show that the firm has
been paid $20,000 for its services through the third quarter.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius has received $10,000 from DraftKings since
partners Gary Slaiman and Matthew Miner were retained on Oct. 20.

Another firm, Dentons, has received $60,000 through the third
quarter of this year to lobby on behalf of the Fantasy Sports
Trade Association, of which DraftKings and FanDuel are both
members.  Late last month the FSTA hired Dentons public policy and
regulation counsel Seth Harris, a former acting U.S. secretary of
labor, to serve as head of a new self-regulatory body for the
daily fantasy sports industry.

The industry's legal troubles first became front-page news in
October, amid reports that a DraftKings employee had used inside
information to win $350,000 on FanDuel.  Both Mr. Schneiderman's
office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced probes in
the wake of the scandal, and DraftKings and FanDuel were targeted
in class actions brought by players.

Even more worrisome for the companies are threats to the legality
of their entire enterprise. DraftKings and FanDuel insist that
they deal in games of skill, not chance.  Their opponents counter
that the industry takes advantage of legal loopholes to evade --
or outright ignore -- state and federal prohibitions against
sports betting and Internet gambling.

Before Mr. Schneiderman took action, the Nevada Gaming Control
Board announced last month that daily fantasy sports constitutes
gambling under Nevada law and requires a license.

              Rally Over AG's Bid to Halt Operations

David Bario and Jake Pearson, writing for The Am Law Daily,
reports that The Fantasy Sports For All coalition holds a rally
outside of Attorney General Schneiderman's office in Lower
Manhattan on Nov. 13.

Fantasy sports fans demonstrate outside state Attorney General
Eric Scheiderman's Lower Manhattan office on Nov. 13 to oppose
Scheiderman's attempt to ban FanDuel and DraftKings from doing
business in New York.  About 200 to 300 people demonstrated, an
undetermined number of whom work for the fantasy sports companies.
FanDuel and DraftKings, which have hired numerous Big Law
attorneys, went to court on Nov. 13 to block Mr. Schneiderman, who
vowed to persevere.

The country's two biggest daily fantasy sports companies filed
court papers on Nov. 13 in New York, asking a judge to stop the
state attorney general from shutting down their operations and
rule on the legality of their businesses.

In separate complaints filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan,
FanDuel and DraftKings similarly ask a judge for an injunction,
arguing that Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wrongly
characterized their businesses as games of chance, rather than
skill, in cease-and-desist letters.

Mr. Schneiderman had given the companies five days to convince his
office to not pursue legal action after sending the letters, which
likened the games to the lottery and said they were in violation
of state gambling laws.  The companies called the letters ill-
conceived and vowed to fight Schneiderman's efforts (See letters
sent to FanDuel and DraftKings).

Boston-based DraftKings said in its filing that Mr. Schneiderman's
efforts to shutter its New York operations represented "a shocking
overreach," including pressuring payment processors to cut ties.

"He has unleashed an irresponsible, irrational, and illegal
campaign to destroy a legitimate industry, intending to deprive
hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers of the use and enjoyment of
these services," according to the lawsuit filed by Randy Mastro, a
partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

New York-based FanDuel said urgent judicial review was necessary
since its business operations were already being hurt by Mr.
Schneiderman's actions.

In a statement, the attorney general's spokesman, Damien LaVera,
said the law was clear: "DraftKings and FanDuel are operating
illegal sports betting websites under New York law, causing the
same kinds of social and economic harms as other forms of illegal
gambling."

The court filings by FanDuel and DraftKings say the games are more
skill-based than even season-long fantasy sports, which are
permissible under state law.

They claim the contests they offer, in which players pay a fee to
enter and compete against other players, involve immense skill
since rosters can only be picked based on a host of factors that
include a salary cap to prevent people from stacking all the
talent.  The fact that a few winners account for most the winnings
is an indication of the skill involved, not of luck, they say.

Daily fantasy has exploded in popularity this year after both
websites unleashed a flurry of on-air, online and billboard ads
promoting the games to casual sports fans.

A DraftKings employee winning $350,000 in a contest on rival
FanDuel earlier this year -- beating more than 200,000 other
players -- raised questions about insider trading.

Mr. Schneiderman's office responded by asking the companies for
information based on their own internal probes.

While both companies have since barred their employees from
playing on rival websites, they say no evidence of insider trading
has emerged from the case.

The two companies have mobilized large legal teams to defend their
business model in New York and beyond.

Mr. Mastro has handled numerous high-profile cases.  He is known
for his recent strategy against Chevron Corporation's accusers in
multibillion-dollar environmental litigation, and for his internal
investigation into the New Jersey "Bridgegate" scandal.
Mr. Mastro is a former New York federal prosecutor and an ex-
deputy mayor in the Giuliani administration.  He recently led a
successful challenge against the city's attempted ban on Styrofoam
containers and is fighting the state's efforts to institute a $15
per hour minimum wage for fast food workers.  In one of his
biggest ongoing cases, he is seeking more than $2 billion for an
American International Group unit that was allegedly misled by a
leader in the "life settlements" industry.

In addition to Mr. Mastro, DraftKings told ESPN late on Nov. 12 it
had hired both David Boies and Jonathan Schiller, putting the
litigation powerhouse of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in its corner.
FanDuel's complaint was filed by a Debevoise & Plimpton team led
by the co-chair of the firm's litigation department, John Kiernan,
along with ZwillGen's Marc Zwillinger. (The Debevoise team also
includes Eric Dinallo, an unsuccessful rival to Schneiderman in
the 2010 Democratic primary for AG.)

The company has reportedly hired Sharon Levin of Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr, who for the last 19 years ran the Justice
Department's anti-money laundering and asset seizure operations as
a top Southern District prosecutor. She left the Justice
Department in April to join Wilmer's financial institutions
practice.

Mr. Zwillinger, meanwhile, is an expert in Internet and
information security law and a veteran of Kirkland & Ellis,
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and the Justice Department's
computer crime and intellectual property section.  He co-founded
ZwillGen in 2010 with Christian Genetski, who subsequently left
the firm and now serves as FanDuel's chief legal officer.

Beyond those hires, DraftKings and FanDuel have assembled lawyers
from at least a half-dozen firms to conduct investigations and
wage battles on multiple fronts, from state courthouses and
regulatory agencies to Capitol Hill.  The companies together are
relying on a team from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, led by
partner Jeremy Kudon, as coordinating counsel for efforts in all
50 state legislatures.

DraftKings has turned to Greenberg Traurig shareholder A. John
Pappalardo to conduct an internal investigation of its business
practices, while New York-based FanDuel tapped Michael Mukasey, a
partner at Debevoise & Plimpton and a former U.S. attorney
general, to do the same.

FanDuel also hired Michael Garcia, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis
and a former Southern District U.S. attorney, to lead an internal
advisory board.  Boston-based DraftKings followed by hiring Foley
Hoag partner Martha Coakley, a former attorney general for
Massachusetts, as an adviser.

On the lobbying front, FanDuel hired Steptoe & Johnson partner
James Barnette and government affairs director Lisa Mortier on
Oct. 9, according to Senate records, which show that the firm has
been paid $20,000 for its services through the third quarter.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius has received $10,000 from DraftKings since
partners Gary Slaiman and Matthew Miner were retained on Oct. 20.

Another firm, Dentons, has received $60,000 through the third
quarter of this year to lobby on behalf of the Fantasy Sports
Trade Association, of which DraftKings and FanDuel are both
members.  Late last month the FSTA hired Dentons public policy and
regulation counsel Seth Harris, a former acting U.S. secretary of
labor, to serve as head of a new self-regulatory body for the
daily fantasy sports industry.

The case is being handled for the state by Assistant Attorney
General Justin Wagner, Assistant Attorney General Jordan Salberg,
Assistant Attorney General Aaron Chase, Senior Enforcement Counsel
and Special Advisor to the Attorney General Tim Wu, Internet
Bureau Chief Kathleen McGee, Senior Advisor and Special Counsel
Simon Brandler, and Executive Deputy Attorney General for Economic
Justice Karla Sanchez.


ELIV GROUP: Valente Gets 20-Year Sentence for Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an upstate New York investment
adviser who admitted bilking investors out more than $10 million
has been sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Former Schenectady resident Scott Valente was also ordered to pay
$8.2 million in restitution at his sentencing on Nov. 20 in
Albany.  The 58-year-old Valente pleaded guilty in May to
securities fraud and other charges stemming from his activities
with his company, the ELIV Group of Albany.

Mr. Valente admitted that from December 2010 to June 2014, he
falsely inflated returns for the business.  Mr. Valente claimed
ELIV had annual investment returns of up to 48 percent when the
firm actually lost money every year.


ENCOMPASS INSURANCE: Court Remands "Zarelli" to Pierce County
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District
Court for Western District of Washington granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand in the case captioned, ALEC ZARELLI, Plaintiff,
v. ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant., Case No. C15-5607 BHS
(W.D. Wash.).

On August 4, 2014, an uninsured motorist hit the right side of
Alec Zarelli's car.  Zarelli's car was worth less after it was
repaired than before the accident. Zarelli had an automobile
insurance policy with Defendant Encompass Insurance Company and
sought underinsured motorist coverage under his Encompass policy.
Zarelli alleges that Encompass did not compensate him for the
diminished value of his car.

On July 28, 2015, Zarelli filed a class action complaint against
Encompass in Pierce County Superior Court.  Zarelli claims that
Encompass has continuously failed to adjust losses to include
diminished value.  Zarelli seeks to certify a class entirely of
Encompass insureds as "All Encompass insureds with Washington
policies issued in Washington State, where the insured's vehicle
damages were covered under Underinsured Motorist coverage, and (1)
the repair estimates on the vehicle (including any supplements)
totaled at least $1,000; (2) the vehicle was no more than six
years old (model year plus five years) and had less than 90,000
miles on it at the time of the accident; and (3) the vehicle
suffered structural (frame) damage and/or deformed sheet metal
and/or required body or paint work. Excluded from the Class are
(a) claims involving leased vehicles or total losses, and (b) the
assigned Judge, the Judge's staff and family."

Zarelli asserts a breach of contract claim and a Washington
Consumer Protection Act claim.  Zarelli seeks compensatory damages
and statutory attorney fees under RCW 4.84.015.

On August 27, 2015, Encompass removed the action to the federal
district court under the Class Action Fairness Act Encompass's
notice of removal asserts that all CAFA requirements are
satisfied.

In the motion, Zarelli moves to remand, arguing Encompass has
failed to demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds
CAFA's jurisdictional requirement of $5,000,000.

In his Order dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/JteLpjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Settle held that
Encompass has not met its burden of establishing removal
jurisdiction under CAFA. The Court denied Zarelli's request for
attorney fees because the Court is unable to conclude that
Encompass lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removing the
case.

Alec Zarelli is represented by:

Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
1703A Dock St
Tacoma, WA 98402
Tel: (253) 302-5955

Encompass Insurance Company is represented by Jodi Ann McDougall,
Esq. -- jmcdougall@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR, Mark L. Hanover,
Esq. -- mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Steven M. Levy, Esq. --
steven.levy@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP


FANDUEL INC: Faces Multiple Consumer Fraud Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that FanDuel Inc. and DraftKings Inc. are facing about 40 class
actions claiming that the online daily fantasy sport sites
fraudulently enticed customers into participating in illegal
gambling.

Lawyers on both sides are seeking to coordinate all the federal
class actions, filed in 13 states, into multidistrict litigation.
The lawsuits were brought after the New York Attorney General's
Office began investigating whether FanDuel and DraftKings were
illegally promoting gambling in violation of state laws.  On
Nov. 10, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters to both
companies to cease operations; FanDuel and DraftKings have sued to
block those orders and are now fighting an injunction.

Meanwhile, both sites are being hammered by class actions brought
on behalf of their customers.  Most of the lawsuits allege
consumer fraud and false advertising and seek reimbursement for
lost money and signup fees totaling from 25 cents up to thousands
of dollars.  They also accuse both companies of insider trading,
alleging that consumers wouldn't have signed up on their sites if
they had known employees were participating in the contests with
nonpublic information.

The recent scandal over the fantasy sports sites erupted after a
DraftKings employee named Ethan Haskell inadvertently released
internal data about a popular contest before the real National
Football League games involved had started and then went on to win
$350,000 on FanDuel.  Both companies have since banned their
employees from participating in games.

"There's handicapping going on inside these companies," said
Hunter Shkolnik, of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, a plaintiffs
attorney who filed a motion last month before the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to coordinate all the lawsuits
in the Southern District of New York.  "It's like the house is
betting against their customers."

SITES DEFEND BUSINESS MODEL

A DraftKings spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuits, as did
a FanDuel spokeswoman.  In response to the New York attorney
general's latest action, FanDuel said: "We have operated openly
and lawfully in New York for several years.  The only thing that
changed today is the attorney general's mind."  DraftKings also
has defended its business.  "We believe the attorney general's
view of this issue is based on an incomplete understanding of the
facts about how our business operates and a fundamental
misinterpretation and misapplication of the law," DraftKings said
in a statement.

Players on both sites create their own fantasy teams and win
points for the performances of real-life athletes in professional
and college sports, primarily football.  Unlike other fantasy-
sports companies, winners on DraftKings or FanDuel get prize money
on a daily or weekly basis.

Both sites have been under increasing scrutiny but have insisted
their services are games of skill that don't violate the U.S.
Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.  Still, many
states have banned fantasy sports, and others are considering
legislation to restrict their operations.  On Oct. 15, the Nevada
Gaming Control Board issued a notice for both sites to stop
operating as unlicensed gambling sites.

In addition to consumer fraud, some of the suits also accuse
FanDuel and DraftKings of engaging in a conspiracy in violation of
the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
Others accuse them of violating illegal gambling laws in New York
or failing to follow through on a promotional bonus program that
was based on customer deposits.  The suits also challenge the
adequacy of the arbitration provisions contained on both sites.
Whether plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims is expected to be a
key issue in all the cases.  Both FanDuel and DraftKings said in
court filings before the MDL panel that they planned to enforce
arbitration clauses and class action waivers that plaintiffs
signed.

Mr. Haskell, the DraftKings employee who released internal data,
has been named as a defendant in some of the suits, along with at
least one other employee and some regular bettors.  On Nov. 18,
Shkolnik filed a new suit that added Visa Inc., JPMorgan Chase &
Co. and other firms linked to the transactions.

In filings before the MDL panel, DraftKings, based in Boston, has
argued that the cases should be coordinated in Massachusetts.  The
company is represented in the class actions by James Fogelman --
jfogelman@gibsondunn.com -- a partner at Los Angeles-based Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, and Randy Maestro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com --
co-chairman of the firm's litigation practice group.  FanDuel,
based in New York, has made the same request but, as an
alternative, supported coordination to the Southern District of
New York.  Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- co-chairwoman
of the litigation department at Morrison & Foerster, represents
the company.

In addition to New York and Massachusetts, plaintiffs lawyers have
submitted coordination in districts in Colorado, Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois and Louisiana.

The MDL panel isn't expected to take up the cases until its Jan.
28 hearing in Fort Myers, Florida.


FIXODENT: Court Affirms Dismissal of Dental Cream Adhesive Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed the dismissal of 12
remaining dental cream adhesive products-liability suits in
Philadelphia's mass tort system, finding the lower court was
correct in finding the plaintiffs' experts' opinions did not meet
Frye standards for admissibility.

A Philadelphia judge threw out the last 12 cases in In re Denture
Adhesive Cream Litigation after barring the plaintiffs' experts
from testifying that the use of Fixodent causes a neurological
disorder known as copper deficiency myeloneuropathy, or CDM.  The
plaintiffs alleged the zinc in the denture adhesive cream Fixodent
caused their bodies to block the absorption of copper, leading to
CDM.

The plaintiffs argued their experts should not have even been
subjected to the Frye test because their theories were not "novel
science."  They cited to several textbooks that said zinc could
cause copper deficiency that could lead to neurological disorders
such as CDM.

"The publications cited by the appellants acknowledge the widely-
accepted associations between the ingestion of zinc and the
incidence of low copper levels, and between low copper levels and
CDM," Judge Christine L. Donohue said.  "They do not, however,
firmly establish an association between the use of Fixodent and
CDM. Most of these publications do not mention denture adhesives
at all, and those that do fail to mention Fixodent in particular."

Even if those texts do mention a link between Fixodent and CDM,
Donohue said, they do not offer the scientific methodologies used
to reach that conclusion.

Judge Donohue then looked to whether the expert reports and
studies proffered by the experts relied on scientifically accepted
methodologies.

In response to one cohort study conducted by one of the
plaintiffs' experts, Judge Donohue said, "The appellants have not
directed us to any evidence that it is a generally accepted
methodology to perform a retrospective cohort study based upon the
exposure of just six individuals to the agent of interest."

Judge Donohue said the plaintiffs' experts could not extrapolate
their findings based on unsound epidemiological studies.

Another problem with the cohort study was that it did not specify
which denture cream the participants had used, and both sides
agreed that other denture creams had twice the levels of zinc as
Fixodent has, Judge Donohue said.

The cohort study also failed to state when the participants were
diagnosed with CDM, Donohue noted. It could have been after 2008
when literature began to be published possibly linking zinc to
CDM.

Because the cohort study did not rely on data that focused
significantly enough on zinc exposure from denture cream, Judge
Donohue rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the trial court
improperly looked at the weight of the expert testimony as opposed
to its admissibility.

"The trial court here properly concluded that Dr. [Ebbing]
Lautenbach did not apply generally accepted methodologies, and
instead attempted to convert a limited number of case reports into
a retrospective cohort study without sufficient data to do so,"
Judge Donohue said.

Judge Donohue rejected another expert's study that tested the zinc
levels in participants' fecal matter shortly after using Fixodent.
The judge said there was an analytical gap between that immediate
change in zinc levels after use to a sustained issue that could
create CDM.

Judges Jacqueline O. Shogan and David Wecht joined Judge Donohue
in the decision, published Nov. 12.


FLAGLER COUNTY, FL: Court Grants Approves Revised Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the joint motion
for final certification of class, and approved the revised
settlement agreement and release in the case captioned, DANIEL
RUDDELL, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JAMES L. MANFRE in his official capacity
as Sheriff of FLAGLER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, Defendants, Case
No. 3:14-CV-873-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla.).

The parties filed a revised Settlement Agreement and Release of
All Claims on August 4, 2015. Based on this Revised Settlement,
the Court granted the parties' request for conditional
certification of a collective action and authorized the parties to
notify the class of the potential settlement.

The class members "were all classified as either hourly paid Road
Patrol Deputies or hourly paid Correctional Officers within the
defined class period, worked similar hours, and were required to
attend mandatory pre-shift briefings within the defined class
period."

The main dispute in this case is whether Plaintiff and the class
members were entitled to additional overtime wages as a result of
their attendance at these pre-shift briefings, and if so, whether
the amount of overtime due was de minimus.

In her Order dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/EdS2Hvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Howard found that final
certification and settlement are appropriate because the Plaintiff
and those individuals that have opted-in to the action are
similarly situated.

Daniel Ruddell is represented by:

C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32801
Tel: (407)4201414

James L. Manfire is represented by Marc Aaron Sugerman, Esq. --
msugerman@anblaw.com -- Mark E. Levitt, Esq. -- mlevitt@anblaw.com
-- ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, PA


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: Petition to Appeal Class Certification Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Halliburton Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company has
filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal a class
certification ruling in the Securities litigation.

"In June 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against us in
federal court alleging violations of the federal securities laws
after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated an
investigation in connection with our change in accounting for
revenue on long-term construction projects and related
disclosures," the Company said. "In the weeks that followed,
approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against us."

"Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants several of our
present or former officers and directors. The class action cases
were later consolidated, and the amended consolidated class action
complaint, styled Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company, et
al., was filed and served upon us in April 2003. As a result of a
substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case was styled Archdiocese
of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v. Halliburton Company, et al.
AMSF has changed its name to Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (the Fund).
We settled with the SEC in the second quarter of 2004.

In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted by the
court. In addition to restating the original accounting and
disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
included claims arising out of our 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that we failed to timely disclose the
resulting asbestos liability exposure.

In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
the Fund the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that we file our motion to
dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion in August
2005.

In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to June
1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other claims
while permitting the Fund to re-plead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint. In April 2006, the
Fund filed its fourth amended consolidated complaint.

"We filed a motion to dismiss those portions of the complaint that
had been re-pled. A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006,
and in March 2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims
against all individual defendants other than our Chief Executive
Officer (CEO). The court ordered that the case proceed against our
CEO and us," the Company said.

"In September 2007, the Fund filed a motion for class
certification, and our response was filed in November 2007. The
district court issued an order in November 2008 denying the motion
for class certification. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court's order denying class certification.
In June 2011, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth
Circuit ruling that the Fund needed to prove loss causation in
order to obtain class certification and the case was returned to
the lower courts for further consideration."

In January 2012, the district court issued an order certifying the
class. In April 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming
the district court's order.

"Our writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court was
granted and in June 2014 the Supreme Court issued its decision,
maintaining the presumption of class member reliance through the
"fraud on the market" theory, but holding that we are entitled to
rebut that presumption by presenting evidence that there was no
impact on our stock price from the alleged misrepresentation," the
Company said.  "Because the district court and the Fifth Circuit
denied us that opportunity, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth
Circuit's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with the Supreme Court decision."

"In December 2014, the district court held a hearing to consider
whether there was an impact on our stock price from the alleged
misrepresentations. On July 27, 2015, the district court denied
certification for the plaintiff class with respect to five of the
six dates upon which the plaintiffs claimed that disclosures
correcting previously misleading statements had been made that
resulted in an impact to the stock price. However, the district
court certified the class with respect to a disclosure made on
December 7, 2001 regarding an adverse jury verdict in an asbestos
case that plaintiffs alleged was corrective. The ruling was based
on the district court's conclusion that the court was required to
assume at class certification that a disclosure was actually
corrective."

"We do not agree with that conclusion and have filed a petition
with the Fifth Circuit seeking to appeal the ruling. We cannot
predict the outcome or consequences of this case, which we intend
to vigorously defend."


HARMONY GOLD: Certification Application Hearing Held
----------------------------------------------------
A certification application hearing was held in October in the
South Africa class action, Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited
said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2015.

On August 23, 2012, Harmony and certain of its subsidiaries
(Harmony group) were served with court papers in terms of which
three former employees made application to the South Gauteng High
Court to certify a class for purposes of instituting a class
action against the Harmony group. In essence, the applicants want
the court to declare them as suitable members to represent a class
of current and former mineworkers for purposes of instituting a
class action for certain relief and to obtain directions from the
court as to what procedure to follow in pursuing the relief
required against the Harmony group.

Similar applications were also brought against various other gold
mining companies for similar relief during August 2012.

On January 8, 2013, the Harmony group, alongside other gold mining
companies operating in South Africa (collectively the
respondents), was served with another application to certify two
classes of persons representing a class of current and former mine
workers who work or have worked on gold mines owned and/or
controlled by the respondents and who allegedly contracted
silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases, and another
class of dependents of mine workers who have died of silicosis and
who worked on gold mines owned and/or controlled by the
respondents. The Harmony group opposed both applications and
instructed its attorneys to defend the application.

Following receipt of the aforesaid application, the Harmony group
was advised that there was a potential overlap between the
application of August 23, 2012 and the application of January 8,
2013. After deliberation between the respondents' attorneys and
the applicants' attorneys, it was resolved that the applicants'
attorneys will consolidate the two applications, together with
three other similar applications. The applicants' attorneys
delivered an amended application for consideration by the
respondents.

On October 17, 2013, the five certification applications were
consolidated by order of court. It was agreed between the parties
that the respondents have until May 30, 2014 to answer the
allegations made in the consolidated class certification
application, and to state reasons why a class or classes should
not be certified.

On May 30, 2014, the Harmony group served its answering affidavit
to the consolidated class certification application. On September
15, 2014, the applicants' attorneys delivered their replying
affidavit to the answering affidavit. The applicants' attorneys
have also joined further applicants to the present proceedings and
amended the relief sought against the gold mining companies on a
number of occasions.  On December 12, 2014, the Treatment Action
Campaign and Sonke Gender Justice (both non-profit organizations)
(applicants) brought a formal application to the consolidated
class certification application to be admitted as amici curiae
(i.e. friends of the court).

On August 28, 2015, the applicants were admitted as amici curiae.
However, at the certification application enrolled for hearing
between October 12, 2015 and October 23, 2015, they may only
present legal submissions as to whether a certification of a class
action should be granted or not.


HUBBELL INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Reclassification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hubbell Incorporated on August 24, 2015, announced a plan to
reclassify its common stock to eliminate the existing two-class
structure (the "Reclassification").

Hubbell said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015, that the Company, members of the Board
of Directors and the Trustee are named as defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit brought by a purported shareholder of the
Company challenging the proposed Reclassification, seeking, among
other things, to enjoin the defendants from completing the
Reclassification on the terms described in the Company's
registration statement on Form S-4 initially filed with the SEC on
September 11, 2015, as amended. The outcome of such litigation is
uncertain. If a dismissal is not granted or a settlement is not
reached, this lawsuit could prevent or delay completion of the
Reclassification and result in substantial costs to the Company.
Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits against the Company,
members of the Board of Directors, members of the Company's
management or the Trustee in connection with the Reclassification.


J.B. HUNT: Class Action Appeal Pending Before 9th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
The appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by plaintiffs
in a class action against J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is
currently pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"We are a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in which the
plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who
allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and other items," the Company said. "During the first
half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action granted Judgment
in our favor with regard to all claims. The plaintiffs have
appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where it
is currently pending. The overlapping claims in the remaining
action have been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-
action case. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits."


JANSSEN PHARMA: Ordered to Produce Risperdal "Reanalysis" Records
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Philadelphia judge overseeing an ongoing Risperdal-related
trial has ordered Janssen Pharmaceuticals to turn over by Nov. 15
any documents it may have pertaining to the reanalysis of a key
medical report in the litigation, or face possible sanctions.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth Powell ordered
the drug maker to produce all evidence, documents, reports, emails
and other nonprivileged information related to a "reanalysis of
data" by noon Nov. 15.  The order added that, if the deadline is
not met, the "custodian" of the items will need to appear Nov. 16
to show why the order was not complied with.  Failure to appear
will result in sanctions, the order said.

Although the order did not specify what the "reanalysis" pertains
to, Thomas R. Kline, who is representing the plaintiff in the
ongoing Stange v. Janssen case, said it is related to a 2003
medical article published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,
referred to in the litigation as the Findling article, which has
become a major point of contention in the litigation.

The plaintiffs have argued in court documents and proceedings that
some results linking gynecomastia -- a condition causing excessive
breast tissue in young males -- to the drug were omitted from the
report to conceal the risks and manipulate the marketplace.

Mr. Kline said attorneys were recently notified that a reanalysis
had been done indicating that none of the omitted data showed a
more significant link between Risperdal and gynecomastia, and
about 3,000 documents were turned over in the litigation.

Mr. Kline said the order should result in about 12,000 additional
pages of documents being filed, and said he expects the documents
to show Janssen recently communicated with the authors of the
articles.

"We now have an order requiring defendants to turn over all
documents relating to the back-and-forth between Janssen and the
authors of the article who sent this so-called reanalysis to the
journal," Mr. Kline said.

In an emailed statement, Janssen spokeswoman Robyn Frenze said,
"We are in the process of complying with the court's order and we
look forward to continuing to present our case to the jury."


KINDER MORGAN: Kenneth Walker Class action Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action
filed by Kenneth Walker is stayed by agreement of the parties.

On March 6, 2014, a putative class action and derivative complaint
was filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas (Case No.
2014-11872 in the 215th Judicial District) against KMI, KMGP, KMR,
Richard D. Kinder, Steven J. Kean, Ted A. Gardner, Gary L.
Hultquist, Perry M. Waughtal and nominal defendant KMEP. The suit
was filed by Kenneth Walker, a purported unit holder of KMEP, and
alleges derivative causes of action for alleged violation of
duties owed under the partnership agreement, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, "abuse of control" and
"gross mismanagement" in connection with the calculation of
distributions and allocation of capital expenditures to expansion
capital expenditures and maintenance capital expenditures. The
suit seeks unspecified money damages, interest, punitive damages,
attorney and expert fees, costs and expenses, unspecified
equitable relief, and demands a trial by jury. By agreement of the
parties, the case is stayed and all claims asserted in this action
will be released with prejudice if the Delaware Court approves the
settlement in the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex
Litigation.


KINDER MORGAN: Plaintiffs Take Appeal in Delaware Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware, captioned Haynes Family Trust et al. v. Kinder Morgan
G.P., Inc. et al. (Case No. 515).

Certain unitholders of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. or KMP
and El Paso Pipeline Partners, L.P. or EPB filed five putative
class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware in connection with the Merger Transactions, which the
Court consolidated under the caption In re Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Corporate Reorganization Litigation (Consolidated Case No. 10093-
VCL). The plaintiffs originally sought to enjoin one or more of
the proposed Merger Transactions, which relief the Court denied on
November 5, 2014.

On December 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which purports to
assert claims on behalf of both the former EPB unitholders and the
former KMP unitholders. The EPB plaintiff alleged that (i) El Paso
Pipeline GP Company, L.L.C. (EPGP), the general partner of EPB,
and the directors of EPGP breached duties under the EPB
partnership agreement, including the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, by entering into the EPB Transaction; (ii)
EPB, E Merger Sub LLC, Kinder Morgan, Inc. and individual
defendants aided and abetted such breaches; and (iii) EPB, E
Merger Sub LLC, KMI, and individual defendants tortiously
interfered with the EPB partnership agreement by causing EPGP to
breach its duties under the EPB partnership agreement.

The KMP plaintiffs allege that (i) Kinder Morgan Management, LLC
or KMR, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. or KMGP, and individual
defendants breached duties under the KMP partnership agreement,
including the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, by
entering into the KMP Transaction and by failing to adequately
disclose material facts related to the transaction; (ii) KMI aided
and abetted such breach; and (iii) KMI, KMP, KMR, P Merger Sub
LLC, and individual defendants tortiously interfered with the
rights of the plaintiffs and the putative class under the KMP
partnership agreement by causing KMGP to breach its duties under
the KMP partnership agreement. The complaint seeks declaratory
relief that the transactions were unlawful and unenforceable,
reformation, rescission, rescissory or compensatory damages,
interest, and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On December 30, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint. On April 2, 2015, the EPB plaintiff and the defendants
submitted a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, agreeing
to dismiss all claims brought by the EPB plaintiff with prejudice
as to the EPB lead plaintiff and without prejudice to all other
members of the putative EPB class. The Court entered such order on
April 2, 2015.

On August 24, 2015, the Court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the
complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 21, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the
State of Delaware, captioned Haynes Family Trust et al. v. Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc. et al. (Case No. 515). The plaintiffs are only
appealing the dismissal of claims brought against defendants KMGP,
Ted A. Gardner, Gary L. Hultquist, and Perry M. Waughtal and not
those asserted against KMI, P. Merger Sub LLC, Richard D. Kinder,
Steven J. Kean, KMP and KMR. The defendants believe the
allegations against them lack merit, and they intend to vigorously
defend these lawsuits.


KINDER MORGAN: $27.5MM Settlement Reached in Capex Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Capex
Litigation have entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement pursuant to which defendants will pay $27.5 million
(the "Settlement Fund") to a class of former holders of KMEP
common units, and all claims asserted in the consolidated suit
will be released, Kinder Morgan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Putative class action and derivative complaints were filed in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against defendants KMI,
KMGP and nominal defendant KMEP on February 5, 2014 and March 27,
2014 captioned Slotoroff v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., Kinder Morgan
G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9318) and Burns et al v. Kinder Morgan,
Inc., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. et al (Case No. 9479) respectively.
The cases were consolidated on April 8, 2014 (Consolidated Case
No. 9318).

The consolidated suit seeks to assert claims both individually and
on behalf of a putative class consisting of all public holders of
KMEP units during the period of February 5, 2011 through the date
of the filing of the complaints. The suit alleges direct and
derivative causes of action for breach of the partnership
agreement, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
aiding and abetting, and tortious interference. Among other
things, the suit alleges that defendants made a bad faith
allocation of capital expenditures to expansion capital
expenditures rather than maintenance capital expenditures for the
alleged purpose of "artificially" inflating KMEP's distributions
and growth rate. The suit alleges that hundreds of millions of
dollars were distributed improperly and seeks disgorgement of any
distributions to KMGP, KMI and any related entities, beyond
amounts that would have been distributed in accordance with a
"good faith" allocation of maintenance capital expenses, together
with other unspecified monetary damages including punitive damages
and attorney fees.

On August 14, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement pursuant to which defendants will pay
$27.5 million (the "Settlement Fund") to a class of former holders
of KMEP common units, and all claims asserted in the consolidated
suit will be released. The settlement is subject to court approval
following notice to the putative class members. If the court
approves the settlement, the final judgment will also include a
release of all claims asserted in the Walker litigation discussed
below. Plaintiffs' counsel is seeking an award of attorneys' fees
and litigation expenses from the Court which would be paid from
the Settlement Fund.

The Court scheduled a hearing for November 23, 2015 to consider
the proposed settlement as well as Plaintiff counsel's request for
fees and expenses. All of the defendants believe they acted
properly, in good faith, and in a manner consistent with any and
all legal, contractual and equitable duties and obligations,
including those contained in the Limited Partnership Agreement.

"We are entering into this settlement solely to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation and to resolve each of the released claims,"
the Company said.


LEAR CORP: Settlement with Indirect Purchasers Awaits Final OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that the settlement
agreements between the Company and the classes of indirect
purchasers remain subject to the final district court approval.

Starting on October 5, 2011, several plaintiffs filed putative
class action complaints in several United States federal district
courts against the Company and several other global suppliers of
automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state
antitrust and related laws. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and
indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the
Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an
anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United
States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently
concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these
proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the
proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions (the "Consolidated Cases"), for pretrial
purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan (the "District Court").
In order to avoid the costs and distraction of continuing to
litigate the Consolidated Cases, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Cases on May 5, 2014 (the "Settlement Agreements"), under which
the class plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases will release the
Company from all claims, demands, actions, suits and causes of
action. The Settlement Agreements contain no admission by the
Company of any wrongdoing, and the Company maintains that it
violated no laws in connection with these matters.

Because the conduct alleged by the class plaintiffs overwhelmingly
relates to periods prior to the Company's emergence from
bankruptcy proceedings in 2009, the Settlement Agreements provide
that the aggregate settlement amount of $8.75 million will consist
of $370,263 in cash contributed by the Company with the remainder
paid in outstanding common stock and warrants of the Company held
in the bankruptcy reserve established under the Company's plan of
reorganization.

The Settlement Agreements were approved by the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on May 27,
2014, and preliminarily approved, on the record in open court, by
the District Court on July 1, 2014. The Settlement Agreement
between the Company and the class of direct purchasers received
the final approval of the District Court on December 3, 2014.

The Settlement Agreements between the Company and the classes of
indirect purchasers remain subject to the final approval of the
District Court, which will be decided following the provision of
notice to purported class members and hearings, with respect to
each class, to confirm the fairness of the settlement.


LENDING TREE: HLC Appeals Judgment in "Dijkstra" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
LendingTree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Home Loan Center,
Inc. has filed its notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the final judgment, the
order granting attorneys' fees, and the orders on class damages,
the pretrial conference, motions and class certification in the
case, Lijkel Dijkstra v. Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc.
et al., No. 5:11-cv-152-JPB (N.D. W.Va.).

In November 2008, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action in
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, HLC, HLC Escrow, Inc. et al. The complaint alleges
that HLC engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in West
Virginia by permitting persons who were neither admitted to the
practice of law in West Virginia nor under the direct supervision
of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia to
close mortgage loans. The plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory
judgment, contempt, injunctive relief, conversion, unjust
enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation or fraud, negligent misrepresentation, violation
of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("CCPA"),
violation of the West Virginia Lender, Broker & Services Act,
civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence. The claims against all
defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC and HLC Escrow, Inc.
have been dismissed. The case was removed to federal court in
October 2011.

On January 3, 2013, the court granted a conditional class
certification only with respect to the declaratory judgment,
contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims. The conditional class
included consumers with mortgage loans in effect any time after
November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans through HLC, and whose
loans were closed by persons not admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia or by persons not under the direct supervision of
a lawyer admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia.

In February 2014, the court granted and denied certain of each
party's motions for summary judgment. With respect to the Class
Claims, the court granted plaintiff's motions for summary judgment
with respect to declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment and
violation of the CCPA. The court granted HLC's motion for summary
judgment with respect to contempt. In addition, the court denied
HLC's motion to decertify the class. With respect to the claims
applicable to the named plaintiff only (the "Individual Claims"),
HLC's motions for summary judgment were granted with respect to
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation and outrage. HLC
and the plaintiff settled the remaining Individual Claims in June
2014.

In July 2014, the court awarded damages to plaintiffs in the
amount of $2.8 million. HLC filed a notice of appeal in August
2014 and in September 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
the appeal. In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit determined that the district court's order was not
yet final, and, accordingly, HLC's appeal was dismissed.

In July 2015, the district court awarded attorneys' fees to
Plaintiffs consisting of one-third of the class damages award plus
an additional $389,500. The judge also awarded prejudgment
interest to Plaintiffs. On July 30, 2015, the district court judge
entered a final judgment order in this matter.

On August 27, 2015, HLC filed its notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with respect to the final
judgment, the order granting attorneys' fees, and the orders on
class damages, the pretrial conference, motions and class
certification.

A reserve of $3.2 million has been established for this matter in
the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of September 30,
2015, of which some or all may be covered by insurance.


LOGMEIN INC: Ignition Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
The Ignition Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in their class
action against LogMeIn, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On August 28, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Case No. 1:14-cv-01355) by an individual
on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, or collectively, the Ignition
Plaintiffs. The Ignition Plaintiffs have since amended their
initial complaint on February 17, 2015, May 6, 2015 and September
18, 2015. The amended complaint includes claims made under
California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law
relating to the Company's sale of its Ignition for iOS
application, or the App, and the Ignition Plaintiffs' continued
use of the App and seeks restitution, damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and costs, and unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims
and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Given the inherent
unpredictability of litigation and the fact that this litigation
is still in its early stages, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this litigation or reasonably estimate a possible loss
or range of loss associated with this litigation at this time.


LOGMEIN INC: $25,000 Settlement Reached in C.D. Cal. Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn, Inc. has entered into a settlement agreement resolving a
putative class action complaint in exchange for a one-time
settlement payment of $25,000, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On June 29, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Case No. 5:15-cv-01258) by an individual
on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, or collectively, the Central
Plaintiffs, under California's Automatic Purchase Renewal Statute
and Unfair Competition Law related to pricing changes and billing
practices for subscriptions to the Company's LogMeIn Central
service.

On October 7, 2015, the Company entered into a Settlement
Agreement resolving the matter in exchange for a one-time
settlement payment of $25,000. The Company expects the class
action complaint to be dismissed by the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California in the fourth quarter of 2015.


M-I LLC: Discovery Deadline Extended to Feb. 22
-----------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng for the Eastern District of
California gave his stamp of approval on a Joint Stipulation
amending the operative class and collective certification briefing
schedule in the case, SARMAD SYED, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, ASHLEY BALFOUR, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M-I,
L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, doing business as M-
I SWACO; and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants CASE NO.
1:12-CV-01718-AWI-MJS (E.D. Cal.).

These deadlines are extended:

     From November 23, 2015 to February 22, 2016

          Deadline for disclosing expert witnesses for purposes
          of moving for/against class certification and, if
          applicable, moving for/against collective certification

     From December 8, 2015 to March 8, 2016

          Deadline for filing a motion for class certification
          and, if applicable, motion for collective certification

     From February 9, 2016 to May 11, 2016

          Deadline for Defendant's opposition to any motion for
          class certification and, if applicable, motion for
          collective certification

     From February 25, 2016 to May 23, 2016

          Deadline for Plaintiffs to file any reply in support
          of their motion for class certification and, if
          applicable, motion for collective certification

     From March 11, 2016 to June 10, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

          Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
          and, if applicable, collective certification

The Court, however, noted that there have been several successive
extensions in this case. No further extensions will be granted
absent new, unforeseen and unforeseeable facts and circumstances
establishing good cause for same.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/J63LITfrom Leagle.com.

Sarmad Syed, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp.,
James Jason Hill, Cohelan & Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer,
Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Holmes & R Ira Spiro, Spiro Law
Corp.

Ashley Balfour, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill,
Cohelan & Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer, Cohelan Khoury &
Singer, Jeff Holmes & R Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp.

M-I, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Alexander M. Chemers,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jason S. Mills,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Patricia S Riordan, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius Llp.


MCNEIL CONSUMER: Loses Bid to Dismiss Tylenol Bellwether Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has denied Tylenol maker and Johnson & Johnson
subsidiary McNeil Consumer Healthcare's motions to toss the
bellwether case in the Tylenol multidistrict litigation based in
Philadelphia.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a spate of rulings Nov. 13 in Terry v. McNeil
denying summary judgment on issues ranging from the statute of
limitations to punitive damages.

The wrongful-death case is the first scheduled to go to trial in
the MDL and was filed by plaintiff Rana Terry, whose sister,
Denice Hayes, died of liver failure in 2010 allegedly caused by
the consumption of Tylenol.

Ms. Terry's attorney, Michael Weinkowitz --
mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in
Philadelphia, said the plaintiff is looking forward to trying the
first bellwether case.

Judge Stengel's rulings were made in accordance with Alabama state
law, which governs Terry's case since Hayes was an Alabama
resident.

The first opinion focused on McNeil's assertion that Ms. Terry's
claim was time-barred under the Alabama wrongful-death statute.

Judge Stengel noted the statute provides only for punitive damages
in wrongful-death actions.  Such actions have to be brought by a
person appointed as a personal representative before the two-year
expiration, starting at the time of death.

Ms. Terry's case, according to Judge Stengel, presented a
jurisdictional dilemma between the state and federal systems:
Ms. Terry was not Ms. Hayes' representative at the time she
initially filed suit, but she was when she filed her short-form
complaint in federal court.

The defendants argued Ms. Terry's case expired under the two-year
statute, while Ms. Terry countered that filing in federal court
ratified her claim under federal rules.  Judge Stengel agreed the
federal court filing saved Terry's claim.

"The argument that Ms. Terry's wrongful-death claim should be
dismissed is really an exercise in semantics," Judge Stengel said.
"The short-form complaint was filed over a year-and-a-half ago. At
the time that complaint was filed, Ms. Terry had been appointed
personal representative of the estate."

The defendants also asked for summary judgment on the grounds that
Alabama's wrongful-death statute is unconstitutional.

Pointing to the "guideposts" in the 1996 U.S. Supreme Court case
of BMW of North America v. Gore, the defendants argued for
dismissal based on the statute's treatment of punitive damages.
The defendants argued the first guidepost, reprehensibility,
couldn't be met because Alabama law does not require a showing of
reprehensible conduct.  They implied, according to Stengel, that
negligent conduct cannot also be reprehensible and it would be
impossible for a jury and the court to calculate an award based on
"mere negligence as opposed to intentional or wanton negligence."

Stengel disagreed.  "Because an act is negligent does not mean it
can't also be reprehensible," he said.

"'Reprehensibility' requires an evaluation of how blameworthy
conduct may be," Stengel continued.  "This sort of evaluation is
no different than what jurors and judges do all the time."

As for the second guidepost, proportionality, the defendants
argued that without compensatory damages, the court would not be
able to determine the reasonableness of punitive damages based on
a ratio of punitive to compensatory damages.

Judge Stengel said the Supreme Court hasn't formulated a way to
determine whether punitives are excessive.

He added that compensatory damages don't always reflect the
conduct that punitive damages are intended to remedy.

When Ms. Hayes died, she was not working and had no dependents.
Assuming that she had a valid claim, Judge Stengel said, she would
only be able to recover an insubstantial compensatory amount under
the defendants' interpretation.

Then, "she essentially would only be entitled to a small punitive
damages award.  Yet, if Ms. Hayes had died several years earlier,
when she was working, she might be entitled to more punitive
damages simply because her compensatory damages would be higher,"
Judge Stengel said.  "Under either scenario, the defendants'
conduct could have been the same. What the plaintiff's life
circumstances are at the time she died should not drastically
alter what punitive damages may be available, to prevent future
deaths like hers.  The defendants' conduct is the focus of a
punitive damages analysis, not the plaintiff's."

The defendants also tried to get the plaintiff's failure-to-warn
claim thrown out, arguing that Terry had insufficient evidence to
show that a different Tylenol warning label would have prevented
Ms. Hayes' death.

But again, Judge Stengel disagreed, noting that Ms. Terry offered
evidence that the label was inadequate, that it did not disclose
the risk of severe liver damage or death from taking the
recommended dosage, or similar risks from taking the drug while
fasting or malnourished.

"Drawing all inferences in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, a reasonable jury could find that the defendants
breached their duty to warn of known risks of Extra Strength
Tylenol, making the label inadequate," Judge Stengel said.
"Furthermore, a jury could find that an adequate label would have
prevented [Hayes'] death."

In a statement, a McNeil spokesperson said, "We are currently
reviewing the pretrial rulings from Nov. 13.  The company will
defend itself against the claims made in the litigation.  McNeil
Consumer Healthcare's actions related to Tylenol have been
appropriate, responsible and in the best interests of patients
ever since the medication first became available decades ago."


MEL S. HARRIS: "Sewer Service", "Robo-Signing" Suit Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a class
action suit challenging "sewer service" and "robo-signing"
practices in the consumer debt collection industry will be settled
for $59 million in restitution and fees, if a proposed settlement
filed on Nov. 12 is approved by a Manhattan federal court.

The defendants also will assist in vacating the default judgments
they obtained from New York City Civil Court against thousands of
plaintiffs making up the class.

About 355,000 New Yorkers were class members in Sykes v. Mel S.
Harris and Associates, 09 cv 8486, which alleged that the now-
defunct Manhattan law firm, Mel S. Harris and Associates, and
Samserv Inc., its process server, engaged in "sewer service" --
the intentional failure to serve a summons and complaint followed
by the filing of a phony affidavit attesting to service.

The plaintiffs were mostly low-income people, according to
Claudia Wilner, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and
Economic Justice, one of the attorneys representing the class.

"This is a huge victory for low-income New Yorkers," she said.
"There is no other settlement in any other consumer debt class
action that gained this much money for the class and also provides
a mechanism for getting the judgments expunged."

Many of the people in the class had bank accounts seized and wages
garnished when default judgments were entered against them between
2005 and the present, Ms. Wilner said.

Most of the plaintiffs had allegedly incurred credit card debts,
averaging about $3,800.

Default judgments for unpaid consumer debt spiked to 300,000 per
year after the 2008 financial crisis, before dropping to about
32,000 in 2014, according to data collected by the Office of Court
Administration.

The consumer debt was originally owned by banks such as JPMorgan
Chase, who sold the plaintiffs' claims for pennies on the dollar
to subsidiaries of Leucadia National Corporation, a $10 billion
financial services and asset management conglomerate, according to
the plaintiffs.

Leucadia will pay $51 million of the settlement, with the insurer
for the Mel Harris firm paying $8 million.  Leucadia also agreed
to cease collection efforts against all class members and to a
permanent injunction barring any of their subsidiaries from
purchasing or collecting consumer debts in the future.

Mr. Harris and two other attorneys, Kerry Lutz and David Waldman,
agreed never again to act as attorneys in any consumer debt
collection proceeding.

Samserv, and its owner William Mlotok, agreed to pay $500,000.
Benjamin Lamb, Michael Mosquera, and John Andino, process
servicers Samserv employed, agreed not to engage in the practice
of "sewer service."

Mr. Mlotok agreed to pay his process servers based on "successful
service."  He now has an office at a process server that has the
same address that Samserv had, Mineola-based Intercounty Judicial
Services.

Mr. Mlotok currently serves as treasurer of the New York State
Professional Process Servers Association.

The attorneys representing the class, which include Ms. Wilner as
well as Debra Greenberger -- dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com -- and
Matthew Brinckerhoff, partners at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &
Abady; Anamaria Segura, Andrew Goldberg, Ariana Eva Lindermayer
and Carolyn Coffey of MFY Legal Services; and New Economy Project
attorneys Susan Shin and Josh Zinner said they will seek fees of
up to $17 million for their work in the case.

The class attorneys estimated their clients had already paid
approximately $113 million in attempts to satisfy the default
judgments.

The settlement comes after the implementation of new rules
promulgated by New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan
Lippman that require supporting affidavits to be filed by the
entity that originated the debt, with documents supporting the
claims appended.

The Sykes plaintiffs alleged that the affidavits of merit filed in
their cases were "robo-signed" by Todd Fabacher, the director of
information technology at Mel Harris, who executed up to 350
"affidavits of merit" a week based on his personal knowledge.

The plaintiffs overcame a motion to dismiss and a challenge to
class certification granted by U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit Judge Denny Chin, who sat as the trial judge in the
case (NYLJ, Sept. 6, 2012).

A panel of his colleagues split 2-1 in upholding his certification
decision (NYLJ, Feb. 11, 2015).

Brett Scher -- bscher@kdvlaw.com -- a partner at Kaufman Dolowich
& Voluck, represented Mel Harris and Associates, along with James
Asperger -- jimasperger@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan.

The Samserv defendants are represented by Jordan Sklar of Babchik
& Young in White Plains.

Ann Ashton -- aashton@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose and Lewis
Harry Goldfarb -- LGOLDFARB@MDMC-LAW.COM -- of McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter, argued for Leucadia.

In court papers, the Leucadia defendants denied "all wrongdoing in
connection with the allegations made against them in this action,"
but said they "nevertheless have agreed to the settlement because
it avoids burdensome litigation and resolves all of the claims
made against them."

None of the defendants' attorneys responded to emails requesting
comment.


MERCK SHARP: Judge Tosses 750 Diabetes Drug Failure-to-Warn Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, The National Law Journal, reports that a federal
judge's rare move has tossed out at least 750 failure-to-warn
lawsuits filed against the makers of four diabetes drugs based on
the federal pre-emption doctrine.

The decision found that drugmakers, which include Merck Sharp &
Dohme Corp. and Eli Lilly and Co., were shielded from state law
claims because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not
have approved the changes to the product labels that the
plaintiffs claimed were necessary.  Plaintiffs allege that
manufacturers failed to warn that taking the drug increased the
risk of pancreatic cancer.

The decision issued on Nov. 9 throws out all the litigation over a
class of Type 2 diabetes drugs known as incretin mimetics with the
brand names Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza -- about 750
federal lawsuits, according to the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation. About 300 state law cases in California
also are expected to be thrown out.

Federal pre-emption decisions have been unusual since 2009, when
the U.S. Supreme Court found in Wyeth v. Levine that federal
regulatory approval of a drug didn't shield manufacturers from
state law claims without "clear evidence" that the FDA would "not
have approved" changes to product labels.

But U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia of the Southern District
of California, citing the "unprecedented facts of this case,"
found that the makers of four drugs had established that the FDA
would not have approved changes to their product labels warning
patients of pancreatic cancer risks.

"The record establishes the FDA has specifically considered
pancreatic cancer risk, commented publicly on the adequacy of drug
labeling, and maintained its position that scientific evidence of
a causal association between incretin mimetics and pancreatic
cancer is indeterminate," Judge Battaglia wrote.

Paul Boehm -- pboehm@wc.com -- a partner at Williams & Connolly in
Washington who represented Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of
Merck & Co. Inc., which makes Janumet and Januvia, said the ruling
was consistent with prior decisions interpreting Wyeth.

"The court acknowledged the FDA conducted an independent review on
the scientific evidence on the very question that the plaintiffs
claimed in this case," he said.

A spokeswoman for O'Melveny & Myers, which represented Amylin
Pharmaceuticals, a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. that
made Byetta with Eli Lilly, referred requests for comment to the
drug's distributor, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P., which didn't
respond. Eli Lilly was represented by Pepper Hamilton.

"We are pleased with the judge's well-reasoned and thorough
opinion," Eli Lilly spokeswoman Candace Johnson wrote in an email.

DLA Piper partner Loren Brown, who represents Victoza manufacturer
Novo Nordisk Inc., owned by Denmark's Novo Nordisk A/S, did not
respond to a request for comment.

The ruling is a blow to the plaintiffs' bar, which touted the
litigation as the latest to target diabetes drugs linked to
cancer.  The FDA approved all four drugs between 2005 and 2010.
Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Hunter Shkolnik --
pnapoli@napolilaw.com -- of New York's Napoli Mr. Shkolnik said he
planned to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  He said Judge Battaglia relied improperly on a
2014 article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which FDA
officials stated that reports of a link between incretin mimetics
and pancreatic cancer "are inconsistent with the current data."

"What he misinterpreted is the FDA hasn't determined that a
stronger warning would not have been appropriate -- all they did
was reject a warning that was presented," he said.  "The court is
suggesting that the FDA has to propose it. It's wrong.  It's the
manufacturer under Levine that must propose the stronger warning."

Brian Depew -- bdepew@elllaw.com -- a partner at Los Angeles-based
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, lead counsel in the 300 additional
incretin mimetic cases coordinated in Los Angeles Superior Court,
said he also planned to appeal an anticipated pre-emption ruling
from Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger, who
joined Battaglia at a Sept. 11 hearing.

In addition to statements in the New England Journal of Medicine
article, Judge Battaglia cited the FDA's rejection of a public
citizen petition to withdraw Victoza from the market.  Judge
Battaglia also wasn't persuaded by plaintiffs' arguments that the
FDA hadn't made a final conclusion as to the link to pancreatic
cancer.

"The potential for the FDA to reach a different conclusion in the
future in light of new scientific evidence or developments does
not preclude a finding of pre-emption now," he wrote.


MICROSOFT CORP: Taps Orrick Partner to Defend Sex-Bias Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Microsoft
Corp. has tapped Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Lynne
Hermle to fend off a suit that accuses the company of
discriminating against female employees.

Ms. Hermle, a prominent Bay Area employment litigator, has been in
high demand since her team's win at trial for venture-capital firm
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in a closely watched gender-bias
case.  Ms. Hermle entered an appearance on Nov. 12 for Microsoft.
She will be joined by Orrick partner Jessica Perry and Seattle-
based partner Mark Parris.

The suit, filed in the Western District of Washington by Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Outten & Golden, claims
Microsoft's ranking system undervalues female technical employees
and engineers. The "stack ranking" system rates job performance on
a scale of one to five and caps how many employees can receive
each rating.

Plaintiffs lawyers claim the system is "unvalidated and
unreliable," and that it discriminates against women by unjustly
ranking them lower than their male peers.  Named plaintiff
Katherine Moussouris said twice her rankings were lowered to
comply with the company's caps, and she was passed over for
promotions that went to less qualified men.


MICROSOFT CORP: Says Remaining Settlement Costs Total $100MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation estimates the total remaining cost of the
settlements of antitrust and unfair competition class actions is
approximately $100 million, all of which had been accrued as of
September 30, 2015, Microsoft disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30.

The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair
competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various
state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes
of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005."

"We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made
in the U.S. Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by
state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of
those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we
ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who
make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total
remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $100 million,
all of which had been accrued as of September 30, 2015."


MICROSOFT CORP: British Columbia Case Scheduled for Trial in 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that three cases
pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, in Canada have
not been settled. In 2010, the court in the British Columbia case
certified it as a class action. After the British Columbia Court
of Appeal dismissed the case, in 2013 the Canadian Supreme Court
reversed the appellate court and reinstated part of the British
Columbia case, which is now scheduled for trial in 2016. The other
two cases are inactive.


MICROSOFT CORP: Proceedings Stayed in US Cell Phone Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that trial court
proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the
U.S. cell phone litigation.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who
allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their
brain tumors and other adverse health effects.

Microsoft said it has assumed responsibility for these claims as
part of the NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the
Nokia defendants. Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are
consolidated for certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10
cases are stayed.

In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to exclude
plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the basis of
flawed scientific methodologies. In 2014, the court granted in
part defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation
experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. The
District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en banc
defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for
evaluating expert scientific evidence. Trial court proceedings are
stayed pending resolution of the appeal.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Not Yet Active
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Canadian cell
phone class action is not yet active as several defendants remain
to be served.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants. The litigation is not yet active as
several defendants remain to be served.


ONESOURCE TECHNOLOGY: "Schartel" Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patricia A. Gaughan for the Northern District of
Ohio granted the request of OneSource Technology LLC dba Asurint
to stay the proceedings in the lawsuit, Kevin Schartel, Plaintiff,
v. OneSource Technology, LLC, Defendant CASE NO. 1:15 CV 1434
(N.D. Ohio).

This case will be removed from the Court's active docket subject
to reopening by either party after the Supreme Court issues its
decisions in Spokeo and Campbell-Ewald, Judge Gaughan said.

According to the complaint, defendant violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by reporting criminal charges filed against
plaintiff that were dismissed more than seven years prior to the
issuance of the report. Plaintiff seeks to represent himself as
well as other similarly situated individuals. Notably, plaintiff
does not seek actual damages. Rather, plaintiff requests relief in
the form of statutory and punitive damages only.

Defendant moved to stay this case pending the Supreme Court's
ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (April 27, 2015).
According to defendant, Spokeo will address whether Article III
standing exists for cases in which "plaintiffs alleged no actual
damages, suffered no concrete harm, and relied solely on statutory
standing." Defendant argued that the relevant factors weigh in
favor of staying this matter. Plaintiff disagreed.

According to plaintiff, defendant is engaging in jurisdictional
gamesmanship. Plaintiff argued that Article III issues only arise
in federal court. Because this case was originally filed in state
court, it will proceed regardless of the outcome in Spokeo.
Plaintiff also argued that Spokeo is distinguishable from the
facts of this case and it is "highly improbable" that it will
impact this litigation. Plaintiff further claims that the relevant
factors militate against a stay of this matter.

Although not raised by the parties, the Court further notes that
the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Gomez v.
Campbell-Ewald Co., No. 14-857 (May 18, 2015). In that case, the
Court will decide whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would
fully satisfy a plaintiff's claim moots the claim. In addition,
the Court will address whether the answer to the question differs
depending on whether the offer is made to the named plaintiff
before the court certifies a class action.

A copy of the Court's November 17, 2015 Memorandum of Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/ko8rzrfrom Leagle.com.

Kevin Schartel, Plaintiff, represented by E. Michelle Drake,
Nichols Kaster, Joseph C. Hashmall, Nichols Kaster, Beau D.
Hollowell, Law Office of Daniel R. Karon & Daniel R. Karon, Law
Office of Daniel R. Karon.

One Source Technology, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jennifer A.
Riley, Seyfarth Shaw, John W. Drury, Seyfarth Shaw, Pamela Q.
Devata, Seyfarth Shaw & Donald C. Bulea, Giffen & Kaminski.


PANDORA MEDIA: Flo & Eddie Case Stayed Pending 9th Cir. Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the district court
litigation related to the case by Flo & Eddie Inc. has been stayed
pending a review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora Media Inc. in the federal district court for the
Central District of California. The complaint alleges
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15,
1972. On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute. This motion was
denied, and the Company has appealed the ruling to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the district court
litigation has been stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's review.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 1st Class Action in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan, et al filed on September 14, 2015, a class action suit
against Pandora Media in the federal district court for the
Northern District of California.

"The complaint alleges common law misappropriation, unfair
competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
California rights of publicity arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. We are currently preparing
our response to these allegations," the Company said.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 2nd Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan, et al filed on September 16, 2015, a second class action
suit against Pandora Media in the federal district court for the
Southern District of New York.

"The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement,
violation of New York right of publicity, unfair competition and
unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we owe royalties
for the public performance of sound recordings recorded prior to
February 15, 1972. We are currently preparing our response to
these allegations," the Company said.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 3rd Class Action in N.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan, et al filed on October 17, 2015, a third class action
suit against Pandora Media in the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois ("Third Class Action Suit").

"The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement,
violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
conversion, and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. We are currently preparing
our response to these allegations," the Company said.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridans File 4th Class Action in D. N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
Pandora Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 26, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Arthur and Barbara
Sheridan, et al filed on October 19, 2015, a fourth class action
suit against Pandora Media in the federal district court for the
District of New Jersey ("Fourth Class Action Suit").

"The complaint alleges common law copyright infringement, unfair
competition and unjust enrichment arising from allegations that we
owe royalties for the public performance of sound recordings
recorded prior to February 15, 1972. We are currently preparing
our response to these allegations," the Company said.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Oral Argument Not Yet Scheduled in Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument is
not yet scheduled in the appeal in the case, Quality Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.

"On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the shareholders of our Company other than the
defendants against us and certain of our officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California by one of our shareholders," the Company said.

After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014.

"The amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the
litigation described above under the caption "Hussein Litigation,"
generally alleges that statements made to our shareholders
regarding our financial condition and projected future performance
were false and misleading in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and that the individual defendants are liable for such statements
because they are controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act," the Company said.  The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, court costs and attorneys' fees.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 20,
2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014, dismissing the
complaint with prejudice," the Company said.  "Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court
denied on January 5, 2015."

"On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and we answered. Oral
argument is not yet scheduled. We believe that the plaintiffs'
claims are without merit and continue to defend against them
vigorously. At this time, we are unable to estimate the
probability or the amount of liability, if any, related to this
claim."


SAFECO INSURANCE: Court Denies Final Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James A. Parker of the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico sustained in part
and overruled in part Objections filed by Mark and Amanda Pierce
and Liberty Mutual; and denied final approval of the settlement
with respect to the Subclass A Policy Reformation Members in the
case captioned, JASON CASADOS, on behalf of himself and for others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. civ 10-751 JAP/SMV (D.N.M.).

In 2010, Plaintiff Casados filed this class action against Safeco,
alleging that Safeco wrongfully denied proper UM/UIM motorist
coverage to its policyholders. Plaintiff asserted claims under the
New Mexico Unfair Practices Act (UPA) and other New Mexico state
laws. Plaintiff requested monetary damages and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The Settlement Class consists of New Mexicans who were insured
under a Safeco policy issued, renewed, or effective between May
20, 2004 and November 1, 2014, which did not provide UM/UIM
coverage with limits equal to liability limits for all vehicles
covered by the policy. The Court conditionally certified, for
settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class and Subclasses A
and B.

Plaintiff estimated that the potential Class consisted of more
than 28,000 insureds and policyholders. Objectors argue that the
proposed settlement would improperly releases claims against the
previously dismissed Liberty Defendants.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2015
available at http://is.gd/GRxQtifrom Leagle.com, Judge Parker
found that Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements for class certification
are satisfied, both with respect to Subclass A Policy Reformation
Members and Subclass B Claimants. However, while the Court would
approve the settlement as fair under Rule 23(e) as it pertains to
Subclass B Claimants, the Court does not approve the settlement
for Subclass A Policy Reformation Members.

The Court defers ruling on the Motion for Attorney's Fees until
the parties clarify how they wish to proceed in light of the
Court's rulings.

Plaintiffs are represented by David A. Freedman, Esq. --
DAF@FBDLAW.COM -- FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD
P.A.

Defendants are represented by Brian J. Spano, Esq. --
BSpano@LRRLaw.com -- Jessica L. Fuller, Esq. -- Jfuller@LRRLaw.com
-- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP & Seth Sparks, Esq. --
ssparks@rodey.com -- RODEY, DICKASON, SLOAN, AKIN & ROBB


SIRIUS XM: Still Defending TCPA Actions in Va., Fla., and Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. is defending Telephone Consumer Protection
Act suits, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company is a defendant in several purported class action
suits, which were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, April
2015 and July 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, respectively.

The cases allege that "we, or call center vendors acting on our
behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA")," the
Company said. "The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other
things, that we called mobile phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked his or her prior
consent.  In one of the actions, the plaintiff also alleges that
we violated the TCPA's call time restrictions and in one of the
other actions the plaintiff also alleges that we violated the
TCPA's do not call restrictions.  The plaintiffs in these suits
are seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages
of five-hundred dollars for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for
each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment
of interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and certain injunctive
relief prohibiting any violations of the TCPA in the future.

The plaintiffs in the cases titled, Francis W. Hooker v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), and Erik Knutson v. Sirius
XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.) have filed
motions to certify several classes.

"We have notified certain of our call center vendors of these
actions and requested that they defend and indemnify us against
these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing or
former agreements with us.  We believe we have valid contractual
claims against call center vendors in connection with these claims
and intend to preserve and pursue our rights to recover from these
entities," the Company said.

These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis
W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.),
Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc.,
No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.) and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla).  Additional
information concerning each of these actions is publicly available
in court filings under their docket numbers.

"We believe we have substantial defenses to the claims asserted in
these actions, and we intend to defend them vigorously," the
Company said.


SIRIUS XM: Flo & Eddie and Sheridan Cases Seek $100MM in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs
in the Flo & Eddie and Sheridan cases purport to seek in excess of
$100,000,000 in compensatory damages along with unspecified
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

The Company said, "In August 2013 and September 2013, we were
named as a defendant in three putative class action suits
challenging our use and public performance via satellite radio and
the Internet of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972
("pre-1972 recordings") under California, New York and/or Florida
law.  These cases are titled Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc., No. 2:13-cv-5693-PSG-RZ (C.D. Cal.), Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:13-cv-23182-DPG (S.D. Fla.), and Flo &
Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 1:13-cv-5784-CM
(S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, the "Flo & Eddie cases")."

"In September 2015 and October 2015, we were named as a defendant,
along with Pandora Media, Inc., in four putative class action
suits challenging our use and public performance of pre-1972
recordings and, in two of the cases, alleging violations of the
putative plaintiffs' rights of publicity under California and New
York law.  These cases are titled Arthur and Barbara Sheridan v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-04081-VC
(N.D. Cal.), Arthur and Barbara Sheridan v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
and Pandora Media, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-07056-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), Arthur
and Barbara Sheridan v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Pandora Media,
Inc., No.2:33-av-00001 (D.N.J.), and Arthur and Barbara Sheridan
v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Pandora Media, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-
09236 (E.D. Ill.) (collectively, the "Sheridan cases").

The plaintiffs in the Flo & Eddie and Sheridan cases purport to
seek in excess of $100,000,000 in compensatory damages along with
unspecified punitive damages and injunctive relief.

"In June 2015, we settled a separate suit brought by Capitol
Records LLC, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc.,
Warner Music Group Corp. and ABKCO Music & Records, Inc. relating
to our use and public performance of pre-1972 recordings for
$210,000 which was paid in July 2015," the Company said.  "These
settling record companies claim to own, control or otherwise have
the right to settle with respect to approximately 85% of the pre-
1972 recordings we have historically played.  The portion of the
settlement covering the remaining future service periods is being
amortized to Revenue share and royalties within our unaudited
statements of comprehensive income from through December 2017 and
as of September 30, 2015, $39,765,000 was recorded to Prepaid
expenses and other current assets and $53,596,000 was recorded to
Other long-term assets within our unaudited consolidated balance
sheets."


SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Tackles Standing Doctrine in FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson, writing for The Legal
Intelligencer, report that Article III of the Constitution is the
gatekeeper of the federal courts.  One of Article III's
limitations on federal jurisdiction is the standing doctrine -- in
short, the requirement that any litigant be able to demonstrate
that he or she has been injured in some way.  Under longstanding
U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must have suffered a
harm that is actual, distinct and concrete in order to have
standing. An attenuated or hypothetical injury is insufficient and
does not constitute an "injury-in-fact."

The court heard argument Nov. 2 in Spokeo v. Robins, No. 13-1339,
an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
raising the question whether Congress may create an "injury-in-
fact" simply from the violation of a federal statute.  In this
case, Congress authorized a private cause of action based on the
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which regulates
the use of credit information by consumer reporting agencies.
Following an alleged violation of the FCRA, the plaintiff filed a
lawsuit against Spokeo Inc.

Spokeo claimed that, despite the congressional creation of a
private cause of action, the plaintiff did not suffer any injury-
in-fact sufficient to satisfy Article III. Spokeo is a people-
search engine that publishes public information about individuals.
Thomas Robins, the named plaintiff in a putative class action,
learned that Spokeo misrepresented information about his wealth,
familial status and educational background.  His lawsuit claimed
the inaccurate personal information could have a negative effect
on his credit score and employment prospects; he was unemployed
and asserted that inaccurate information about his age and income,
for example, may have a negative impact on his job prospects
should a potential employer find the inaccurate information.
However, Mr. Robins could show nothing more than a speculative
injury.  He could not demonstrate any actual harm.

Mr. Robins convinced the Ninth Circuit to allow his lawsuit to
proceed despite the lack of any "actual or imminent harm."  In its
ruling, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, which held
that allegations of possible future injury do not satisfy Article
III's standing requirements.  The Ninth Circuit held that the
alleged violation of the FCRA -- a federal statute -- was
sufficient to satisfy Article III's requirement that a plaintiff
suffer an "injury-in-fact."

The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the
violation of a federal statute, without more, is sufficient to
confer Article III standing upon a litigant.  Spokeo cautioned the
court that upholding the Ninth Circuit's holding would "eviscerate
Article III's standing requirement" and render the injury-in-fact
requirement nothing more than an "empty formality." Specifically,
Spokeo's argument against Mr. Robins' alleged injury had three key
facets.  First, "injury-in-law" --  meaning a legal violation
without concrete harm -- does not satisfy Article III
requirements.  Second, the availability of statutory damages is
not a substitute for concrete harm, and third, Mr.  Robins'
allegations of possible harm to his employment prospects fall
short of the concrete harm necessary to establish a "case" or
"controversy."

In response, Robins argued that the statutory violation is an
actual or threatened injury.  Mr. Robins explained that Congress
enacted the statute in question, the FCRA, to protect individuals
from the dissemination of false information and presumed harm
resulted from those actions.  Further, Mr. Robins argued that,
even if the statutory violation alone was not sufficient to confer
standing, he did suffer injury-in-fact in the form of a self-
described "wallet injury" -- namely, a circular argument that,
because Congress empowered citizens to collect damages in private
rights of action, the inability to obtain those damages
constitutes a financial injury to him.

Because of the huge potential ramifications, this case has
attracted the attention of interest groups on both sides of the
issue.  On one hand, if statutory violations are deemed sufficient
to confer Article III standing, courts can expect class-action
litigation to explode; "no-injury class actions" would flood the
courts and exert a powerful pressure on the resources of small and
large companies (and governments) alike.  As one example, the
courts would be awash in class actions relating to data breaches.
To date, standing has been plaintiffs' biggest hurdle in the ever-
more-frequent data breach and security actions.  The power players
in the technology and cyberfields are attuned to the consequences
of the Spokeo decision -- Google, Yahoo, eBay and Facebook, among
others, have filed amicus curiae briefs in support of reversing
the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

On the other hand, a Supreme Court decision reversing the Ninth
Circuit might serve as a further restriction on class-action
claims. Recent Supreme Court decisions, most notably Wal-Mart
Stores v. Dukes, 564 U.S. (2011), and Comcast v. Behrend, 569 U.S.
(2013), have made it increasingly more difficult to bring class
actions.  It is a strong possibility that the court will continue
that trend when deciding Spokeo.


TARGET CORPORATION: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted Plaintiffs' motions
for final approval of class action settlement and for payment of
class representative service awards and attorney's fees and
expenses in the case captioned, In re: Target Corporation Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation. This document relates to:
Consumer Cases, Case No. 14-2522 (D. Minn.).

On March 19, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement
of the consumer actions in this Multi-District Litigation arising
out of a 2013 breach of data security at Defendant Target
Corporation. The Court certified the following settlement class of
"All persons in the United States whose credit or debit card
information and/or whose personal information was compromised as a
result of the data breach that was first disclosed by Target on
December 19, 2013. Excluded from the class are the Court, the
officers and directors of Target, and persons who timely and
validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class."

The settlement provides that Target will pay $10 million to settle
the claims of class members and to pay service awards to class
representatives. Any residual settlement funds will not revert to
Target but will be distributed as directed by the Court.

In the motion, plaintiffs move for final approval of the class
action settlement and for payment of class representative service
awards and attorney's fees and expenses.

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/GRxQtifrom Leagle.com, Judge Magnuson found that
Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injury for purposes of
12(b)(6), but the injury question looms over the litigation as it
progresses and that early settlement of the case benefits the
Plaintiff class immensely.

The Court also found that the fee requests are not excessive and
awarded $1,000 to three class representatives who were deposed as
part of the discovery process, and $500 to the remaining class
representatives and $6.75 million for attorney's fees, costs, and
expenses.

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher R. Walsh, Esq. -- WALSH
LAW FIRM, E. Michelle Drake, Esq. -- drake@nka.com -- NICHOLS
KASTER, PLLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. --
jblanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD &
Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE
GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP

Defendants are represented by Douglas H. Meal, Esq. --
Douglas.Meal@ropesgray.com -- Michelle L. Visser, Esq. --
Michelle.Visser@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP, Rebekah
Kaufman, Esq. -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP &
Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. -- mary-will@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER
DANIELS LLP


TEREX CORP: Provides Updates to Class Suits
-------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, Terex Corporation said it has received
complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits in an
ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder derivative
lawsuit as follows:

     * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
Litigation.

     * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

     * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

     * On August 21, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Bernard
Stern, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in
the Delaware Chancery Court, and on August 26, 2015, a purported
Terex stockholder, Joseph Weinstock, filed a class action
complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court.
The two complaints name as defendants Terex Corporation,
Konecranes Plc, Konecranes, Inc., Konecranes Acquisition Company
LLC and the members of the Board of Directors of Terex.

The first three lawsuits generally cover the period from February
2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain
of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints
all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate
a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The two lawsuits concerning the Merger seek, among other relief,
an order enjoining or rescinding the Merger and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs on the grounds that the Company's Board
of Directors breached their fiduciary duty in connection with
entering into the business combination agreement and approving the
Merger. The complaints further allege that Terex Corporation,
Konecranes Plc, Konecranes, Inc. and Konecranes Acquisition
Company LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Company's Board of Directors. It is possible that
these complaints will be further amended to make additional claims
and/or that additional lawsuits making similar or additional
claims relating to the Merger will be brought.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws, ERISA law and Delaware law with respect
to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to
dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and the securities lawsuit. An agreement
in principle has been reached to settle the ERISA lawsuit for $2.5
million which will be funded primarily by insurance. The proceeds
of the settlement (after deduction of legal fees) will be
distributed to putative class participants. The plaintiff in the
stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put
this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss
in connection with the securities lawsuit. The lawsuits pertaining
to the Merger are at the very early stages and the Company has no
information other than as set forth in the complaints.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Stay Lifted on Action by Illinois Counties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Southern
District of Illinois Court has lifted the stay on the action filed
by Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois.

The Company is aware of three class action lawsuits involving
claims pertaining to the ET Plus. The Company has been served in a
lawsuit filed November 6, 2014, titled Hamilton County, Illinois
and Macon County, Illinois, Individually and on behalf of all
Other Counties in the State of Illinois vs. Trinity Industries,
Inc. and Trinity Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320
(Southern District of Illinois). This complaint was later amended
to substitute St. Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a
lead plaintiff. The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on
behalf of themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of
Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus
and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for
use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards
and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also
allege breach of express and implied warranties, violation of the
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, for which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to
purchases of the ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a
common fund for class members, punitive damages, and injunctive
relief. This lawsuit was previously stayed by order of the Court.
On September 30, 2015, the Court lifted the stay on this action.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by City of Stratford Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the lawsuit
file by the Corporation of the City of Stratford is pending.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015
titled The Corporation of the City of Stratford and Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., Case No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. The alleged class in this matter has
been identified as persons in Canada who purchased and/or used an
ET Plus guardrail end terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity
Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity
Industries Canada, Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with
undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals,
breached an implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were
negligent. The plaintiff is seeking $400.0 million in compensatory
damages and $100.0 million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the
plaintiff claims the right to an accounting or other restitution
remedy for disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of
the modified ET Plus in Canada.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Lawsuit by La Crosse County Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the lawsuit
file by La Crosse County is pending.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015,
titled La Crosse County, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of
Wisconsin). The case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on
behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly
defective ET Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide
classes. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity
Highway Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the
ET Plus and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was
acceptable for use on the nation's highways based on federal
testing standards and approval for Federal-aid reimbursement. The
plaintiff also alleges strict liability design defect, breach of
contract, breach of express and implied warranties, violation of
the Wisconsin Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust
enrichment. The plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET
Plus is defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases
of the ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest,
and injunctive relief.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Action Transferred to Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Eastern
District of Texas court has granted the motion to transfer venue
of a shareholder class action to the Northern District of Texas in
the Nemky case.

Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) was filed in U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2015
("Nemky").  Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) was filed in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on June 19,
2015 ("Isolde"). The complaints in the Nemky and Isolde cases
allege that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or
by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and
the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States
of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On September 21, 2015, the District Court in the Eastern District
of Texas appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey and its Division of Investment as the lead plaintiff in
the Nemky case. On October 5, 2015, the District Court in the
Eastern District of Texas granted the Company's, Mr. Wallace's,
and Mr. Perry's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District
of Texas in the Nemky case.

Pending before the court in the Isolde case is a motion by the
Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its
Division of Investment to transfer venue to the Eastern District
of Texas. Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Nemky and Isolde
matters.

"Based on the information available to the Company, we currently
do not believe that a loss is probable with respect to these
shareholder class actions; therefore no accrual has been included
in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Because of
the complexity of these actions as well as the current status of
certain of these actions, we are not able to estimate a range of
possible losses with respect to these matters," the Company said.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Taxi Company Files Suit Over Licensing Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
Southern California taxi company has sued Uber Technologies Inc.
and state regulators claiming that the separate licensing regime
for "transportation network companies" allows Uber and its drivers
to seize business from traditional cabs without following the same
burdensome rules.

A Taxi Cab, a Santa Ana company that has about 120 taxis on the
road, filed suit on Nov. 10 against Uber, the California Public
Utilities Commission, and individual commissioners.  A Taxi's
lawyer, Maryann Cazzell of Cazzell and Associates, claims the
PUC's creation of a new class of licensing for "transportation
network companies" in 2013 has allowed Uber to operate as a de
facto taxi company without facing the same restrictive
regulations.

"A Taxi complies with all county and state laws in order to
operate as an authentic taxicab company, at great effort and
expense.  Uber on the other hand does not," wrote Ms. Cazzell in
the complaint.

Traditional cabs can't compete with Uber's prices, Ms. Cazzell
maintains, because they must comply with more stringent rules for
insurance coverage, background checks and vehicle inspections. A
Taxi is asking that the TNC license classification be declared
unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth and Fourteenth
amendments.  It's also asking that Uber and its drivers be held to
the same state and local licensing rules it faces.  The suit asks
for damages of at least 20 percent of revenues from Uber's
operations in Anaheim.

In a phone interview on Nov. 11, Ms. Cazzell called Uber "the big
Goliath" of the industry and said that the PUC's adoption of a
separate licensing regime for ride-hailing apps has "made it so
much harder for the local cities and municipalities to do anything
about [Uber]."

An Uber spokesperson didn't respond to an email seeking comment.

Gregory Cook, a lobbyist who has worked on behalf of the Greater
California Livery Association, said that he thinks Ms. Cazzell and
A Taxi face an uphill battle.  Any legal challenge to the PUC's
authority to create the new licenses, Cook said, has been made
more difficult by the Legislature, which has largely adopted the
agency's decisions and passed them into state law over the past
two years.

Said Mr. Cook, "I don't like it, but I think that's the case."


VIZIO INC: Faces Suit Over Tracking Software in Smart TVs
---------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that TV maker Vizio
Inc. has been hit with a suit claiming that it logs customers'
real-time viewing habits through its Internet-connected
televisions and shares that information with data brokers and
advertisers.

According to a complaint filed on Nov. 13 in the Northern District
of California, Irvine, California-based Vizio has partnered with
Cognitive Media Networks Inc., a San Francisco software company in
which it owns a controlling stake.  The suit, filed by lawyers at
Edelson, claims software installed on Vizio Smart TVs monitors
what's being watched and constantly reports back to Cognitive
Media's servers.

The companies then pass on the collected information to third
parties without ever obtaining customers' consent, the suit
alleges.  The Edelson lawyers claim that the software also fishes
for information about the home networks used to connect the TVs to
the Internet and that Vizio did not disclose the practice or offer
consumers a meaningful opportunity to opt out.

"Average consumers in the market for Smart TVs lack the requisite
technical expertise to uncover defendants' tracking software on
their own," the suit states.  "Instead they rely on defendants to
truthfully and transparently disclose the inclusion of the
tracking software.  They didn't."

Rather, the suit complains that customers must navigate through
multiple menus on their TVs to access Vizio's privacy policy,
which is displayed on only a portion of the screen, making it
difficult to read.

The suit seeks to certify a class of all U.S. customers who have
purchased Vizio Smart TVs with built-in tracking software --
likely "hundreds of thousands of individuals" according to the
complaint.  Plaintiffs ask that Vizio be held liable under the
Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1980s law which carries statutory
damages starting at $2,500 per violation for any "video tape
service provider" who shares personally identifiable information
without prior authorization.  The suit also brings claims under
California state privacy and consumer protection laws which carry
stiff statutory penalties.

A spokesperson for Vizio didn't immediately respond to an email
seeking comment.

Edelson, the Chicago-based plaintiffs firm that specializes in
privacy litigation, opened an office in San Francisco earlier this
month.  Lawyers from both San Francisco and Chicago are listed on
the complaint for the firm.  Edelson's Samuel Lasser and Rafey
Balabanian in San Francisco didn't immediately respond to
messages.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces More Woes Over Emission Tests Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that it
must be no fun working at the legal and compliance departments at
Volkswagen AG right now.  The revelation by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that the automaker cheated on its emissions
tests has set off an explosion of lawsuits, investigations,
financial losses and a new report of duping regulators on
environmental issues.

If someone at the company had spoken up years ago, Volkswagen
might not be in such a bad spot now.  The company recently
announced a new policy to spur whistleblowing.  Those employees
that report wrongdoing before the end of November, if they are
covered by collective bargaining agreements, can get immunity from
losing their jobs or being held liable by Volkswagen itself for
damage claims.

This use of amnesty to help root out corporate misconduct isn't
totally unheard of.  Siemens AG took similar steps in 2008 when
embroiled in a bribery scandal. But it's still a move that sends a
message.  "I think it speaks volumes to the gravity of the
situation they [Volkswagen] find themselves in and the need for
them to really do something super aggressive to unearth how they
got into the situation," says Gregory Keating, a partner at
Choate, Hall & Stewart.

The idea may help Volkswagen score some points with regulators and
the public, but it doesn't provide complete legal protection for
employees.  Also, asking whistleblowers to speak up now after the
scandal has been going on for awhile only underscores the fact
that no one blew the whistle before.  "It's too little too late to
now say: 'Come forward, tell us what you know and we'll make sure
we don't fire you,'" says Susan Divers, a member of the advisory
services practice at LRN, a global ethics and compliance services
firm.

It remains to be seen exactly what protocols Volkswagen had in
place to deal with whistleblowers before the EPA revelations. "I
don't claim to know what happened at Volkswagen," says
Mr. Keating, "but it seems to me that had there been more of a
robust system, common sense would suggest that someone along the
way would have said: 'We have an issue that needs to be looked
into here.'"

Companies should think about how they can get whistleblowers to
speak out before a problem escalates. But to avoid Volkswagen's
mistakes, in-house counsel would be smart to ensure there is more
than just a hotline that employees can call if they see something
wrong.   "The hotlines really only receive a small fraction of the
important issues," says Divers.  She advises involving company
leaders -- especially middle management -- in the effort to create
a culture of speaking up.  "You have to look well beyond the
hotline and train your middle mangers to really identify and
respond to employees' concerns properly," she notes, "because
that's where most employees' concerns are voiced."

Mr. Keating also emphasizes the importance of bringing middle
management into the E&C and whistleblowing picture, and adds that
companies should feel free to make this part of manager
performance reviews.  "Evaluate them on the basis of how well they
performed in terms of meeting expectations to ferret out,
identify, and help resolve problems as they come up," he says.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: "Freedman" Case Settled for $120MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company signed on June
30, 2015, a stipulation to settle a purported securities class
action captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et
al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK for $120 million, Weatherford said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The case had been filed in the federal court in the Southern
District of New York in March 2012, and alleged that Weatherford
and certain current and former officers of Weatherford violated
the federal securities laws in connection with the restatements of
our historical financial statements. The settlement amount was
paid into escrow in August 2015. The settlement is subject to
notice to the class and court approval. A final hearing was
scheduled for November 3, 2015.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Defending Suits Over Front Load Washing Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous
lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in the United States
relating to certain of the Company's front load washing machines.
Whirlpool said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 23, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that some of these lawsuits have
been certified for treatment as class actions.

"The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of
state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, product liability
claims and breach of warranty. The complaints generally seek
compensatory, consequential and punitive damages. We believe these
suits are without merit and are vigorously defending them. Given
the preliminary stage of many of these proceedings, the Company
cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, at
this time. The resolution of one or more of these matters could
have a material adverse effect on our financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations," the Company said.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Lawsuits Over Product Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending a number of other
lawsuits in federal and state courts in the United States related
to the manufacturing and sale of the Company's products which
include class action allegations, Whirlpool said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

"These lawsuits allege claims which include breach of contract,
breach of warranty, product liability claims, fraud, violation of
federal and state consumer protection acts and negligence," the
Company said.  "We do not have insurance coverage for class action
lawsuits. We are also involved in various other legal actions in
the United States and other jurisdictions around the world arising
in the normal course of business, for which insurance coverage may
or may not be available depending on the nature of the action. We
dispute the merits of these suits and actions, and intend to
vigorously defend them. Management believes, based upon its
current knowledge, after taking into consideration legal counsel's
evaluation of such suits and actions, and after taking into
account current litigation accruals, that the outcome of these
matters currently pending against Whirlpool should not have a
material adverse effect, if any, on our financial position,
liquidity, or results of operations."


* Lawyers for Tobacco Cos. Want Judge to Recuse in FDA Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
Washington federal judge's law firm ties have prompted calls for
him to recuse in a court fight between tobacco companies and the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Lawyers for six U.S. tobacco companies challenging the FDA's
regulation of product labels asked U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta
to step down from the case.  Their concern: Judge Mehta's former
law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder, worked for anti-tobacco groups while
the judge was a partner.

If Judge Mehta recuses, it would be the second time this year that
a judge left the case because of a law firm conflict.  In April,
when the tobacco companies first sued the FDA, the case was
assigned to U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle.  The case was
immediately taken off her docket.  The judge's husband, Jeffrey
Huvelle, is a counsel to Covington & Burling, which represents one
of the tobacco companies in the suit.

Judges tend to recuse in cases that involve their former firms,
although they aren't always required to do so.  Seven of the 15
active judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia joined the bench directly from a law firm -- a group that
includes Covington & Burling; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr; and Trout Cacheris & Janis.

Judge Mehta gave the government until Nov. 20 to respond to the
tobacco companies' request.  An FDA spokesman declined to comment.
According to a footnote in the tobacco companies' court papers,
lawyers for the government said they would wait to take a position
until they read the recusal request.

Judge Mehta spent much of his career at Zuckerman Spaeder before
he was confirmed in late 2014 to the Washington federal trial
court.  He made partner at the firm in 2010.

The tobacco companies first hinted that they might have a problem
with Judge Mehta's assignment last month, when they filed a rare
"notice of informational request" with the court.  They asked the
judge to explain Zuckerman's relationship with the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids and other anti-tobacco groups while he was a
partner at the firm.

Judge Mehta filed a response on Oct. 30.  He said that when he was
a partner, the firm advised the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids on
comments that the group submitted in 2013 to the FDA about the
labeling rules challenged by the tobacco companies.  The tobacco
companies claim that the FDA put out "guidance" materials that
unlawfully required pre-approval of label changes.

The judge said he personally did not advise the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids.  Judge Mehta's wife, Caroline Judge Mehta, is a
partner at Zuckerman Spaeder and was a partner at the time the
firm worked with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. She also was
not personally involved, the judge said.

That was enough for the tobacco companies to ask Mehta to step
down.  In court papers filed on Nov. 10, they argued that federal
law required recusal when the judge previously practiced with a
lawyer who did legal work related to a matter now before the
judge.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada, writing on behalf
of the tobacco companies, said that although the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids wasn't a party to the lawsuit, Zuckerman's work
advising the group on its submission to the FDA about the
challenged labeling guidance justified recusal.

The tobacco companies also argued that given Zuckerman's
"longstanding involvement in anti-tobacco causes" and Mehta's
"close personal ties to the firm," he should recuse to avoid the
"appearance of impropriety."

Mr. Estrada and other lawyers for the tobacco companies from
Covington & Burling, Arnold & Porter, Jones Day and King &
Spalding declined to comment or did not respond to requests from
the National Law Journal.

Law firm ties that bind

Ethics rules don't require judges to automatically recuse in cases
that involve their former firms.  In many instances, judges will
announce, at the start of a case, any law firm connection based on
past employment or a close relationship.

Retired federal district judge James Robertson told the NLJ that
he had standing instructions with the clerk's office to not assign
him to any case with his former firm, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
(now Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.) Other judges have
taken similar approaches.

Less direct connections between judges and lawyers also can lead
to recusals, or at least cause judges to consider the possibility
of a conflict.  Last year, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson
recused from a civil case -- at one of the parties' request --
after she disclosed that she knew several potential government
witnesses from her time as a federal prosecutor.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth recused last year from a case
because of his work as a judge advocate general in the 1970s. At
that time, the judge explained, he defended the military's haircut
regulations in courts across the country.  Given his past
experience, the judge, unprompted, recused from a lawsuit brought
by a Sikh man who challenged U.S. Army regulations that would
require him to remove his turban, cut his hair and shave his beard
in order to join the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps.

U.S. District Judge Christopher "Casey" Cooper's numerous ties to
the Washington legal community came up when the judge was assigned
to the criminal case of a man charged in connection with the
attack on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

At an early hearing, Cooper noted that his wife, Amy Jeffress,
supervised the national security section of the U.S. attorney's
office in Washington before leaving the position in 2008.  The
judge didn't think that posed a conflict, but he thought it was a
good idea to put the connection on the record. Neither side asked
him to step down.

The Washington Post noted at the time that Jeffress had mentored
Michael DiLorenzo, the lead prosecutor in the Benghazi case, and
that Cooper was a college roommate and friend of John Rice, the
brother of National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Judge Robertson, who retired in 2010, said he didn't think that
law firm and other legal community-related conflicts were more
common in Washington than in other districts.  In fact, he said,
conflicts might be less frequent in D.C. because there are so many
lawyers and law firms, decreasing the odds that judges are
assigned to cases that involve a lawyer they know or worked with.


                            *********

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  * * *