CAR_Public/151130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 238


                            Headlines


ACE CASH: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ANTHEM INC: Judgment for Anthem Insurance Under Appeal
ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Bids in OON Suit Due in January 2016

ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Cases v. Blue Cross
ANTHEM INC: Case Management Order Entered in Data Theft Suit
BENJAMIN RAMOS: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
BIG 5: Court Granted Final Approval to $1.4 Million Settlement
BOTTOMLEY DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BP PLC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Joint Status Report Due Feb. 22
BROADCOM CORP: Yassian Appointed as Interim Lead Plaintiff
CALIBER HOME: Court Requires Settlement Objector to Post Bond
CHICAGO: Illegally Collects Real Estate Transfer Taxes, Suit Says

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Case Management Conference Moved to Jan. 14
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Awaits Court Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in Horsemens' Purses Case Still Pending
DADE MEDICAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Park" Suit Over Defective Daikin Coils

DANISCO USA: Faces "Rixen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
DEMING CITY, NM: Court Strikes Memorandum in "Punchard"
DREW ECKL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cooper" Action Claims
EBAY INC: Class Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
EGNYTE INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies

ELITE HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Robinson" Suit Claims
EXCELL SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Pierpont" Suit Over Data Breach
FENTON & MCGARVEY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sanders" Suit Claims
FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

FORMFACTOR INC: Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Pending
GARDEN FRESH: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
GARMIN LTD: Katz Action Still Pending
GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in "Meyers" Case
GARY GUILLIAT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects

GEMM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HOME DEPOT: Oregon Judge Transfers "Bjerke" Case to ND Georgia
INDIGO PALMS: "Similien" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing on Appeal Expected in 2016
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Appeal in Lanier Action Pending

IPC HEALTHCARE: Moved to Dismiss Stockholder Complaint
LIFELOCK INC: Reached Agreements with FTC and Consumer Class
LIVE WATCH: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
LUCA D INC: "Newman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
M-I LLC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Reset to Jan. 25

MIDWEST INC: Settlement in "Walker" Has Final Approval
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Diaz"
NTELOS HOLDINGS: Westen and Sekerak Filed Class Actions
OAKLAND, CA: OHA Sued Over Failure to Repair Housing Defects
PACIFIC COAST: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

PATTERSON-UTI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Adams" Suit Says
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katzoff" Suit Claims
PIRIPI VMP: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends McCaffree Fin'l Class Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 3,573 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at Sept. 30

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 35 Engle Progeny Cases Became Final Thru 9/30
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in Q3 2015
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Sateriale" to Begin January 26
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Faces "Feinman" Complaint in S.D.N.Y.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Complaint Filed in "Diek" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Imperial Sub Agreed to Indemnify RAI
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces "Harris" Class Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Suits Pending in Illinois, Missouri
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Scheduled in "Turner"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" Case

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference Set in "Collora"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference Set in "Black" Case
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Brattain" Suit Filed v. Santa Fe Natural
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces "Sproule" Class Action in S.D. Fla.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Inc. Case Remains Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument in Appeal in "DeLisle"
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Updates on 7 Putative Canadian Class Actions
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Decertify Filed in ERISA Litigation

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Shareholder Case Under Appeal
RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
SAVANNA ENERGY: Faces "Burlew" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHRED-IT USA: Settlement in "Kirchner" Wins Final Approval
SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls

STARS PLANET: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Evans" Suit Claims
SYMETRA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Class Action
TED W DANG: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery
TMI HOSPITALITY: Housekeepers' Suit Wins Partial Class Cert.

VELKONEL RESTAURANT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Status Conference Pushed Back to January
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dixon" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hopkins" Suit Over Defeat Devices

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Singh" Suit in Penn. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stone" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
WALGREENS BOOTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss N.D. Ill. Complaint
WINDSTAR CLUB: "Castro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WINGS 'R US: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Soto" Suit Says


                            *********


ACE CASH: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Mierov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06388
(E.D.N.Y., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Ace Cash Express, Inc. owns a chain of financial services outlets
that target the under-banked and bank-less populations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elisheva Schacher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. and
Corrections Officers John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-06384
(E.D.N.Y., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. provides debt collection
services and contact center solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


AMERICAN CAMPUS: "Guadalupe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyasia Guadalupe, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Campus Communities Services, Inc., American
Campus Communities, Inc., and American Campus Communities
Operating Partnership, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-00487-RAJ-RJK (E.D.
Va., November 6, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own, manage, and develop student housing properties
in the United States in terms of beds owned and under management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua M. David, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Nunes, Esq.
      DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, L.L.C.
      739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105
      Newport News, VA 23606
      Telephone: (757) 595-4500
      Facsimile: (757) 595-6723
      E-mail: idavid@davidkamDfrank.com
              nanunes@davidkampfrank.com


ANTHEM INC: Judgment for Anthem Insurance Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered for Anthem
Insurance.

"We are defending a certified class action filed as a result of
the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., or
Anthem Insurance," the Company said. The lawsuit names Anthem
Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et
al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of
Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem
Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance
company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance
distributed the fair value of the company at the time of
conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form
of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership
interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that
Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross
motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in
part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or
the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The State
appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme
Court.

"We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On May
11, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial
court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case
was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings," the
Company said.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December
15, 2011.  "We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for
summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary
judgment. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for
summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A
trial on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on
October 16, 2014," the Company said.

On June 12, 2015, the court entered judgment for Anthem Insurance
on all issues, finding that (1) Anthem Insurance correctly
determined the State to be an ESM, not Plaintiffs; (2) Anthem
Insurance acted in good faith in making this determination, while
Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to override a
presumption that Anthem Insurance's ESM determination was correct;
and (3) Plaintiffs failed to prove the breach of any contractual
obligation.

On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment entered for Anthem Insurance.

"We intend to vigorously seek the affirmation of the trial court's
judgment; however, the suit's ultimate outcome cannot be presently
determined," the Company said.


ANTHEM INC: Summary Judgment Bids in OON Suit Due in January 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action relating to out-of-network
reimbursement have a January 2016 deadline for filing motions for
summary judgment, Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions
relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California," the Company said.

The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current
and former members on behalf of a putative class of members who
received OON services for which the defendants paid less than
billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state
medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers,
the American Podiatric Medical Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and
all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have
filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations,
and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called
Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies.

"We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in
part and denied in part by the court," the Company said. "The most
recent pleading filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended
Complaint to which we filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all,
of the claims."

"In July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part our motion. The court held that the state and
federal anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice. The court further
found that the ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-
Ingenix methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged
non-disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice.
The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law.

"The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion
to dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in
part. The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that
one Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based
on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff so those claims are
back in the case.

"Fact discovery is complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification in November 2013 seeking six different
classes. Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument
was held on the motion.

In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in its entirety. The California subscriber
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for
class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes,
which the court denied. The parties have a January 2016 deadline
for filing motions for summary judgment.

"Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a motion in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, or the
Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the physician
plaintiffs and certain medical association plaintiffs based on
prior litigation releases, which was granted in 2011. The Florida
Court ordered those plaintiffs to dismiss their claims that are
barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a petition for
declaratory judgment asking the court to find that these claims
are not barred by the releases from the prior litigation.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action,
which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the
declaratory judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld. The enjoined
physicians and some of the medical associations did not dismiss
their barred claims. The Florida Court found those enjoined
plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned them in July 2012. Those
plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court's sanctions order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The
Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court's enforcement of the
injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs' RICO and antitrust
claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain ERISA claims.

"The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc as to the
antitrust claims only, which was denied. The plaintiffs then filed
a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The
American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of
the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition on
February 23, 2015. We intend to vigorously defend these suits;
however, their ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in Cases v. Blue Cross
------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the multiple lawsuits filed against the
BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield licensees across
the country, Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed
in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield
licensees across the country," the Company said. "The cases were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have
engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases
were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs,
health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider
plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints on July 1,
2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to
dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In
June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling
that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the
litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the
subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber
and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our
affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. We
intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Case Management Order Entered in Data Theft Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has entered a case management order in the litigation against
Anthem, Inc. related to a cyber attack incident, Anthem said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

"In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a
sophisticated external cyber attack. The attackers gained
unauthorized access to certain of our information technology
systems and obtained personal information related to many
individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health care
identification/social security numbers, street addresses, email
addresses, phone numbers and employment information, including
income data," the Company said. "To date, there is no evidence
that credit card or medical information, such as claims, test
results or diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained,
although no assurance can be given that we will not identify
additional information that was accessed or obtained."

"Currently, we are in the process of addressing the cyber attack
and supporting federal law enforcement efforts to identify the
responsible parties. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took
immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and
retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify
solutions based on the evolving landscape. We will provide credit
monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been
affected by this cyber attack. While the cyber attack did not have
an impact on our business, cash flows, financial condition and
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014, we
have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to
investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to
incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. Although
we are unable to quantify the ultimate magnitude of such expenses
and any other impact to our business from this incident at this
time, they may be significant. We will recognize these expenses in
the periods in which they are incurred.

"Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of
current or former members, current or former employees, other
individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State
and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state
attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil
Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, are investigating
events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its
consequences and our responses.

"Although we are cooperating in these investigations, we may be
subject to fines or other obligations, which may have an adverse
effect on how we operate our business and our results of
operations. With respect to the civil actions, a motion to
transfer was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on February 10, 2015 and was subsequently heard by the
Panel on May 28, 2015. On June 8, 2015, the Panel entered its
order transferring the consolidated matter to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The U.S. District
Court entered its Case Management Order on September 11, 2015.

"We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain
expenses and potential liabilities of this nature. The coverage
has been sufficient to cover the majority of claims and
liabilities incurred to date. While a loss from these matters is
reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
possible losses because our investigation into the matter is
ongoing, the proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged
damages have not been specified, there is uncertainty as to the
likelihood of a class or classes being certified or the ultimate
size of any class if certified, and there are significant factual
and legal issues to be resolved."


BENJAMIN RAMOS: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
---------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Villanueva and Florinda Alvarez, Carlos Ivan Vindiola, Karla
Dominguez, Cesar Pantoja, Guadalupe Corona v. Benjamin Ramos,
Maria Ramos and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15792354 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered
emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and
out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and
refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to subject
premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


BIG 5: Court Granted Final Approval to $1.4 Million Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a
court granted final approval of the settlement wherein the Company
agreed to pay approximately $1.4 million.

On September 10, 2014, a complaint was filed in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Pedro Duran
v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. BC557154. On October 7, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed. As amended, the complaint alleges the
Company violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code.

The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
certain of the Company's hourly employees who worked as
"warehousemen" in the Company's distribution center in California
for the four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the Company failed to
pay such employees for all time worked, failed to provide such
employees with compliant meal and rest periods, failed to properly
itemize wage statements, and failed to pay wages within required
time periods during employment and upon termination of employment.
The plaintiff sought, on behalf of the purported class members, an
award of statutory and civil damages and penalties, including
restitution and recovery of unpaid wages; pre-judgment interest;
an award of attorneys' fees and costs; and injunctive and
declaratory relief.

The Company believes that the complaint is without merit. The
Company was not served with the complaint or the amended
complaint. In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this
litigation, the Company and plaintiff engaged in mediation on
January 28, 2015.

On April 1, 2015, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On
June 22, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement. On October 20, 2015, the court granted final
approval of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay
approximately $1.4 million, which includes payments to class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement
payment to the class representative, claims administration fees
and payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency.

The Company's total payments pursuant to this settlement have been
reflected in a legal settlement accrual initially recorded in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2014 prior to the settlement and
subsequently adjusted in the first quarter of fiscal 2015 to
reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
The settlement constitutes a full and complete settlement and
release of all claims related to the lawsuit.


BOTTOMLEY DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Solis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bottomley Distribution, Co., Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 115-cv-287797 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 6,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Bottomley Distribution, Co., Inc. owns and operates a beer
distribution company located at 755 Yosemite Drive, Milpitas, CA
95035.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
              dmara@turleylawfirm.com


BP PLC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety in
the case captioned, IN RE: BP P.L.C. SECURITIES LITIGATION This
document relates to: IN RE: BP ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 4:10-CV-
4214, MDL No. 4:10-MD-2185.

Plaintiffs bring their claims under ERISA, alleging that
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan from
January 16, 2007 to June 24, 2010. Each of the nine plaintiffs is
an individual participant and beneficiary of either the BP
Employee Savings Plan (ESP) or the BP Capital Accumulation Plan
(CAP). Plaintiffs seek to bring this action derivatively on behalf
of the ESP, the CAP, the BP Partnership Savings Plan (PSP) and the
BP DirectSave Plan (DSP), each of which featured the option of
investing in the BP Stock Fund, a fund comprised entirely of BP
American Depositary Shares. According to Plaintiffs, Defendants'
actions and/or inaction cost Plan participants hundreds of
millions of dollars in losses following the Deepwater Horizon
explosion.

Defendants filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Consolidated ERISA Complaint and to Strike Plaintiffs' Jury
Demand.

In his Memorandum and Order dated October 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/nrPv43from Leagle.com, Judge Ellison held that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that any of the
Corporate Defendants, the Board Defendants, or the Designated
Officer Defendants were fiduciaries with respect to the Plans. As
a result, all claims against the Defendants but only to the extent
that they served in one or more of the foregoing capacities should
be dismissed. This results in the dismissal of all claims against
the Corporate Defendants. It likewise results in the dismissal of
all claims against Defendants Browne and Hayward, who are alleged
only to have served as Designated Officers.

The Court gave Plaintiffs 15 days to replead their duty-of-
prudence claim against Defendant James Dupree.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ana M. Cabassa, Esq. --
acabassa@zsz.com -- Robert S. Schachter, Esq. --
rschachter@zsz.com -- Sona R. Shah, Esq. -- sshah@zsz.com --
ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, Mary K. Blasy, Esq. --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

     - and -

Anthony Chu, Esq.
Don K. Ledgard, Esq.
CAPRETZ & ASSOCIATES
5000 Birch St # 2500,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Tel: (949)724-3000

Defendants are represented by George Denegre, Jr., Esq. --
gdenegre@liskow.com -- John C. Anjier, Esq. -- janjier@liskow.com
-- Russell Keith Jarrett, Esq. -- rjarrett@liskow.com -- LISKOW
LEWIS, Marc De Leeuw, Esq. -- delleuwm@sullcrom.com, Daryl A.
Libow, Esq. -- libowd@sullcrom.com -- Richard C. Pepperman, II,
Esq. -- pepperman@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP


BRINK'S INCORPORATED: Joint Status Report Due Feb. 22
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, Ernie Ricardo Fernandez, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general
public, Plaintiff, v. Brink's Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02667-JSW
(N.D. Cal.)., District Judge Jeffrey S. White gave his stamp of
approval on a Stipulation and Request continuing the deadline for
the parties to submit a joint status report from November 23, 2015
to February 22, 2015.

Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to request a further
continuance of the deadline for the parties to file a joint status
report to allow the parties sufficient time to explore settlement
discussions through mediation.

A copy of the Court's Nov. 24 Order is available at
http://is.gd/L6QNFMfrom Leagle.com.

Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Brent A. Robinson, Liberation Law Group,
P.C., San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Plaintiff ERNIE RICARDO
FERNANDEZ.

Spencer C. Skeen, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak. & Stew Art,
P.C., San Diego, CA; and Becki D. Graham, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak. & Stewart, P.C., San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendant
Brink's Incorporated.


BROADCOM CORP: Yassian Appointed as Interim Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, that the
federal district court for the Central District of California has
appointed Farshid Yassian interim lead plaintiff (the "Interim
Lead Plaintiff") for the federal actions, pending final
determination of lead plaintiff status.

On May 28, 2015, Broadcom Corporation (the "Company") entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Avago Technologies Limited
("Avago"), Pavonia Limited ("Holdco"), Safari Cayman L.P. ("Holdco
LP") and the other parties thereto. As disclosed in the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus dated September 28, 2015 and forming a
part of the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC
by Holdco and Holdco LP and declared effective by the SEC on
September 25, 2015, eleven putative class action complaints have
been filed by and purportedly on behalf of alleged Broadcom
shareholders. One putative class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
captioned Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-281353,
filed June 2, 2015. Eight putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, captioned: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp.,
et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015;
N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al.,
Case No. 30-15-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed
June 4, 2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed on June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015 (together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., the
"state actions").

On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, issued an order coordinating the state actions.
The coordinated state actions are captioned Broadcom Shareholder
Cases, JCCP 4834. Two putative class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No.
8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015; and Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303, filed on August 15, 2015
(the "federal actions"). On September 2, 2015, plaintiffs in the
Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter filed an amended
complaint adding claims under the federal securities laws. The
federal actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Broadcom Corporation Stockholder Litigation; Case No. 8:15-cv-
00979-JVS-PJW.

The complaints name as defendants, among other parties, Broadcom,
members of Broadcom's Board of Directors and Avago, and they
allege breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting of
those alleged breaches. The complaints seek, among other things,
injunctive relief to prevent the transactions from closing.
Additionally, the federal actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9. On
September 25, 2015 the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Orange, stayed the state actions pending the outcome of
the federal actions.

By order dated September 18, 2015 the federal district court for
the Central District of California appointed Farshid Yassian
interim lead plaintiff (the "Interim Lead Plaintiff") for the
federal actions, pending final determination of lead plaintiff
status.

The Interim Lead Plaintiff in the federal actions has raised
certain disclosure claims, which defendants have discussed with
counsel for the Interim Lead Plaintiff. In connection therewith,
Broadcom has agreed to make certain additional disclosures and
will be filing supplemental proxy materials relating to its
definitive proxy statement for the special meeting of Broadcom
shareholders, which will be held at Broadcom's corporate
headquarters, 5300 California Avenue, Irvine, California 92617, at
11:00 a.m. local time, on November 10, 2015.


CALIBER HOME: Court Requires Settlement Objector to Post Bond
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Plaintiff's motion to
require that a bond be posted by the appellant in the case
captioned, LUTHER B. MANUEL JR. and GERTRUDE MANUEL, on behalf of
themselves and the class members described herein, Plaintiff, v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee of
LSF8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST; WELLS FARGO DELAWARE TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., as Trustee for VERICREST OPPORTUNITY LOAN TRUST
2013 NPL2 and VERICREST OPPORTUNITY LOAN TRUST 2014 NPL2; and DOES
1-25, Defendants, Case No. 14-5233(SRC).

Plaintiffs moved to require Appellant, Karolyn E. Denson, the sole
objector to the Class Action Settlement, to post an appeals bond
for $38,750. Plaintiffs argue that a bond is warranted because the
appeal is frivolous, there is a risk of nonpayment because the
Objector resides outside of this jurisdiction, the objection was
filed in bad faith, and the Objector would have no financial
difficulty posting the bond.

Objector does not challenge the appropriateness of a bond, only
the amount sought, contending that the "costs" of appeal allowable
under Rule 7 are limited to the expenses enumerated in the Federal
Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 -- the costs of preparing and
transmitting the record, charges for transcripts, premiums paid
for supersede as bonds, and filing fees for the notice of appeal.

In his Opinion and Order dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vOpXIbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chesler found that in
light of the moderate settlement amount, the Plaintiff Class is
entitled to protection of the award from diminution through
administrative costs. Since Appellant did not contest the accuracy
of Plaintiffs' cost estimates, the Court finds that $38,750 is
reasonably necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal.

Karolyn E. Denson is represented by Elizabeth Usinger, Esq. --
eusinger@cullenanddykman.com -- Jocelyn Elizabeth Lupetin, Esq.
-- jlupetin@cullenanddykman.com -- CULLEN & DYKMAN LLP

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Philip D. Stern, Esq.
STERN THOMASSON LLP
2816 Morrison Ave., Suite 30
Union, NJ 07083-4870
Tel: (973)379-7500


CHICAGO: Illegally Collects Real Estate Transfer Taxes, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Trilisky and Artem Ivanov, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. City of Chicago and County of DuPage,
Case No. 2015CH16334 (Ill. Ch. Ct., November 6, 2015) arises out
of the Defendants' alleged unlawful collection of real estate
transfer taxes from Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff Class
on properties purchased from Federal National Mortgage Association
(Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation.

City of Chicago is an Illinois municipal corporation with offices
located at City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois
60602.

County of DuPage is an Illinois county, with offices located at
421 N. County Farm Road, Wheaton, IL 60187.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (708) 628-4949
      Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
              dank@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      David Freydin, Esq.
      Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
      FREYDIN LAW OFFICES
      8707 Skokie Blvd # 305
      Skokie, IL 60077
      Telephone: (866) 308-0051
      E-mail: david.freydin@freydinlaw.com
              timothy.scott@freydinlaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Case Management Conference Moved to Jan. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
request to reschedule the case management conference and hearing
on January 14, 2016 in the case captioned, COLLEEN GALLAGHER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-03952-HSG.

Plaintiff Colleen Gallagher filed her Complaint against Defendant
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. on August 28, 2015. The Court already
issued court calendar for the case management conference and
hearing of the case. Plaintiff's attorneys have a conflict on the
Hearing Dates.

In the motion, Plaintiff's counsel sought Defendant's concurrence
to reschedule the Hearing Date, which was not opposed by the
Defendant's attorneys as long as Defendant has the opportunity to
be heard on its motion.

In his Stipulation dated October 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/EVhfwbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr.
rescheduled both the Hearing and the Case Management Conference to
be heard concurrently on Thursday, January 14, 2016, to avoid
unnecessary time, burden, and expense for the Court and for the
parties.

Patricia Schwartz is represented by Laurence D. King, Esq. --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Linda M. Fong, Esq. -- lfong@kaplanfox.com
-- Matthew B. George, Esq. -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Mario M.
Choi, Esq. -- MChoi@kaplanfox.com -- KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. is represented by Sascha Henry, Esq.
-- shenry@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON, LLP


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Awaits Court Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated is awaiting the U.S. District Court's
ruling on its Motion to Dismiss in a case related to the Big Fish
Casino, Churchill Downs said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On April 17, 2015, Cheryl Kater, by and through counsel, filed a
Complaint - Class Action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs
Incorporated. Plaintiff, Cheryl Kater, filed the purported class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, for the
Western District of Washington, in Seattle, alleging, among other
claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" violates Washington
law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by
facilitating unlawful gambling through its virtual casino games
(namely the Company's slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games
offered through Big Fish Casino).

On June 30, 2015, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint. On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff and the Company,
(collectively, the "Parties"), filed a Stipulation and Proposed
Order to Extend the Briefing Schedule for Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss. On July 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court accepted the
Parties Stipulation and issued an Order extending Plaintiffs'
deadline to file opposition to the Company's Motion to Dismiss to
August 7, 2015, and moving the Company's deadline to file its
reply to Plaintiff's opposition to August 28, 2015. On August 18,
2015, Plaintiff filed her response to the Company's Motion to
Dismiss. In turn, the Company filed its reply brief in support of
its Motion to Dismiss on September 18, 2015. The Company awaits
the U.S. District Court's ruling on its Motion to Dismiss.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Appeal in Horsemens' Purses Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
plaintiffs' appeal from a ruling in the case related to the
Louisiana Horsemens' Purses is pending.

On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a
Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and
Damages - Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et al. versus
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Civil
District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana
("District Court").  The petition defines the "alleged plaintiff
class" as quarter-horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won
purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New
Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S.
27:438 and specifically since 2008.  The petition alleges that
Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, L.L.C. and Churchill Downs
Louisiana Video Poker Company, L.L.C. ("Fair Grounds") have
collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that
constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those
supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen
during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse meets while La. R.S.
27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be
paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-
horse meets.  The petition requests that the Court declare that
Fair Grounds violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and
mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds to pay all future
supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S.
27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to
reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff
class.

On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their
petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective
Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and
alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed
purse funds.  On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds filed
exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary
jurisdiction seeking a referral to the Louisiana Racing
Commission.  By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District
Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred
the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission.

On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the
Judgment. The Louisiana Racing Commission requested and received
memoranda from the parties in the case on the issue of whether
plaintiffs have standing to pursue the claims against Fair
Grounds. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled
that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to
pursue the case. On September 18, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
Petition for Appeal of Administrative Order Dismissing Case for No
Right of Action in the District Court seeking a reversal of the
Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiffs' appeal is
pending.


DADE MEDICAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria D. Azze, et al. v. Dade Medical College, Inc., Dade Medical
College of Hollywood, LLC, Dade Medical College Of Homestead,
Corp., University of Southernmost Florida, Inc., and Ernesto
Perez, Case No. 1:15-cv-24175-DPG (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for the failure to provide former
employees, at least 60 days advance written notice of their
termination.

The Defendants operate an academic institution and maintain a
common corporate headquarters in Coral Gables, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Brian Roller, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ROLLER LLP
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 966-2566
      E-mail: broller@szalaw.com
              pleadings@szalaw.com
              pespinosa@szalaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com

         - and -

      William R. Scherer, Esq.
      CONRAD & SCHERER, LLP
      633 South Federal Hwy
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 462-5500
      Facsimile: (954) 462-1204
      E-mail: wscherer@conradscherer


DAIKIN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Park" Suit Over Defective Daikin Coils
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Park-Kim, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Daikin Industries, Ltd., Daikin Applied
Americas Inc., f/k/a McQuay International, Daikin North America
LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC600497 (Cal.
Super. Ct., November 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the
individuals, entities and associations of owners in the State of
California who own heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
units ("HVAC") units containing defective Daikin Coils, which were
designed and manufactured by the Defendants.

The Defendants manufacture and distribute heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning products world-wide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 850
      Irvine. CA 92612
      Telephone: (949) 851-9000
      Facsimile: (949) 833-9455
      E-mail: kkasdan@kasdancdlaw.com

         - and -

      Graham B. Lippsmith, Esq.
      Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
      Los Angeles. CA90071
      Telephone: (213) 254-4800
      Facsimile: (213)254-4801
      E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
              janderson@klwtlaw.com


DANISCO USA: Faces "Rixen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher E. Rixen, Dwayne Geronzin, Brad Maydew, Donald
Huizenga and Todd Kramer on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Danisco USA, Inc. and Dupont USA, Case No.
3:15-cv-50283 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a food manufacturing facility in Thomson,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dorothy A. O'Brien, Esq.
      ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW, PLC
      2322 East Kimberly Road, Suite 100E
      Davenport, IA 52807
      Telephone: (563) 355-6060
      Facsimile: (563) 355-6666
      E-mail: dao@emprights.com


DEMING CITY, NM: Court Strikes Memorandum in "Punchard"
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, PUBLIC MINISTER WILLIAM LORD PUNCHARD,
Plaintiff v. DEMING CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 07CV589 MV/KBM (D. N.M.), Chief Magistrate Judge Karen B.
Molzen of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico has stricken from the case record:

     -- the Plaintiff William Lord Punchard's Memorandum in
        Support of the Class Action, Doc. 106, filed October 14,
        2015, and

     -- Defendant City of Deming Municipal Judge Frank M. Van
        Gundy's Motion to Strike, Doc. 107

The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on February 5, 2008. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal, Doc. 100, on May 9, 2008. The Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to prosecute on
September 25, 2008.

"The Court will strike both Punchard's Memorandum and Van Gundy's
Motion because the Court has previously ordered that 'no more
documents may be filed in this case except for a notice of
appeal,'" Judge Molzen said in her Order dated October 19, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/ESPWfOfrom Leagle.com.

Defendants are represented by:

Kenneth C. Downes, Esq.
KENNETH C DOWNES & ASSOCIATES PC
3949 Corrales Road Suite 210,
Corrales, NM 87048
Tel: (505)243-0816


DREW ECKL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cooper" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01757 (S.D. Ind., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Drew Eckl & Farnham, LLP operates a law firm in Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: angiekrobertson@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              davephilipps@aol.com


EBAY INC: Class Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the class action has been
dismissed with leave to amend.

The Company said, "In May 2014, we publicly announced that
criminals were able to penetrate and steal certain data, including
user names, encrypted user passwords and other non-financial user
data. Upon making this announcement, we required all buyers and
sellers on our platform to reset their passwords in order to log
into their account. The breach and subsequent password reset have
negatively impacted the business. In July 2014, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed against us for alleged violations and
harm resulting from the breach. The lawsuit was recently dismissed
with leave to amend. In addition, we have received requests for
information and are subject to investigations regarding this
incident from numerous regulatory and other government agencies
across the world."


EGNYTE INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Egnyte, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-
cv-01828-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2015) is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of making
automatic renewal or continuous service offers to consumers in and
throughout California and failure to provide an acknowledgment
that includes the automatic renewal or continuous service offer
terms, cancellation policy, and information regarding how to
cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by the
consumer.

Egnyte, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a website
offering secure file sharing and related services on the cloud and
on the premises of its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      A Professional Corporation
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


ELITE HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Robinson" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Elite Home Energy, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01827-AG-KES
(C.D. Cal., November 6, 2015) seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited call using an automatic
telephone dialing system.

Elite Home Energy, Inc. owns and operates home improvement stores
in Santa Ana, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


EXCELL SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Knight, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Excell Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02456 (D.
Colo., November 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for the
failure to provide former employees, at least 60 days advance
written notice of their termination.

Excell Services, LLC operates several drilling rigs in connection
with its drilling operations in and around the DJ Basin oilfield
play.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      Ryan J. Burton, Esq.
      Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
              rburton@baronbudd.com
              marbuckl@baronbudd.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Pierpont" Suit Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Pierpont, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01615-JAM (D. Conn., November 6, 2015)
arises out of the massive hack on Experian's servers that
compromised the sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and
individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Erin Green Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              ecomite@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
      Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
              kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com


FENTON & MCGARVEY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Sanders" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01756 (S.D. Ind., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C. operates a law firm located at
2401 Stanley Gault Pkwy, Louisville, KY 40223.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS AND PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
      E-mail: angiekrobertson@aol.com
              mephilipps@aol.com
              davephilipps@aol.com

         - and -

      John Thomas Steinkamp, Esq.
      JOHN T. STEINKAMP AND ASSOCIATES
      5218 S. East Street, Suite E1
      Indianapolis, IN 46227
      Telephone: (317) 780-8300
      Facsimile: (317) 217-1320
      E-mail: steinkamplaw@yahoo.com


FINANCIAL RECOVERIES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Estate of Domenic Caruso, deceased, on behalf of himself and a
Class of persons similarly situated v. Financial Recoveries, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07936 (D.N.J., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Financial Recoveries is a debt collection management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Patrick Kelly, III
      KELLY LAW OFFICES LCC
      3000 Atrium Way, Suite 291
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (609) 261-6100
      Facsimile: (609) 261-6105
      E-mail: Tom@TPKelly.com


FORMFACTOR INC: Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that the Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class is pending.

In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's
Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009, to the present. The
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class is pending. Procedurally,
the case is still in the early stages of litigation. The Company
denies the allegations made by the Plaintiff, and believes it has
significant defenses to the claims made in the lawsuit. If the
matter is not settled, the Company could incur material attorneys'
fees in defending the lawsuit.


GARDEN FRESH: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Escobar, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Souplantation and Sweet
Tomatoes, Case No. 8:15-cv-01825 (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2015) is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. owns and operates 2 restaurants in
the County of Orange, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM


GARMIN LTD: Katz Action Still Pending
-------------------------------------
Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc. remains
pending, Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated. The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit
with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding
an additional claim for unjust enrichment. On February 4, 2014,
the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah. The plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6, 2014, she
refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Utah
with the same claims, but with additional claims for violations of
the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham Act, and Utah Truth
in Advertising Act.  The relief she requested is the same.

On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer the venue of
the Utah action back to the Northern District of Illinois. On
October 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the
District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue. On
December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain counts
of the complaint.

On April 16, 2015 the court granted Garmin's motion in part and
dismissed with prejudice (i) Mr. Katz's (but not Mrs. Katz's)
claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, (ii)
the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim, (iii) the plaintiffs' negligence
claim and (iv) the plaintiffs' negligent misrepresentation claim.

No class has been certified at this time. Although there can be no
assurance that an unfavorable outcome of this litigation would not
have a material adverse effect on our operating results,
liquidity, or financial position, Garmin believes that the claims
in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
this action.


GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in "Meyers" Case
-----------------------------------------------
No class has been certified at this time in the case, Brian
Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
Garmin International, Inc. Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 26, 2015.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and
Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain
Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees.

On September 18, 2013 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin
Ltd. as a defendant without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On November 1,
2013 the remaining Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in
part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for declaratory
relief and the prayer for a declaration that the batteries are
defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other substantive
counts.

On March 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint. On April 7, 2015, Garmin filed an
opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint. On April 28, 2015 the court granted plaintiff's
motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

On May 11, 2015 the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On July 10, 2015 Garmin filed its opposition to the
motion for class certification. On September 11, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a reply to Garmin's opposition to the motion for
class certification. On September 24, 2015, Garmin filed a motion
for leave to file a surreply.

No class has been certified at this time, and Garmin believes that
its defenses to Plaintiff's motion for class certification are
meritorious and that no class will be certified. Although there
can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of this litigation
would not have a material adverse effect on our operating results,
liquidity, or financial position, Garmin believes that the claims
in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
this action.


GARY GUILLIAT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Maria Aguilar and Miguel Flores v. Gary Guilliat,
individually and as Trustee of the Guilliat Family Trust dated
October 1, 2014, Katheryn C. Guilliat, individually and as
Trustee of the Guilliat Family Trust dated October 1, 2014, Judith
Guilliat, Domonick Crisafi, Patti Crisafi, Richard
Parasol, Gun Parasol, Royal Pines Apartment and Townhomes and Does
1-30, Case No. RG15792357 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 6, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure and refusal to make
repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises
located at 1242 Bonner Avenue, Fremont, California.

The Defendants are the owners, property managers or the agents of
the Subject Premises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


GEMM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Bonifacio Martinez-Moran, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Grano Trattoria, Gemm Restaurant Corp., Maurizio
Crescenzo, Andrea Crescenzo-Casciano, Meryl S. Mattistoni, Case
No. 1:15-cv-08777-JPO (S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 21
Greenwich Avenue, New York, New York 10014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Lamadrid, Esq.
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, PC
      113 University Place, 8th Floor
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      E-mail: thomas@eisnerassociates.com


HOME DEPOT: Oregon Judge Transfers "Bjerke" Case to ND Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul Papak of the United States District Court for
District of Oregon granted a motion to change or transfer venue to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia in the case captioned, CORY BJERKE, Plaintiff, v. THE HOME
DEPOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-1708-PK.

Plaintiff Cory Bjerke filed the putative class action on his own
behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated against
defendant The Home Depot, Inc. in the Multnomah County Circuit
Court on July 31, 2015.  Bjerke alleges Home Depot's liability for
violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. Home Depot
removed Bjerke's action to the instant court effective September
10, 2015 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441 (a) on the grounds that
Bjerke's claim raises a federal question. The court has original
jurisdiction over Bjerke's action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331,
and may properly exercise jurisdiction on removal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1441.

In the motion, Bjerke moved to change or transfer venue, by and
through which Bjerke seeks the court's order transferring this
action to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia for contemplated consolidation with Albu v.
The Home Deport, Inc., Case No. 1:15-CV-412-ELR-JFK (N.D. Ga.).
Home Depot does not oppose either the requested transfer to the
Northern District of Georgia or the contemplated consolidation
with Albu.

In his Opinion and Order dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/4EjxHbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Papak held that the
action would most efficiently be litigated in the Northern
District of Georgia. All pending motions are denied as moot with
leave to refile before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

Cory Bjerke is represented by Anna P. Prakash, Esq. --
aprakash@nka.com -- E. Michelle Drake, Esq. -- drake@nka.com --
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP

     - and -

James B. Zouras, Esq.
Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
STEPHANZOURAS, LLP
205 N Michigan Ave #2560,
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312)233-1550

     - and -

Justin M. Baxter, Esq.
BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP
8835 SW Canyon Ln,
Portland, OR 97225
Tel: (503)297-9031

Home Depot is represented by Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Esq. --
josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com -- Shon Morgan, Esq. --
shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER
SULLIVAN


INDIGO PALMS: "Similien" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vierge Similien, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Indigo Palms Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00697-
JES-CM (M.D. Fla., November 6, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Indigo Palms Management, Inc. owns and operates a real estate
company located at 2127 Main St, Fort Myers, FL 33901.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Briefing on Appeal Expected in 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that briefing
in the appeal in a consolidated class action is expected to occur
through the first quarter of 2016.

In April 2014, the first of four purported class action lawsuits
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, or the Southern District, by the City of Providence,
Rhode Island, against more than 40 defendants, including "Exchange
Defendants", "Brokerage Defendants" and "HFT (High Frequency
Trading) Defendants", which we refer to as the City of Providence
lawsuit. New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., two of
our subsidiaries, were among the named Exchange Defendants.

On July 2, 2014, the court ordered the cases consolidated for all
purposes, and appointed lead plaintiffs. On September 3, 2014, the
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims
against only a subset of the original Exchange Defendants,
including New York Stock Exchange LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc., and
also asserting claims against Barclays PLC, or Barclays, a
subsidiary of which operates an alternative trading system known
as Barclays LX. The lead plaintiffs are suing on behalf of a class
of "all public investors" who bought or sold stock from April 18,
2009 to the present on the U.S.-based equity exchanges operated by
the remaining Exchange Defendants or on Barclays LX. The amended
complaint asserts violations by all remaining Exchange Defendants
of Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
or the Exchange Act, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages
against all defendants, jointly and severally, as well as various
forms of equitable relief.

The defendants filed a motion on November 3, 2014 to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint asserting the same legal claims and
substantially the same factual allegations. On January 23, 2015,
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

On August 26, 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting
the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice. The court held
that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently state a claim
against the defendants under Sections 10(b) and 6(b) of the
Exchange Act, and additionally that some of the claims against the
exchanges were barred by the doctrine of self-regulatory
organization immunity.

On September 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of
the dismissal of the lawsuit. Briefing in the appeal is expected
to occur through the first quarter of 2016.


INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Appeal in Lanier Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that briefing
in an appeal related to the Lanier class action is scheduled to
occur during the remainder of 2015.

In May 2014, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the Southern District by Harold Lanier against the securities
exchanges that are participants in each of the three national
market system data distribution plans -- the Consolidated Tape
Association/Consolidated Quotation Plan, the Nasdaq UTP Plan, and
the Options Price Reporting Authority, or the Plans, -- which are
established under the Exchange Act and regulated by the SEC.

On August 15, 2014, Lanier filed amended complaints in each of the
three lawsuits but did not alter the named defendants. New York
Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE Arca, Inc. and NYSE MKT LLC, which are
our subsidiaries, are among the defendants named in one or more of
the suits. Lanier is claiming to sue on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated subscribers to the market data
disseminated by the Plans. Lanier's allegations include that the
exchange participants in the Plans breached agreements with
subscribers by disseminating market data in a discriminatory
manner in that other "preferred" customers allegedly received
their data faster than the proposed class. The complaints seek,
among other relief, unspecified compensatory damages, restitution
of the putative class's subscription fees paid to the defendants,
disgorgement of the fees paid by the so-called preferred
customers, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On September 29, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

On April 28, 2015, the court issued an opinion and order granting
the motion and dismissing the three lawsuits with prejudice. The
court determined that the claims were preempted by a
"comprehensive federal regulatory scheme", and that in any event
Lanier had failed to state a claim for breach of contract.

On May 20, 2015, Lanier filed notices of appeal of the dismissal
of the lawsuits. Briefing in the appeals is scheduled to occur
during the remainder of 2015.


IPC HEALTHCARE: Moved to Dismiss Stockholder Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
IPC Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants have
moved to dismiss the operative complaint in a stockholder class
action.

In connection with the proposed merger of IPC with Team Health
Holdings, Inc., on August 14, 2015, a purported shareholder of IPC
filed a complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned
Smukler v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on
behalf of a purported class of  IPC shareholders. The lawsuit
names IPC, each of our current directors, Team Health, and Team
Health's merger subsidiary, Intrepid Merger Sub, Inc. ("Sub"), as
defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to
take appropriate steps to maximize the value of IPC to its
shareholders, failing to value IPC properly, and taking steps to
avoid competitive bidding by alternate potential acquirers. The
lawsuit also alleges that IPC, Team Health, and Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
individual defendants. The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
certification of the action as a class action; injunctive relief
enjoining the merger; an accounting of all damages purportedly
suffered by the plaintiff and the class including rescissory
damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class; and the fees and
costs associated with the litigation.

On August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting similar claims and
allegations to those in the Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar
relief on behalf of the same putative class. Crescente v. Singer,
et al. (Case No. 11405-CB).

By Order dated September 11, 2015 (the "Consolidation Order"), the
Smukler and Crescente actions were consolidated, and all further
litigation relating to or arising out of the merger were directed
to be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC
Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 11392-CB (the
"Consolidated Action").

On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC
Healthcare, Inc., C.A. No. 11516-CB, was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, this action is
required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions. On
September 18, a Verified Consolidated Class Action Complaint was
filed in the Consolidated Action.  On October 2, the defendants
moved to dismiss the operative complaint.


LIFELOCK INC: Reached Agreements with FTC and Consumer Class
------------------------------------------------------------
LifeLock, Inc. (NYSE: LOCK), an industry leader in identity theft
protection, announced on October 28, 2015, financial results for
the third quarter ended September 30, 2015.  The Company also
announced that it has reached agreements with the staff of the
Federal Trade Commission and representatives of a national class
of consumers on a comprehensive settlement resolving outstanding
litigation relating to its past marketing representations and
information security programs. The Company noted that the
agreements are not yet final, as the FTC staff's recommendation to
approve the settlement must still be approved by the Commission
itself and a federal judge, and the class action settlement will
require review and approval by the court.

"The proposed FTC settlement does not require us to change our
current products, services, or business and information security
practices, including in particular, our current marketing and
advertising practices. In light of the agreements, LifeLock has
accrued an additional $96 million in reserves, bringing the total
amount of its reserves for this matter to $116 million. This $116
million also includes a $3 million reserve for a potential
settlement with state attorneys general," the Company said.


LIVE WATCH: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Meddaugh, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Live Watch Security LLC, Case
No. RG15792430 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 6, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's unlawful practice of sending unsolicited SMS text
message advertisements to consumers' cellular telephones, without
prior express consent.

Live Watch Security LLC is a provider of home security systems
that sells products to consumers over the internet and by
telephone.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Grover, Esq.
      Carey G. Been, Esq.
      KELLER GROVER, LLP
      1965 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94103
      Telephone: (415) 543-1305
      Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
      E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
              cbeen@kellergrover.com


LUCA D INC: "Newman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Donald Newman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Luca D. Inc. d/b/a Luca's Italian American Restaurant,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01331-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., November 6,
2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal
amount of liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Luca D. Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located in Duval
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      600 N. Pine Island Rd., Ste. 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: MHanna@forthepeople.com


M-I LLC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Reset to Jan. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California scheduled the
continuation of the final approval hearing on January 25, 2016 at
1:30 p.m. in the case captioned, Sarmad Syed, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
M-I LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, PreCheck, Inc., a
Texas Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
1:14-CV-00742-WBS-BAM.

On September 18, 2015, the Court entered its Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Action Settlement. The Preliminary Approval Order
set a Final Approval Hearing date of December 14, 2015, at 2:00
p.m.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court for an order continuing the Final
Approval Hearing currently set for December 14, 2015 to a date
after January 12, 2016.

In his Order dated October 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/agbij3from Leagle.com, Judge Shubb ordered that the
Final Approval Hearing is continued to January 25, 2016 at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom 5. The parties are directed to file briefs in
support of the final approval of the settlement no later than 14
days before the fairness hearing.

Victor Ballard is represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. --
PETER@DION-KINDEMLAW.COM -- PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.

Precheck, Inc. is represented by Larry R. Nelson, Esq. --
lnelson@nelsongriffin.com -- Raymond J. Muro, Esq. --
rmuro@nelsongriffin.com -- NELSON-GRIFFIN LLP


MIDWEST INC: Settlement in "Walker" Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the parties'
joint motion for final approval of class settlement in the case
captioned, JAMES WALKER, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others,
Plaintiffs, v. McLANE/MIDWEST, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-
04315-NKL.

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff James Walker filed the lawsuit in
Missouri state court on behalf of himself and a putative class
against Defendant McLane/Midwest. The Lawsuit was removed to the
federal district court on December 5, 2014 based on federal
question jurisdiction. The Named Plaintiff asserted class claims
against Defendant under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Defendant denied any and all liability alleged in the lawsuit.

After extensive arm's-length negotiations and mediation with
esteemed mediator Richard Sher, the Named Plaintiff and Defendant
entered into a Settlement Agreement, which was revised and
submitted to the Court on June 30, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, upon consideration of the Parties' Settlement
Agreement and Motion for Preliminary Approval, the Court entered
an Order preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement and
certifying a settlement class in accordance with the terms of the
Parties' Agreement. Pursuant to the Order, the Court, among other
things, (1) preliminarily approved the parties Settlement
Agreement, including Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees
and an incentive award to the Named Plaintiff; (2) conditionally
certified the settlement class; (3) designated Charles Jason Brown
and Jayson A. Watkins as Class Counsel, and Named Plaintiff as
representative for the Class; (4) approved the form class notice;
and (5) set the date for the Final Fairness Hearing.

The Parties thereafter requested that the Court finally certify
the settlement classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and enter
final approval of the proposed class action settlement.

In her Order dated October 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/flD6OUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Laughrey found the
settlement agreement fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court
certified a class of "All employees or prospective employees of
the Defendant in the United States who were the subject of a
consumer report procured on or after January 28, 2012 through DATE
and who executed the FCRA disclosure form in use during this
period." Charles Jason Brown and Jayson A. Watkins are designated
as Class Counsel and James Walker as class representative.

James Walker is represented by:

Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
BROWN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
8334 S Stony Island Ave,
Chicago, IL 60617
Tel: (773)731-1300

McLane/Midwest, Inc. is represented by Kenneth W. Gage, Esq. --
kennethgage@paulhastings.com --- PAUL HASTINGS


NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Court Denies Class Certification in "Diaz"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York denied without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned,
ALTAGRACIA DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT
MORTGAGE SERVICING, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-4754(JS)(GRB).

Plaintiff filed a premature motion for class certification to
avoid having the putative class action claims mooted by a
potential offer of judgment for full relief made pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and Plaintiff's motion to continue and enter motion
for class certification. Defendant filed letter opposition dated
October 15, 2015, alleging that Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification should be denied without prejudice because it is
premature and that Plaintiff's Motion to Continue should be
denied.

In her Order dated October 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/cJjyCHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seybert said the Motion
for Class Certification may be renewed after Plaintiff obtains the
facts necessary to meet her burden of establishing that the
requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have
been met.

Altagracia Diaz is represented by:

Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
KLEINMAN, LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
Tel: (516)522-2621

     - and -

Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
20 S Clark St #1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (312)739-4200

New Penn Financial is represented by Joy Harmon Sperling, Esq. --
DAY PITNEY LLP


NTELOS HOLDINGS: Westen and Sekerak Filed Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
NTELOS Holdings Corp. on August 10, 2015, entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Shenandoah Telecommunications
Company, a Virginia corporation, and Gridiron Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Shentel,
pursuant to which, at the effective time of the merger, Merger Sub
will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving
the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shentel.

In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015, NTELOS Holdings said that Mr. Marvin Westen
and Mr. Paul Sekerak, each filed on August 24, 2015, a purported
class action complaint relating to the merger in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Plaintiffs have sued all
members of the Board, alleging that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary obligations to the purported class by
agreeing to sell the Company for consideration deemed "inadequate"
and by agreeing to deal protection terms that allegedly foreclose
competing offers. Plaintiffs further allege that Shentel and
Merger Sub (or, in the case of Mr. Sekerak, Shentel and the
Company) for purportedly aiding and abetting the foregoing
breaches. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing consummation of the merger (and/or directing rescission
of the transaction, to the extent already implemented),
unspecified damages and an award of plaintiff's expenses and
attorneys' fees. The Company and the members of the Board believe
these claims are without merit and intend to defend themselves
vigorously.


OAKLAND, CA: OHA Sued Over Failure to Repair Housing Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronda J. Von Luhrte, Alfred Razo, Maurice Mazzei, James Kane,
Jeremiah Wilkes, Betty Sakkis, Jeremy Sanchez, Shue Wong,
Donald Hoins, and Darryl Simmons v. Housing Authority Of The City
Of Oakland, Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, The John
Stewart Company, Jefferson Oaks, LP, Quiana Hawkins, Evelyn Lewis
and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15792351 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 6,
2015) is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional
distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket
expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to
make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


PACIFIC COAST: Cal. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter H. Delgado, an individual and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Pacific Coast Cabling, Inc., d/b/a
Pacific Network Solutions, and Does 2 through 100, Case No.
BC600419 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 6, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and penalties under the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants operate a company that provides network
infrastructure design and installation services, including the
installation of low-voltage cabling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310)322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com

         - and -

      Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
      Erica Flores Baltodano, Esq.
      Roxana E. Khan, Esq.
      BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
      733 Marsh Street, Suite 110
      San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
      Telephone: (805)322-3412
      Facsimile: (805)322-3413
      E-mail: hjb@bbempIoymentlaw.com
              efb@bbemploymentlaw.com
              rek@bbemploymentIaw.com


PATTERSON-UTI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Adams" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Adams and Mitchell Van Nest, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Patterson-Uti Drilling Company, LLC,
Case No. 4:15-cv-03291 (S.D. Tex., November 6,2015) is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Patterson-Uti Drilling Company, LLC operates drilling rigs in and
around Pinedale, Wyoming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      Ryan J. Burton, Esq.
      Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
              rburton@baronbudd.com
              marbuckl@baronbudd.com


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Katzoff" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yisroel Katzoff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD., Case No.
1:15-cv-06373-BMC (E.D.N.Y., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Phillips & Cohen Associates, LTD. operates a law firm located at
D695 Rancocas Rd, Westampton, NJ 08060.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


PIRIPI VMP: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nery C. Sanchez v. Piripi VMP, LLC, and Teodoro Arranz Velasco,
Case No. 1:15-cv-24166-FAM (S.D. Fla., November 6, 2015) seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nery c. Sanchez, Esq.
      TODD W. SHULBY, PA
      2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com
         - and -
      William Brady, Esq.
      WILLIAM BRADY, PA
      4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 800
      Coral Gables, FL 33146
      Telephone: (305) 358-7688
      Facsimile: (785) 221-2810
      E-mail: wbrady@wbradylaw.com

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Defends McCaffree Fin'l Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. continues to defend a class action
filed by McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program,
Principal said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement
Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things,
breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and
prohibited transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide
class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of
defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any
Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks
disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly
retained in addition to other general claims for relief.

Principal Life filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December
11, 2014, the court granted the motion. McCaffree filed a notice
of appeal on December 22, 2014. Principal Life will continue to
aggressively defend the case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 3,573 Engle Progeny Cases Pending at Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that 469 Engle Progeny
cases were pending in federal court, and 3,104 of them were
pending in state court as of September 30, 2015.  These cases
include approximately 4,540 plaintiffs.  In addition, as of
September 30, 2015, RJR Tobacco was aware of 10 additional Engle
Progeny cases that had been filed but not served.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by Florida smokers
allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine, rendered a $145
billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the class. In 2006,
the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award, prospectively
decertified the class, and preserved several of the Engle jury
findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be filed
within one year of its decision. The preserved findings include
jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases, that
nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold cigarettes
that were defective and unreasonably dangerous, committed
unspecified acts of negligence and individually and jointly
concealed unspecified information about the health risks of
smoking.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida against the major
tobacco companies, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco
and Philip Morris USA Inc.  Such actions are commonly referred to
as "Engle Progeny" cases.

One hundred thirty Engle Progeny cases have been tried in Florida
state and federal courts since the beginning of 2012, and numerous
state court trials are scheduled for 2015.  The number of pending
cases fluctuates for a variety of reasons, including voluntary and
involuntary dismissals.  Voluntary dismissals include cases in
which a plaintiff accepts an "offer of judgment," referred to in
Florida statutes as "proposals for settlement," from RJR Tobacco,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or RJR Tobacco's affiliates.  An offer of
judgment, if rejected by the plaintiff, preserves RJR Tobacco and
Lorillard Tobacco's right to recover attorneys' fees under Florida
law in the event of a verdict favorable to RJR Tobacco or
Lorillard Tobacco.  Such offers are sometimes made through court-
ordered mediations.

During the first quarter of 2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, together with Philip Morris USA Inc., tentatively settled
virtually all of the Engle Progeny cases then pending against them
in federal district court.  The total amount of the settlement was
$100 million divided as follows: RJR Tobacco - $42.5 million;
Philip Morris USA Inc. - $42.5 million; and Lorillard Tobacco -
$15 million.  The settlement covers more than 400 federal progeny
cases but does not cover 12 federal progeny cases previously tried
to verdict and currently pending on post-trial motions or appeal;
one federal progeny case pending as of September 30, 2015
involving pro se plaintiffs unrepresented by counsel; and two
federal progeny cases filed by different lawyers from the ones who
negotiated the settlement for the plaintiffs.

On August 3, 2015, RJR Tobacco and Philip Morris USA Inc. removed
33 cases from state court to the federal courts in Florida.  These
cases also are not part of the proposed settlement.  In March
2015, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco paid their share of the
settlement to an escrow account now under RJR Tobacco's control
for disbursements and has reflected this balance as restricted
cash in other current assets with a corresponding balance in other
current liabilities in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet
(unaudited) as of September 30, 2015.

At the beginning of the Engle Progeny litigation, a central issue
was the proper use of the preserved Engle findings.  RJR Tobacco
has argued that use of the Engle findings to establish individual
elements of progeny claims (such as defect, negligence and
concealment) is a violation of federal due process.  In 2013,
however, both the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, referred to as the Eleventh
Circuit, rejected that argument.  In addition to this global due
process argument, RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco raise many
other factual and legal defenses as appropriate in each case.
These defenses may include, among other things, arguing that the
plaintiff is not a proper member of the Engle class, that the
plaintiff did not rely on any statements by any tobacco company,
that the trial was conducted unfairly, that some or all claims are
preempted or barred by applicable statutes of limitation, or that
any injury was caused by the smoker's own conduct.

In Hess v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Russo v. Philip Morris USA
Inc., decided on April 2, 2015, the Florida Supreme Court held
that, in Engle Progeny cases, the defendants cannot raise a
statute of repose defense to claims for concealment or conspiracy.
The defendants in each of these cases filed a motion for rehearing
on April 17, 2015.

On April 8, 2015, in Graham v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the
Eleventh Circuit held that federal law impliedly preempts use of
the preserved Engle findings to establish claims for strict
liability or negligence.  On April 28, 2015, the plaintiff in
Graham filed a motion for rehearing en banc.  A decision is
pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 35 Engle Progeny Cases Became Final Thru 9/30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that 35 Engle Progeny
cases that were tried have become final through September 30,
2015.  These cases resulted in aggregate payments by RJR Tobacco
or Lorillard Tobacco of $281.7 million ($214.9 million for
compensatory and punitive damages and $66.8 million for attorneys'
fees and statutory interest).  During the third quarter of 2015,
payments of $5.5 million were made for compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and interest in Goveia, and attorneys'
fees and statutory interest in Sury and Mrozek, the judgments of
which were paid in 2014.  Based on RJR Tobacco's evaluation,
accruals for compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees
and statutory interest for Hiott, Starr-Blundell, Clayton, Ward,
Hallgren, Cohen, Sikes, Thibault, Buonomo, Taylor and Ballard were
recorded in RAI's condensed consolidated balance sheet (unaudited)
as of September 30, 2015.

From January 1, 2012 through September 30, 2015, 135 smoking and
health, Engle Progeny and health-care cost recovery cases in which
RJR Tobacco, B&W and/or Lorillard Tobacco were defendants were
tried, including 10 trials for cases where mistrials were declared
in the original proceedings. Verdicts in favor of RJR Tobacco, B&W
and Lorillard Tobacco and, in some cases, RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco and/or other defendants, were returned in 63
cases, including 18 mistrials, tried in Florida (62) and West
Virginia (1).  Verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs were returned
in 64 cases tried in Florida, one in New York, and one in
California.  Four cases in Florida were dismissed during trial,
but one of those cases continued against Lorillard Tobacco and
resulted in a plaintiff verdict.  One case in Florida was a
retrial only as to the amount of damages.  In another case in
Florida, the jury entered a partial verdict that did not include
compensatory or punitive damages, and post-trial motions are
pending.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 9 Engle Progeny Cases Tried in Q3 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the third
quarter of 2015, nine Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco
and/or Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant were tried:

* In McCoy v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 35% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 25% at fault, Lorillard Tobacco 20% at fault
and the remaining defendant 20% at fault, and awarded $1.5 million
in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitive damages against
each defendant.

* In Collar v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

* In Block v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 50% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 50% at fault, and awarded approximately $1.03
million in compensatory damages and $800,000 in punitive damages.

* In Santos v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of RJR Tobacco.

* In Lewis v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 75% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 25% at fault, and awarded $750,000 in
compensatory damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.

* In Cooper v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the plaintiff 50% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 40% at fault and the remaining defendant 10% at
fault, and awarded $4.5 million in compensatory damages.  Punitive
damages were not awarded.

* In Duignan v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 33% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 30% at fault and the remaining defendant 37% at
fault, and awarded $6 million in compensatory damages and $2.5
million in punitive damages against RJR Tobacco and $3.5 million
in punitive damages against the remaining defendant.

* In O'Hara v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 15% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 85% at fault, and awarded $14.7 million in
compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages.

* In Suarez v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, including RJR Tobacco.

In addition, since the end of the third quarter of 2015, two other
Engle Progeny cases in which RJR Tobacco and/or Lorillard Tobacco
were a defendant were tried:

* In Marchese v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 55% at
fault, RJR Tobacco 22.5% at fault, and the remaining defendant
22.5% at fault, and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages.
The jury also awarded $250,000 in punitive damages against each
defendant.

* In Gordon v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., the jury returned a
verdict in favor of the plaintiff, found the decedent 98% at fault
and RJR Tobacco 2% at fault, and awarded $5,000 in compensatory
damages.  Punitive damages were not awarded.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Sateriale" to Begin January 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery has been
stayed in Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and trial is
scheduled to begin on January 26, 2016.

Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., is a class action filed
in November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California relating to the termination of a series of
promotions by RJR Tobacco's CAMEL brand from 1991 to 2007 known as
"Camel Cash."  The plaintiffs originally brought the case on
behalf of a putative class of all persons who tried unsuccessfully
to redeem Camel Cash certificates from October 1, 1991 through
March 31, 2007, or who held Camel Cash certificates as of March
31, 2007. The plaintiffs alleged that RJR Tobacco failed to have
any rewards available during the final promotional period.  The
plaintiffs alleged claims based on the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Law,
breach of contract and promissory estoppel, and the plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, actual damages, costs and expenses.

In January 2010, RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss.  In
February 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In the
amended complaint, the proposed class definition changed to a
class consisting of all persons who reside in the U.S. and tried
unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cash certificates, also referred to
as C-Notes, from October 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007.  The
plaintiffs also proposed a California subclass consisting of
persons in California meeting the same criteria.

In May 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amended complaint
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for
failure to state a claim was granted with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  In July 2010, RJR
Tobacco's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint was
granted with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, and RJR Tobacco filed a motion to dismiss in September
2010.  In December 2010, the district court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered final judgment.

In January 2011, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  In July
2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, referred to
as the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs'
claims under the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Acts and reversed the dismissal
of the plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of
contract.

In October 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied RJR Tobacco's motion for
rehearing or rehearing en banc.  RJR Tobacco filed its answer to
the plaintiffs' third amended complaint in December 2012.

Following the completion of discovery in June 2014, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  On December 19, 2014, the
district court denied RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment,
declined to certify a national class, found that the plaintiffs'
promissory estoppel claim could not be tried on a class basis,
and, on the plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, certified a
class of "all persons in California who, as adult smokers, were
assigned registration numbers by RJR Tobacco, collected C-Notes,
and held C-Notes as of October 1, 2006."

In January 2015, RJR Tobacco filed motions for reconsideration of
the district court's order on class certification and summary
judgment.  On April 8, 2015, the district court denied both of RJR
Tobacco's motions for reconsideration.  On April 22, 2015, RJR
Tobacco filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit for leave to
appeal the district court's order granting class certification.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition for leave to appeal on July
30, 2015.

In May 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to add
residents of New York, South Dakota and Iowa into the certified
class.  On June 17, 2015, the court denied RJR Tobacco's motion to
certify an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of
RJR Tobacco's motion for summary judgment.

On July 8, 2015, RJR Tobacco's motion for leave to reopen
discovery was granted.  Discovery since has been stayed, and trial
is scheduled to begin on January 26, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Faces "Feinman" Complaint in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Feinman v. R.
J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in
September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the plaintiff brought a case against RJR
Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of residents of New York,
Iowa and South Dakota who were excluded from the California class
in Sateriale; namely, all persons who resided in New York, Iowa or
South Dakota as of October 1, 2006, and who, as adult smokers,
purchased Camel-brand filtered cigarettes along with C-notes,
collected C-notes and held C-notes as of October 1, 2006.  The
plaintiff alleges breach of contract claims based on the
termination of a series of promotions by RJR Tobacco's Camel brand
from 1991 to 2007 known as "Camel Cash."  On September 28, 2015,
RJR Tobacco accepted service of process of the complaint.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Amended Complaint Filed in "Diek" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
case, Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., have filed an amended
complaint.

In Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in
April 2015, in the Superior Court of California, Orange County,
the plaintiff brought a case against Lorillard Tobacco and two
affiliated entities on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
one or more blu brand e-cigarettes, including
e-juices, components thereof, cartridges or accessories sold by
the defendants.  The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising,
marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes made
deceptive claims and omitted material information.  The plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et
seq., injunctive and equitable relief under California Business &
Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., injunctive relief and damages
under California Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq.,
and damages for purported breaches of express warranty.

On June 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought
indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub.  On June 26,
2015, the defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  On October 2, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as defendants RAI,
two RAI affiliates, Imperial Sub, and two Imperial Sub affiliates.
Imperial Sub agreed to indemnify RAI and assumed the defense of
this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Imperial Sub Agreed to Indemnify RAI
-------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the case,
Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC, a putative class action filed in
September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, the plaintiff brought a case against RAI,
an RAI affiliate, Imperial Sub, and an Imperial Sub affiliate on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of blu brand e-
cigarettes.  The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising,
marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes
failed to advise purchasers and users that they potentially could
be exposed to formaldehyde.  The plaintiff asserts claims under
California Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq. and
California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages.

On September 18, 2015, pursuant to the terms of the Asset Purchase
Agreement, RAI tendered the defense of this action to, and sought
indemnification for this action from, Imperial Sub.  Imperial Sub
has agreed to indemnify RAI and its affiliate and assumed the
defense of this case.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces "Harris" Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in the case,
Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co., a putative class action filed
in September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, the plaintiff brought a case against RJR
Vapor on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE
e-cigarettes.  The plaintiff alleges that certain advertising,
marketing and packaging materials for VUSE e-cigarettes failed to
advise purchasers and users that they potentially could be exposed
to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.  The plaintiff asserts claim
under California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq.
and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages.
RJR Vapor accepted service of process on September 23, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 4 "Lights" Suits Pending in Illinois, Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that "lights" class-
action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or B&W in Illinois
(2) and Missouri (2). The classes in these cases generally seek to
recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class member for compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general,
the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and
misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and
nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other
cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state
consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that
"lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and Philip
Morris USA Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these claims
are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry. Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Status Conference Scheduled in "Turner"
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a status
conference was scheduled for November 18, 2015, in the case,
Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in February
2000, in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a judge
certified a class in November 2001. In June 2003, RJR Tobacco
filed a motion to stay the case pending Philip Morris's appeal of
the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case, which the judge denied in
July 2003.

In October 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
denied RJR Tobacco's emergency stay/supremacy order request. In
November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's
motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in
Price.

On October 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals
dismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the court's denial of its
emergency stay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to
the Circuit Court.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in "Howard" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that there is currently
no activity in the case, Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp.

In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., another case filed
in February 2000 in Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois, a
judge certified a class in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial
judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution
of the Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. case mentioned above. The
plaintiffs appealed this stay order to the Illinois Fifth District
Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order in
August 2005.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference Set in "Collora"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case,
Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJR
Tobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,
Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class in December 2003.

In April 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general
division: Craft v. Philip Morris USA Inc. and Black v. Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp.

In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme
Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of
January 10, 2011 was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that
time.  A status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 22 Status Conference Set in "Black" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a status
conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016, in the case, Black
v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand,
which was granted in March 2006.

In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. Supreme
Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. A nominal trial date of
January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not proceed at that
time.  A status conference is scheduled for February 22, 2016.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Brattain" Suit Filed v. Santa Fe Natural
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Brattain v.
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in
October 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, the plaintiff brought the case against SFNTC and
RAI on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes.  The plaintiff alleges that use
of the words "natural," "100% additive free," and "organic"
suggests that Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes are
healthier than or present reduced health risks as compared to
other cigarettes.  The plaintiff asserts claims based on alleged
violations of the California Business & Professions Code Sec.
17,500 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200
et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq., and seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest.  SFNTC and RAI were served on October 12 and 13, 2015,
respectively.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Faces "Sproule" Class Action in S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Sproule v.
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., a putative class action filed in
September 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, the plaintiff brought a case against SFNTC
and RAI on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Natural
American Spirit brand cigarettes.  The plaintiff alleges that use
of the words "natural," "additive-free," "organic," and
"unadulterated tobacco product," suggests that Natural American
Spirit brand cigarettes are healthier than or present reduced
health risks as compared to other cigarettes.  The plaintiff
asserts claims as to SFNTC based on alleged violations of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as
claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment,
and, as to RAI, for aiding and abetting and vicarious liability.
The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including medical
monitoring and smoking cessation programs, compensatory damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
punitive damages.  SFNTC and RAI were served on October 16, 2015.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Young v. American Tobacco Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Young v.
American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November 1997 in
Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffs brought
an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,
including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residents
of Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, have
been exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which were
manufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injury
as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.   In
March 2013, the court entered an order staying the case, including
all discovery, pending the implementation of the smoking cessation
program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Parsons v. AC&S Inc. Case Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that in Parsons v. A C
& S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 in Circuit Court, Ohio
County, West Virginia, the plaintiff sued asbestos manufacturers,
U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W,
Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette
manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, seeking to recover $1
million in compensatory and punitive damages individually and an
unspecified amount for the class in both compensatory and punitive
damages. The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly
have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to
respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiffs
allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco products and exposure to
asbestos products caused her to develop lung cancer and to become
addicted to tobacco.  In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral
Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and
Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong
World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the
Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to
all defendants who filed for bankruptcy.  The case remains pending
against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard
Tobacco, but it has long been dormant.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Activity in Jones v. American Tobacco
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that there is currently
no activity in the case, in Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in December
1998 in Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri, the defendants
removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri in February 1999. The action was brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR
Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S.
cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, by tobacco
product users and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated
Missouri consumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of the
defendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted to
nicotine. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to the
Circuit Court in February 1999.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: No Oral Argument in Appeal in "DeLisle"
----------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument has
not been scheduled in the appeal in the case, DeLisle v. A. W.
Chesterton Company.

Claims have been brought against Lorillard Tobacco and Lorillard
by individuals who seek damages resulting from their alleged
exposure to asbestos fibers that were incorporated into filter
material used in one brand of cigarettes manufactured by a
predecessor to Lorillard Tobacco for a limited period of time
ending more than 50 years ago. As of September 30, 2015, Lorillard
Tobacco and/or Lorillard was a defendant in 63 Filter Cases.
Since January 1, 2012, Lorillard Tobacco has paid, or has reached
agreement to pay, a total of approximately $51.3 million in
settlements to finally resolve 184 claims asserted in Filter
Cases.

Pursuant to the terms of a 1952 agreement between P. Lorillard
Company and H&V Specialties Co., Inc. (the manufacturer of the
filter material), Lorillard Tobacco is required to indemnify
Hollingsworth & Vose for legal fees, expenses, judgments and
resolutions in cases and claims alleging injury from finished
products sold by P. Lorillard Company that contained the filter
material.

On September 13, 2013, the jury in DeLisle v. A. W. Chesterton
Company, a case tried in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial
Circuit, Broward County, Florida, found in favor of the plaintiffs
as to their claims for negligence and strict liability, and
awarded $8 million. Lorillard Tobacco is responsible for 44%, or
$3.52 million. Judgment was entered on November 6, 2013. Lorillard
Tobacco filed its notice of appeal on November 18, 2013.  Briefing
is complete.  Oral argument has not been scheduled.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Updates on 7 Putative Canadian Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the following
seven putative Canadian class actions were filed against various
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in courts in the Provinces of
Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario and
Saskatchewan, although the plaintiffs' counsel have been actively
pursuing only Bourassa, the action pending in British Columbia, at
this time:

* In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, severe asthma and lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, and their dependents and family members, who purchased or
smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defendants, as well as
restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure
for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

* In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009, in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
bronchitis resulting from the use of tobacco products, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of
government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused
by the use of tobacco products.

* In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2009 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, dependents and family members, who purchased or smoked
cigarettes designed, manufactured, marketed or distributed by the
defendants for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of
the opt-out period as set by the court, as well as restitution of
profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-
care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products.

* In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in July 2009 in the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals who
were alive on July 10, 2009, and who have suffered, or who
currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum
of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants.  RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have
brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan
court.

* In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, the heir to a
deceased smoker, alleging that the deceased was addicted to and
suffered emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products, is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all individuals, including their
estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered,
or who currently suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, after
having smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed,
manufactured, imported, marketed, or distributed by the
defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the
defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.
RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the
jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.  The plaintiff filed a
motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in
support in August 2013.  An amended claim was filed in December
2014.

* In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, a case filed in
June 2010 in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against
Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR
Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an individual
smoker, alleging his own addiction and heart disease resulting
from the use of tobacco products, is seeking compensatory and
unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class
comprised of all individuals, including their estates, who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who have suffered, or who currently
suffer from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000
cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported, marketed, or
distributed by the defendants, as well as disgorgement of revenues
earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the
claim was filed.  RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a
challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court.

* In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, a case
filed in June 2012 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
against Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities,
including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, the plaintiff, an
individual smoker, alleging her own addiction and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products, is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all individuals,
including their estates, who were alive on June 12, 2007, and who
have suffered, or who currently suffer from chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a
minimum of 25,000 cigarettes designed, manufactured, imported,
marketed, or distributed by the defendants, as well as restitution
of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for
health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco
products.

In each of these seven cases, the plaintiffs allege fraud,
fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of
merchantability and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure
to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to
children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust
enrichment, market share liability, joint liability, and
violations of various trade practices and competition statutes.
Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's
international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the
defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of
rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current
or former affiliates in these actions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Motion to Decertify Filed in ERISA Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants have
filed a renewed motion to decertify the class in the ERISA
Litigation.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off.  The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion  for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April
2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The
court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing
all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR
Pension Investment Committee. The remaining defendants, RJR and
RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and affirmative defenses in June
2007. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which
the court granted in September 2008. The district court ordered
mediation, but no resolution of the case was reached. In September
2008, each of the plaintiffs and the defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and in January 2009, the defendants filed a
motion to decertify the class. A second mediation occurred in June
2009, but again no resolution of the case was reached. The
district court overruled the motions for summary judgment and the
motion to decertify the class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice finding that a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the
plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the
court found to have existed.  On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit
Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding
that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held
that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan, determined
the test was whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have
made the same decision and remanded the case back to the district
court to apply the correct -- would have -- standard.  On December
1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court.  On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme
Court denied the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari.

On November 19, 2014, the district court held a hearing and
ordered briefing on various issues that remain pending on remand.
The parties filed briefs addressing (1) the application of the
different prudence standard, -- "the  would have standard" --
adopted by the Fourth Circuit and (2) the merits of the
defendants' affirmative defense related to releases executed by
many class members and to the claims by class members who
voluntarily sold their Nabisco shares while their accounts were
frozen.  The defendants also filed a renewed motion to decertify
the class.  The district court will address these pending motions
in due course.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Dismissal of Shareholder Case Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the plaintiff has
appealed the dismissal of a shareholder case in North Carolina.

Delaware.   In the third quarter of 2014, Lorillard, the members
of Lorillard's board of directors, RAI and BAT were named as
defendants in 11 putative class action lawsuits brought in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by Lorillard shareholders challenging
the proposed Merger, referred to as the Delaware Actions.  The
complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members
of the Lorillard board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Lorillard shareholders by authorizing the proposed (now
completed) Merger.  The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly
committed by the members of the Lorillard board of directors.  On
November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion for consolidation of
the lawsuits into a single action captioned In re Lorillard, Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, and for appointment of lead plaintiffs
and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed
a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion to expedite.

Although they believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
that no further disclosure was required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws, to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on
January 15, 2015, the defendants (other than BAT, which was not
named in the amended complaint) entered into the Delaware
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the
Delaware Actions.  The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Delaware Actions.  In consideration for such
settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions
agreed, among other things, that Lorillard and RAI would make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which they did on January 20, 2015.  The
Delaware Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties
will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation of
settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as
practicable.  The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement will be of no force and effect.

North Carolina.  RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors
and BAT have been named as defendants in a putative class action
lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, et al.,
brought in North Carolina state court, referred to as the North
Carolina Action, by a person identifying himself as a shareholder
of RAI.  The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8,
2014, and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014.  The
amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to RAI shareholders by approving the BAT Share Purchase and
the sharing of technology with BAT.  The amended complaint also
alleges that there were various conflicts of interest in the
transaction, and that RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties by its board of directors.  The North Carolina
Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of
costs, among other remedies.  On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in
the North Carolina Action filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder
meeting and votes scheduled for January 28, 2015.  RAI and the RAI
board of directors timely opposed that motion prior to a hearing
that was scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015.

RAI believes that the North Carolina Action is without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws.  However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit.  The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action.  In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.  The North Carolina Memorandum
of Understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in
good faith to agree upon a stipulation of partial settlement to be
submitted to the court for approval as soon as practicable.  The
stipulation of partial settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the court, which will consider
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the partial
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of partial settlement or that
the court will approve the partial settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such a stipulation.  In that event, the
proposed partial settlement will be null and void and of no force
and effect.  In addition, the partial settlement did not affect
the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in connection
with the Merger.

On August 4, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims.  The plaintiff
has appealed the dismissal.


RUBIN & ROTHMAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dickon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07961
(D.N.J., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Rubin & Rothman, LLC operates a law firm located at 1787 Veterans
Memorial Hwy #32, Islandia, NY 11749.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      STERNTHOMASSON LLP
      2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
      Union, NJ 07083-4870
      Telephone: (973) 379-7500
      Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
      E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
              pstern@philipstern.com

         - and -
      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


SAVANNA ENERGY: Faces "Burlew" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Burlew, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Savanna Energy Services (U.S.A) Corp., Case
No. 4:15-cv-03289 (S.D. Tex., November 6, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Savanna Energy Services (U.S.A) Corp. operates a drilling, well-
servicing, and oilfield equipment rental company with operations
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locus Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              apiazza@bmm.net


SHRED-IT USA: Settlement in "Kirchner" Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Curtis Joyner of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final
approval of the class settlement in the case captioned, Michael
Kirchner, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Shred-It USA Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., and
Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-01437-WBS-EFB.

Plaintiff instituted a putative class action against Defendants
and proposed a class of "All individuals as to whom, during the
period from June 16, 2009 through June 16, 2014, Shred-it procured
or caused to be procured a consumer report for employment purposes
who signed an authorization form, in electronic or written form,
allowing for consumer reports to be obtained which included a
liability release or other language of any kind other than the
authorization and disclosure permitted under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)." After extensive arms-length
negotiations and a mediation among Plaintiff, Class Counsel and
Shred-it, the parties entered into a settlement agreement.

In his Order and Judgment dated October 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/O4IdrLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shubb finally approved
the Settlement Agreement, finding that the terms and conditions
constitute, in all respects, a "fair, reasonable and adequate"
settlement as to all Settlement Class Members in accordance with
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court
approved:

     -- Class Counsel's application for $62,500 attorney's fees,
     -- Class Counsel's application for costs in the amount of
        $2,178.96 to Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. and $1,087.63 to
        Blanchard Law Group, APC,
     -- service award to Michael Kirchner in the amount of
        $5,000, and
     -- the payment of Settlement Administrator Costs to
        Simpluris, Inc. in the amount of $31,000.

Michael Kirchner is represented by Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. --
PETER@DION-KINDEMLAW.COM -- PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.

First Advantage Backgroud Services is represented by Esther Slater
McDonald, Esq. -- emcdonald@seyfarth.com -- Frederick T. Smith,
Esq. -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Mark Peter Grajski, Esq. --
mgrajski@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Morris" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Solarcity Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-05107-JSC (N.D.
Cal., November 6, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making calls to residential telephones in order to sell him solar
panels, using an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their
prior express written consent.

Solarcity Corp. is a Delaware corporation that designs, finances
and installs solar power systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com


STARS PLANET: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Evans" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Evans, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stars Planet, Inc. d/b/a Silver Reign, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC600281 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest
periods, failure to pay for all hours worked, unlawful splitting
of tips received, failure to timely pay all wages to terminated
employees, and failure to furnish accurate wage statements.

Stars Planet, Inc. operates an entertainment center located at
11906 Mississippi Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90064.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      Gabriel Assaad, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
              gassaad@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -
      George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC
      34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
      Dana Point, CA 92629
      Telephone: (714) 904-1669
      Facsimile: (949) 272-0428
      E-mail: GeorgeM@logmapc.com


SYMETRA FINANCIAL: MOU Reached in Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Symetra Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that counsel
for the Company, its Board and the Sumitomo Parties have entered
into a memorandum of understanding with counsel for Plaintiff in a
class action complaint.

On August 11, 2015, Symetra, a Delaware corporation, entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger among the Company, Sumitomo Life
Insurance Company, a mutual company (sougo kaisha) organized under
the laws of Japan ("Sumitomo"), and SLIC Financial Corporation, a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Sumitomo
("Merger Sub" and, together with Sumitomo, the "Sumitomo
Parties"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into
the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sumitomo (the
"merger"). On September 30, 2015, the Company filed a definitive
proxy statement (the "definitive proxy statement") in connection
with the merger, which the Company mailed to its stockholders on
or about October 2, 2015.

As disclosed on page 66 of the definitive proxy statement, on
August 20, 2015, a purported stockholder of the Company
("Plaintiff") filed a class action complaint (the "Complaint")
against the Company, each of the members of the board of directors
of the Company (the "Board") and each of the Sumitomo Parties
(together, the "Defendants") in the Superior Court of Washington,
King County (the "Washington Court"), purportedly on behalf of
certain stockholders of the Company. The Complaint alleges that
the members of the Board breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with their approval of the merger agreement. It further
challenges the decision of the Board to adopt a forum selection
bylaw designating the state and federal courts in the State of
Delaware for the resolution of intracorporate disputes. Finally,
the Complaint alleges that the Sumitomo Parties aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiff asks the
Washington Court to (i) declare that the lawsuit can be maintained
as a class action, (ii) declare that the merger is unfair, unjust
and inequitable to Plaintiff and the other members of Plaintiff's
class, (iii) enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps necessary
to accomplish the merger at an inequitable and unfair price, (iv)
in the event that the merger occurs, rescind the merger or award
rescissory damages, (v) direct the Defendants to account for the
damages sustained, (vi) award Plaintiff costs and fees relating to
the lawsuit and (vii) grant such other and further relief as the
Washington Court may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which
added a claim to the Complaint that the members of the Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by filing a
materially deficient preliminary proxy statement and added an
additional request of relief to enjoin the Defendants from
soliciting stockholder votes on the merger until such alleged
material deficiencies are remedied, and a motion for preliminary
injunction, which sought to enjoin the Special Meeting of
Stockholders from taking place.  The Company and the Board believe
these claims are without merit and have been filed in an improper
forum, in violation of the Company's forum selection bylaw.

On October 28, 2015, counsel for the Company, the Board and the
Sumitomo Parties entered into the MOU with counsel for Plaintiff,
pursuant to which the Company has agreed to make the disclosures
concerning the merger. In accordance with the terms of the MOU,
the Plaintiff has agreed to stay the proceeding in the Washington
Court and to withdraw its request for a preliminary injunction. In
addition, the MOU contemplates that, subject to the completion of
confirmatory discovery by Plaintiff's counsel, the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of
settlement contemplated by the parties will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
the Company's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter
into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the Washington Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement
is finally approved by the Washington Court, it will resolve and
release all claims that were or could have been brought in any
actions challenging any aspect of the merger, the merger agreement
and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the
Washington Court's final approval of the settlement.

In connection with the settlement, subject to the ultimate
determination of the Washington Court, Plaintiff's counsel may
receive an award of fees in an amount not to exceed $275,000 and
be reimbursed for expenses of up to $15,000.  This payment will
not affect the amount of the consideration to be received by any
Company stockholder in the merger. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement, or that the Washington Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The MOU may be rendered null and void, if, among
other reasons, (i) the Washington Court fails to enter a final
order and judgment approving the settlement, or (ii) the merger
agreement is terminated by the parties thereto or the merger is
not consummated for any reason.

The Defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, all of the
allegations of wrongful or actionable conduct asserted in the
Complaint, and the Board vigorously maintains that it diligently
and scrupulously complied with its fiduciary duties, that the
definitive proxy statement is complete and accurate in all
material respects and that no further disclosure is required under
applicable law. The Defendants are entering into the MOU and the
contemplated settlement solely to eliminate the cost, burden,
distraction and expense of having to defend this litigation
further.


TED W DANG: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Micheline Levy v. Ted W. Dang, individually and as Trustee of the
TD/SW Family Trust, Sandra E. Wong Dang, individually and as
Trustee of the TD/SW Family Trust, G. Wong, L. Wong, Kim Yee and
Does 1-30, Case No. RG15792360 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 6, 2015)
is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional
distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket
expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to
make repairs of the habitability defects to subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action in Early Stages of Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated class action against Tile Shop Holdings, Inc. is
now in the early stages of discovery, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 28, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its
outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the
directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought
under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the
caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al. Several related actions were filed in
2013, and then consolidated. The plaintiffs are three investors
who seek to represent a class or classes consisting of (1) all
purchasers of Tile Shop common stock between August 22, 2012 and
January 28, 2014 (the "alleged class period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all
purchasers of Tile Shop common stock pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's December 2012 and June 2013 registration statements,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Eight
firms who were underwriters in the December 2012 and June 2013
secondary public offerings are also named as defendants.

In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint") filed on
May 23, 2014, the plaintiffs allege that certain defendants made
false or misleading statements of material fact in press releases
and SEC filings about the Company's relationships with its
vendors, its gross margins, and its supply chain and producer
relationships, and that defendants failed to disclose certain
related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs
seek to recover damages on behalf of the members of the purported
classes. The defendants are vigorously defending the matter. The
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in July 2014, and that
motion was granted in part and denied in part by an Order of the
court on March 4, 2015. The matter is now in the early stages of
discovery.


TMI HOSPITALITY: Housekeepers' Suit Wins Partial Class Cert.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for Rule 23 class certification and denied Defendants'
motion to decertify the conditionally certified class in the case
captioned, Elba Maria Vasquez Cruz, Ana Rodriguez, and Felicia
Reyes, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, and the Proposed Minnesota Rule 23 Class, Plaintiffs,
v. TMI Hospitality, Inc.; TMI Employee Management, Inc.; and TMI
Property Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
14-CV-1128(SRN/FLN).

The lawsuit arises from Plaintiffs' employment as housekeepers at
the Fairfield Inn & Suites Bloomington. There are three named
plaintiffs who seek to represent a class of Fairfield
housekeepers: Elba Maria Vasquez Cruz, Ana Rodriguez, and Felicia
Reyes. They assert five causes of action: overtime, minimum wage,
and recordkeeping violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) (Count I); minimum wage, gratuities, meal and rest break,
and recordkeeping violations under the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act (MFLSA) (Count II); unlawful deduction violations
under Minnesota Statutes Sec. 181.79 (Count III); breach of
contract and conversion under Minnesota common law (Count IV; and
national origin discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights
Act (MHRA) (Count V). In December 2014, the Named Plaintiffs moved
to amend their Complaint to add Count VI, a cause of action under
the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA).

In August 2014, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Class Certification and approved notice to the
following class: "All current and former housekeepers who worked
for Fairfield Inn & Suites Bloomington at any time from April 15,
2011 to the present."

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' proposed class
has not met the class certification requirements.

In her Memorandum Opinion Order dated October 30, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/sj51k8from Leagle.com, Judge Nelson concluded
that class certification is not appropriate as to Plaintiffs'
conversion claim, but that class certification of a liability-only
class as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract, Sec. 181.101, and
MFLSA claims is appropriate and that Plaintiffs' state law claims,
with the exception of their conversion claim, may properly be
resolved in a class action and, therefore, that certification of a
class is appropriate. The Court certified c lass of "All current
and former housekeepers who work(ed) for Fairfield Inn & Suites
Minneapolis Bloomington from April 15, 2011 to present."

The Court appointed the Named Plaintiffs are appointed as class
representatives and Plaintiffs' counsel, J. Ashwin Madia and
Joshua A. Newville of Madia Law LLC as class counsel. The Court
has set the matter for trial on Monday, December 14, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by J. Ashwin Madia, Esq. --
jamadia@madialaw.com -- Joshua A. Newville, Esq. --
joshuanewville@madialaw.com -- MADIA LAW LLC

Defendants are represented by:

Sara G. McGrane, Esq.
Grant T. Collins, Esq.
FELHABER LARSON
220 South 6th St #2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: (612)339-6321


VELKONEL RESTAURANT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Merino and Fausto Maldonadoarmenta v. Velkonel Restaurant,
Inc., John Kelepesis, and Paul Velios, Case No. 1:15-cv-08755-LGS
(S.D.N.Y., November 6, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid wages,
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Cafe 31 Sports Bar & Grill
Restaurant in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 267-2101


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Status Conference Pushed Back to January
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for THE Northern District of California vacated a previous Order
and issued a new schedule for deadlines, hearing and case status
conference in the case captioned, IN RE VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS,
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:13-CV-03567 EMC.

The case is a consolidated class action alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against Defendants. The parties engaged in
mediation on October 15, 2015, and the parties have reached an
agreement in principle to settle all claims in the Action subject
to, among other things, Court approval.

The Court had previously entered orders: (1) setting a deadline
for a CMC statement to be filed by November 5, 2015; (2)
scheduling a status conference and hearing on the class
certification motion for November 9, 2015; and (3) for other
discovery related proceedings, motions and deadlines, and for
trial.

In the motion, the parties jointly request that the Court issue an
order adopting the following provisions, pending the formal
documentation of the settlement and submission of preliminarily
and final approval motions: (1) The deadline for submission of the
CMC statement on November 5, 2015; (2) The status conference and
class certification hearing scheduled for November 9, 2015; and
(3) The discovery and other deadlines set and the status
conference be reset.

In his Joint Stipulation and Order dated October 23, 2015
available at http://is.gd/lK3m86from Leagle.com, Judge Chen found
that in the interest of judicial efficiency, the requests to
reschedule the previous orders of the court and reset the deadline
for submission of the CMC statement from November 5, 2015 to
January 21, 2016, the status conference is reset for January 28,
2016 at 10:30 a.m.

The Court directs the Lead Plaintiffs to submit a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement within 45 days of the entry
of the instant order.

Plaintiffs are represented Jonathan Gardner, Esq. --
jgardner@labaton.com -- Carol C. Villegas, Esq. --
cvillegas@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Defendants are represented by Susan S. Muck, Esq. --
smuck@fenwick.com -- Jennifer Bretan, Esq. -- jbretan@fenwick.com
-- Marie C. Bafus, Esq. -- mbafus@fenwick.com -- FENWICK & WEST
LLP


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Dixon" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dixon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
13919-GER-APP (E.D. Mich., November 6, 2015) arises out of the
Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
approximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
manufactured and sold and leased in the United States since 2009,
to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Dr. Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
              ssa@millerlawpc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel C. Fernandez, Jonathan D. Rubin, and Susan Jacobs,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08699-ODW-E
(C.D. Cal., November 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's
alleged installation of defeat devices in approximately 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles manufactured and sold and
leased in the United States since 2009, to switch engines to a
cleaner mode during official emissions testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
      Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
      PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
      39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
      The Presidio
      San Francisco, CA 94129
      Telephone: (415) 398-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
      E-mail: nac@phillaw.com
              bsc@phillaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hopkins" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hopkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-02304-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., November 6, 2015) arises out of
the Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
approximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
manufactured and sold and leased in the United States since 2009,
to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
      Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
      Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
      THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 546-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
      E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
              krogers@kraloweclaw.com
              csaunders@kraloweclaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Singh" Suit in Penn. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nita Singh and Frank Mosca, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-06061-CMR (E.D. Penn., November 6, 2015) arises
out of the Defendant's alleged installation of defeat devices in
approximately 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
manufactured and sold and leased in the United States since 2009,
to switch engines to a cleaner mode during official emissions
testing.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
      SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A.
      308 Harper Drive, Suite 200
      Moorestown, NJ 08057
      Telephone: (856) 662-0700
      Facsimile: (856) 488-4744
      E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stone" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Stone, Derris and Mary Powell, and Loi Stoval,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07956-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., November 6, 2015)  arises out of the Defendant's alleged
installation of defeat devices in approximately 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles manufactured and sold and leased in
the United States since 2009, to create the impression of high
fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -
      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      Mark Pifko, Esq.
      Pablo Orozco, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 839-2333

         - and -
      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      Jeffrey S. Grand, Esq.
      Scott A. George, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water St., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
              jgrand@seegerweiss.com
              sgeorge@seegerweiss.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Defendants Moved to Dismiss N.D. Ill. Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2015, that a putative
shareholder filed on April 10, 2015, a securities class action in
federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against
Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. The
action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws
arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the
Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to
the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 16, 2015.


WINDSTAR CLUB: "Castro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Castro, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Windstar Club, Incorporated, Case No. 2:15-cv-00698-JES-MRM
(M.D. Fla., November 6, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

Windstar Club, Incorporated operates a country club located at
1700 Windstar Blvd, Naples, FL 34112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, PA
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Telephone: (239) 549-6689
      E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


WINGS 'R US: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Soto" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Soto, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, known and unknown v. Wings 'R Us Romeoville, Inc. and
Does 1-20, Case No. 1:15-cv-10127 (N.D. Ill., November 6, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Wings 'R Us Romeoville, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant
located in Romeoville, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com

         - and -
      Jamie G. Sypulski, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE JAMIE GOLDEN SYPULSKI
      150 North Michigan Ave., Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 332-6202
      E-mail: jsypulski@sbcglobal.net


                            *********

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  * * *