CAR_Public/151201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 239


                            Headlines


117 AVENUE: Faces "Perez" Class Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
AMERICAN HONDA: "Romaya" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
AMEX CARD: Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Unlawful
ANTHEM LIFE: "Smilow" Suit Consolidated in Data Breach MDL
APPLE INC: Beats Class Suit Filed by Retail Store Employees

ARKANSAS: High Court Flips Cert. of Suit vs. Veterans Agency
ARSENAULT CHIROPRATIC: Faces "Messnick" Suit for FLSA Breach
ASHDON FARMS: Recalls Honey Mustard Pretzel Mix Due to Milk
AUSTRALIA: Live Export Suit Ready to Launch, Lawyers Say
BARCLAYS PLC: Settles LIBOR Class Suit for $120 Million

BERTAGNI 1882: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts
BIG LOT: Faces Class Action for Violating FCRA
BLUE BUFFALO: Recalls Cub Size Wild Chews Bones Due to Salmonella
BOIRON INC: Judge Deies Class Status to Suit Over Flu Remedy
BOYLE'S FAMOUS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Wheat Protein

CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls SpaghettiOs Products Due to Choking Hazard
CASEY'S BAKERY: Recalls Snickers Cake Due to Peanuts
CHS INC: Recalls Feeds for Mature Cattle, Horses, Goats & Sheep
DELTA PETROLEUM: Feb. 19 Fairness Hearing of $3.2MM Settlement
DR. REDDY'S: Lundin Law Files Class Suit Over FDA Approvals

EAGLE BOYS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Wage Fraud
EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Plan to Sell Co. to Dell for $64BB
EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Due to Loss of Info in Cyber-Attack
FACEBOOK: Austrian Supreme Court to Decide on Privacy Suit
FIT FIRM: Recalls Herbal Slimcap Capsules Due to Sibutramine

FIVE PAWNS: Faces Multimillion Dollar Suit for False Advertising
FLINT, MI: Show Cause Hearing in Water Bill Increase Suit Set
FUNERARIAS DE LAS: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit for FLSA Violation
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs Due to Milk
GENERAL MOTORS: Cassels Brock Continues Appeal for $45MM Costs

GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Packaging of Products
GOOGLE INC: Must Face Consolidated Suit Over Internet Cookies
HOBBY LOBBY: NLRB Steps Up Enforcement Against Class Suit Waivers
HOMESTAT FARM: Recalls Organic Oats & Chia with Flax and Rye
HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Jailed for Medicaid Fraud

JOE ARPAIO: Judge Doubts Truth of Sheriff's Testimony
KAISER PERMANENTE: Agrees to Settle with Mental Health Clinicians
LOWELL ELECTRICAL: Accused of Violating FLSA in E.D. New York
LSB INDUSTRIES: Tostrud Law Files Securities Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Elson" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL

MI TIENDA: Recalls Masa and Tostadas Due to Metal Fragments
MISSISSIPPI: Moss Point to Stop Jailing Impoverished People
MONROE COUNTY, NY: Residents Ink $59MM Settlement of Wage Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued Over Athletic Scholarships Prohibition
NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs Seek Class Suit Status

NATION PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizza Products Due to Soy
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Pham" Suit for FDCPA Violation
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Files Securities Class Suit
PITTSBURGH, PA: Judge OKs Settlement with ACLU
RALEY'S FAMILY: Recalls Sweet Pumpkin Ravioli Due to Cashew

ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Parents of Yeshiva Sue Educ. Department
SAFEWAY INC: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Underfilled Canned Tuna
SECURITAS SECURITY: Reaches $2.5-Mil. Settlement of Labor Suit
SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Man Sues Over Month-Long Gas Leak
SPACE EXPLORATION: Blumenthal Files Wage Class Suit

SPECIAL NEED AND INTERGIRTY: Sued Over Violation of Fiduciary Duty
STARZ: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
STRAIGHT PATH: Andrews LLC Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
SUMMERSET VILLAGE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Apartment Gas
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Pyramid Files Suit for Securities Act Violation

TITO'S: Bid to Oust Lawsuit Dismissed
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Butternut Squash Triangoli Due to Tree Nuts
TYSON FOODS: Recalls Chicken Wing Products Due to Off Odor
UBER: Faces Suit Filed by St. Louis Taxi Drivers
VIRGINIA DINER: Recalls Pecan Candies Due to Peanuts

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts
YAHOO: Autodialer Class Suit Revived
ZAFFEN INC: Faces Probe Over Violations of Securities Exchange Act

* Serial Class Suit Objector Smacked with Serious Sanctions
* Shareholder Filings Drop After Chancery Crackdown on M&A Deals



                            *********


117 AVENUE: Faces "Perez" Class Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Camargo Perez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. 117 Avenue of the Americas Food Corp., Case
No. 1:15-cv-08151 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015), is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

117 Avenue of the Americas Food Corp. is a corporation based in
New York City.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Romaya" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vivian Romaya v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03938, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus).
The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02913-MHW-
EPD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: American Honda Motor Co., Inc., CR-V Vibration
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2:15-md-02661-
MHW-EPD.

The actions in the litigation -- most of which are either putative
nationwide or statewide class actions -- share factual questions
arising from allegations that the 2015 Honda CR-V has a defect or
defects that cause the vehicle to vibrate excessively.

American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a California corporation
with its national headquarters in Torrance, California.  American
Honda is a subsidiary of Honda Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese
corporation, and is one of the largest distributors of automobiles
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Suzanne Havens-Beckman, Esq.
          David C. Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI AND HAVENS LLP
          212 Marine Street, Suite 100
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com
                  dcparisi@parisihavens.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael L. Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          Johnnet S. Jones, Esq.
          Livia M. Kiser, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7274
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: dspira@sidley.com
                  simone.jones@sidley.com
                  lkiser@sidley.com


AMEX CARD: Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement Unlawful
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that the NLRB has once again held
that a mandatory arbitration agreement including a
class/collective action waiver violates the National Labor
Relations Act. With barely an acknowledgment that the Fifth
Circuit reversed its last two decisions reaching the same
conclusion, the Board ruled in Amex Card Service Co., No. 28-CA-
123865 (Nov. 10, 2015), that Amex committed an unfair labor
practice by maintaining and enforcing an arbitration policy that
required employees, as a condition of their employment, to resolve
all claims against the company through individual arbitration.

Despite the Fifth Circuit's rejection of NLRB rulings striking
down class/collective action waivers in D.R. Horton (2013) and
again recently in Murphy Oil (2015), the Board appears undeterred.

In the NLRB's view, mandatory resolution of employment claims
through individual arbitration infringes upon the protected right
to engage in concerted activity, regardless of what the Fifth
Circuit has to say about it.  In fact, the NLRB stressed in its
Amex decision that the company's policy violated the (subsequently
invalidated) precedent the Board had established in D.R. Horton
and Murphy Oil.

The NLRB also found the policy unlawful because employees would
reasonably believe it waived or limited their right to pursue an
NLRB charge and held that Amex committed an additional violation
when it moved to compel arbitration of its employees' FLSA claims
in accordance with the policy.  The Board ordered Amex to cease
and desist from enforcing the policy and to reimburse the
employees' expenses, including attorneys' fees, with interest.
Several NLRB observers have noted that the Board may be playing
the long game here by attempting to obtain rulings on the validity
of class action waivers in federal appeals courts beyond the Fifth
Circuit.  In the Amex decision, the employees worked in Arizona
and any appeal would be heard in the Ninth or D.C. Circuit, thus
raising the real possibility of a circuit split and eventual
Supreme Court review.  For this reason, the effectiveness of
class/collective action waivers in reducing legal exposure for
employment claims remains uncertain.


ANTHEM LIFE: "Smilow" Suit Consolidated in Data Breach MDL
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Smilow, et al. v. Anthem Life &
Disability Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02380, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Jose).  The California District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-04739-LHK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The lawsuits arise from a data security breach that allegedly
occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015,
and resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable
information and personal health information of, by one estimate,
some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members
and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance
companies.

Anthem Life & Disability Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of Anthem, Inc., one of the nation's largest health
insurance companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Harry Weiss, Esq.
          Joshua M. Rubin, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway,16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
                  jrubin@weisslawllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa Fried, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 918-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 918-3100
          E-mail: lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com


APPLE INC: Beats Class Suit Filed by Retail Store Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Steingart, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that
Apple Inc. prevailed in a class action brought by more than 12,400
California retail store employees who claim they should have been
paid for the time they spent undergoing anti-theft searches at the
end of their shifts.

Even though Apple won this class action under California's wage
laws, it could still be exposed to disability discrimination
claims, Orly Lobel, a professor of law at the University of San
Diego, told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 9.

The Apple employees chose to bring bags to work and subject
themselves to the company's search policy, so they didn't satisfy
the state wage law's compensable time requirement of being
"subject to the control of the employer," according to the summary
judgment ruling, issued Nov. 7 by Judge William Alsup of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

When the court certified the class (33 HRR 766, 7/20/15), Alsup
distinguished between carrying certain items out of necessity and
others out of convenience. He invited employees with "special
needs" who fell into the former category to intervene so the court
could address whether they faced an "illusory choice," but none
did, he said. Employees who need to carry items for medical
reasons could pursue disability discrimination claims, Lobel said.

Supreme Court Provides 'Useful Guidance.'

Courts often have been asked to decide whether non-work time spent
at a work site is compensable. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
2014 that workers at an Amazon.com warehouse weren't entitled to
wages for time spent undergoing end-of-shift searches to prevent
theft.

Alsup distinguished that case from Apple's because the Amazon case
was decided under federal wage laws. But the high court's ruling
in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S. Ct. 513, 190
L. Ed. 2d 410, 23 WH Cases2d 1485 (U.S. 2014), provided "useful
guidance" in the Apple case, Alsup said (32 HRR 1321, 12/15/14).

Alsup dismissed the Apple workers' federal claims following the
Supreme Court's Integrity Staffing Solutions ruling. Citing that
decision, he found the workers were not "suffered or permitted to
work." That's because the time they spent awaiting and going
through searches had no "relationship to their job
responsibilities," he said.

Bags Conceal Medications, Mustache Wax

At the end of their shifts, the employees are required to clock
out before being searched by a store manager or security guard.
The serial numbers of any Apple products in the employee's
possession are checked against a list of company products the
worker owns. Employees estimate the wait time as up to 20 minutes
and even longer during busy periods such as product launches and
holiday seasons, but the company contends it only takes a few
seconds, Alsup said.

In a 2012 e-mail to CEO Tim Cook, an unidentified Apple Store
employee called the searches demoralizing. "Managers are required
to treat 'valued' employees as criminals," the worker wrote. Cook
forwarded the message the same day to two executives, asking, "Is
this true?"

When Alsup certified the class, he found some employees brought
bags in which they carried "necessities of life," such as
prescription medications. Others brought items of "nothing more
than personal convenience," such as makeup and mustache wax, the
judge said.

Employee Choice Dooms Claims

Apple could have safeguarded its property by prohibiting employees
from bringing bags and Apple products to work, Alsup said.
Allowing them to bring these items was an "optional benefit,"
conditioned upon compliance with the company's security screening,
the judge said.

In order to be "subject to the control of an employer" during a
putative compensable period, employee action must be constrained
and the activity must be mandatory, Alsup said. There is no
question that the searches constrained employees by requiring them
to wait when they wanted to leave, but the searches weren't
mandatory for employees who didn't bring bags or personal Apple
products, he said.

"Employee choice is dispositive," Alsup said. "That free choice is
fatal to their claims," he said.

But was it really free? asked Catherine Fisk, a University of
California at Irvine law professor. "I'm not sure that is a
meaningful choice," she told Bloomberg BNA Nov. 9. For example,
she said, employees who drive to work can leave their belongings
in their cars, but "employees who take the bus or public
transportation" don't have that option. Calling it a free choice
was "unrealistic," she said.

McLaughlin & Stern LLP, the Kralowec Law Group and the Law Firm of
Louis Ginsberg P.C. represented the workers. Littler Mendelson
P.C. represented Apple.


ARKANSAS: High Court Flips Cert. of Suit vs. Veterans Agency
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Rueters.com, reported that the
Arkansas Supreme Court torpedoed a wage and hour class action
against the state's Department of Veterans Affairs on, holding
that issues about unpaid meal time common to the workers failed to
outweigh individual considerations.

In its 4-3 decision, the high court reversed a lower court ruling
that certified a class of about 150 workers. Each of those workers
held one of more than 20 different positions with the department,
from cook to security officer, administrative assistant to
maintenance technician, the court noted.


ARSENAULT CHIROPRATIC: Faces "Messnick" Suit for FLSA Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Messnick, and others similarly situated, v. Arsenault
Chiropratic, P.A., and Robert Arsenault, Jr., Dcm, individually,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00569-MMH-PRL (M.D.Fla., Nov. 5, 2015) seeks to
recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
among others.

Chiropractors at Arsenault Chiropractic PA diagnose and treat
common spinal misalignments that can occur from lifestyle or
injuries causing pain, discomfort and degenerative conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James N. Turner, Esq.
     37 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 500
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (888) 877-5103


ASHDON FARMS: Recalls Honey Mustard Pretzel Mix Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashdon Farms, Waukesha, WI 53188 is alerting consumers that Honey
Mustard Pretzel Mix sold under the Girl Scouts of the USA brand
and Honey Mustard Mix sold under the Ashdon Farms brand
distributed to consumers on or before November 15, 2015 are being
recalled because milk is not declared in the contains statement on
the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume these
products. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

Girl Scouts of the USA branded product packaged in 7 oz bags (no
UPC code) has been sold through Girl Scout Councils and online
sales nationwide. Ashdon Farms branded product in 8 oz bags (UPC
79113-41184) has been sold through fund raising distributors
nationwide. Ashdon Farms is currently correcting the label at the
distribution level so that all product distributed to consumers on
or after Nov 16, 2015 will correctly declare the milk allergen.
ONLY PRODUCT DISTRIBUTED TO CONSUMERS ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER 15,
2015 IS AFFECTED.

Due to correction at the distribution level the product cannot be
identified based on code date. Affected packages can be identified
by the contains statement found immediately below the ingredient
listing. The contains statement on incorrect labels reads
"Contains: Cashews, Almonds, Soy, Wheat." Packages with the
correct label read "Contains: Cashews, Almonds, Soy, Wheat, Milk."

There have been no reports of illness or injury associated with
this product.

Milk allergic consumers who have purchased the product may contact
Ashdon Farms at 800-274-3666.


AUSTRALIA: Live Export Suit Ready to Launch, Lawyers Say
--------------------------------------------------------
Kristy O'Brien, writing for ABC News, reported that
Lawyers working on a class action against the Federal Government
over the 2011 live export suspension say they are set to reveal
strong evidence to support their case.

The Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association said it had nearly
completed gathering evidence for its live export class action,
which is calling for millions of dollars in compensation for
pastoralists and industry members.

The industry body said the suit, which is being launched by law
firm Minter Ellison, would launch after three years of
unsuccessfully trying to negotiate its claim with the Federal
Government.

The Brett Cattle Company, the lead claimant in the class action,
would now be able to view the material that the former minister
for agriculture Joe Ludwig used when he suspended live exports due
to animal cruelty allegations in 2011.

NT Cattlemen's Association CEO Tracey Hayes said their claim that
the suspension of trade was wrong would be vindicated.

"The material reviewed by law firm Minter Ellison supports Brett
Cattle Company's points of claim and builds on the industry's
long-held theory that the decision to suspend the trade in 2011
was rushed, made without real consultation and did little to
actually improve trade or animal welfare conditions," Ms Hayes
said.

Members of the Brett family, owners of the Brett Cattle Company,
are leading the fight after losing millions of dollars when they
could not send cattle to Indonesia from their station on the
Northern Territory and West Australian border.

The open class action is believed to include the full breadth of
industry players, from major corporates to smaller family-run
pastoral stations.

"The next significant task is to complete the picture of what
actually happened in the department and the minister's office in
the days leading up to the ban and present our evidence to the
court," Ms Hayes said.

Minter Ellison said it had also sought advice on the case from
retired judge Roger Gyles QC.

A representative from the law firm said in Mr Gyles' evaluation of
the draft statement of claim filed to the Federal Court, the
action had a "meaningful prospect of liability being established".

Mr Gyles' report traced the events from when Mr Ludwig made his
first order on June 2 banning the trade to 12 Indonesian
abattoirs, to his blanket ban on all live exports to Indonesia
five days later.

Ms Hayes said all potentially affected parties would now have the
opportunity to opt out of the class action, which is the final
formal step before the case proceeded to court.

The first hearing is expected to be in the second half of 2016.


BARCLAYS PLC: Settles LIBOR Class Suit for $120 Million
-------------------------------------------------------
Zacks.com, reported that Barclays PLC is strictly abiding by its
plans to quickly resolve "legacy litigation and conduct issues",
which it announced at a conference call following its third-
quarter earnings release.

Per a Bloomberg report, Barclays has agreed to shell out $120
million for settlement of charges related to manipulation of
London Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"), raised by private
investors in 2011.

Notably, a group of 27 plaintiffs had accused 16 banks for
reporting artificially low borrowing costs to ramp up earnings and
appear financially healthy. Lower borrowing costs resulted in
lower LIBOR, which adversely impacted individuals, and
institutions that invested in the bond market as well as pension
funds, mutual funds, money market funds, bank loan funds and
several derivative products whose rates are tied to LIBOR.

However, after initially dismissing the case in Mar 2013, U.S.
District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald had allowed these plaintiffs
to proceed with the same in August this year, based on a "viable
legal theory".

Taking note of such approval, Barclays geared up for a potential
legal fine by creating an additional provision of œ270 million
($419 million) during the third quarter of 2015. Besides legacy
benchmark litigations, the provision also serves as a reserve
against the potential settlement of two residential mortgage-
backed securities claims with the National Credit Union
Administration.

Nonetheless, the settlement still remains subject to approval from
Buchwald. Notably, the plaintiffs include investment broker The
Charles Schwab Corporation.

The latest agreement follows a $94-million settlement to resolve
similar claims raised against the bank for manipulating European
Interbank Offered Rate (Euribor), the euro-denominated equivalent
to LIBOR. Notably, Barclays is the first defendant bank to resolve
claims among 16 banks that were accused for manipulation of LIBOR
and 11 banks charged with rigging Euribor.

Apart from Barclays, Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG and London-
headquartered HSBC Holdings plc have been charged for rigging
these benchmark interest rates.

According to Hausfeld LLP, the law firm representing the 27
plaintiffs, Barclays' settlement "is an icebreaker that could open
up this litigation to future settlements." Moreover, Barclays will
likely aid in the resolution of litigations against other accused
banks.


BERTAGNI 1882: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bertagni 1882 SPA of Arcugnano, Italy is recalling Bertagni fresh
Sweet Butternut Squash Ravioli and Meijer frozen Butternut Squash
Ravioli because the products may contain undeclared cashew and
almond.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
cashew or almond run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.
Bertagni product is packaged in a paper tray inside a plastic bag
and wrapped around with paper band, and was distributed nationwide
between 5/11/15 and 11/12/15.  The affected lot code can be found
on the front of the Bertagni package.

Meijer product is packaged in a paper box and was distributed in
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin between 6/12/15
to 10/26/15.  The affected lot code can be found on the side panel
of Meijer package.

The recalled products are listed in the table below:

  Brand     Product    UPC       Lot     Expiration   Retail Unit
  Name      Name       ---       Codes   dates        Size
  ----      -------              -----   ----------   -----------
  Bertagni  Sweet      8001020-  506B,   from 8/3/16  8.8 oz.
            Butternut  110139    508C,   to 1/29/17
            Squash               511D,
            Ravioli              512C,
                                 513B,
                                 516B,
                                 520A,
                                 522B,
                                 522F,
                                 523B,
                                 523C,
                                 529C,
                                 530F,
                                 531F,
                                 535C,
                                 536A
  Meijer    Butternut 760236-    519E    11/5/2016      12 oz.
            Squash    398479
            Ravioli

There have been no injuries or illnesses reported to date
associated with these products.  The recall was initiated because
tests by an outside agency showed the presence of almond and
cashew on raw material used in production of these products.
Customers who purchased the recalled product should return it to
the point of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact Bertagni at quality@bertagni1882.it. Meijer customers
may contact Meijer directly at 877-363-4537.

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


BIG LOT: Faces Class Action for Violating FCRA
----------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR Check, reported that
A class action lawsuit filed in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
against Big Lots Stores Inc. claims the retail discount store
chain allegedly conducted improper background checks on employees
in violation of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
according to a report from TopClassActions.com.

TopClassActions.com reports the lead plaintiff, Aaron Abel, claims
extraneous information was included in the form Big Lots used to
obtain consent from job applicants for background checks in
violation of the FCRA when Abel applied to work at a Big Lots
store in November 2013.

Abel argues that the form he signed called 'Consent to Request
Consumer Report & Investigative Consumer Report Information' is
not a sufficient "disclosure that a consumer report may be
obtained for employment purposes nor an authorization for the
procurement of a consumer report."

The lawsuit claims that the form also contains the statement "that
all employment decisions are based on legitimate non-
discriminatory reasons." Abel seeks statutory damages in the
amount of $100 and $1,000 for each job applicant whose FCRA rights
were allegedly violated by Big Lots.

The lawsuit is Aaron Abel v. Big Lots Stores Inc., Case No.
151100286, in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

The FCRA requires that "a clear and conspicuous disclosure has
been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report
is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists
solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained
for employment purposes."

This requirement for "a clear and conspicuous disclosure" is by
far the most common claim made in recent FCRA class action
lawsuits. In 2015 alone, companies such as Food Lion, Home Depot,
Chuck E. Cheese, BMW, and Whole Foods paid settlements in FCRA
lawsuits ranging from $803,000 to $3 million.

In addition, an article in The National Law Review describes a new
breed of "phony job seekers" looking for FCRA violations instead
of work by submitting job applications "solely to position
themselves as the named plaintiff in class action litigation and
secure a windfall settlement or litigation recovery."

Employment Screening Resources (ESR) reminds readers that
allegations made in FCRA class action lawsuits are not proof that
a business violated any law, rule, or regulation. For more blogs
about FCRA class action lawsuits, visit
www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/tag/class-action-lawsuits/


BLUE BUFFALO: Recalls Cub Size Wild Chews Bones Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Company is voluntarily recalling one production lot
of Cub Size Wilderness Wild Chews Bones. This is being done in an
abundance of caution, as the product has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the product and there is risk
to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if
they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact
with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely,
Salmonella can result in more serious ailments including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
provider.

Pets with Salmonella infections may have decreased appetite, fever
and abdominal pain. Other clinical signs may include lethargy,
diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, and vomiting. Infected but otherwise
healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans.
If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these
symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

The product was distributed starting November 19, 2015 in PetSmart
stores located in the following 9 states: California, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and
Washington. The recalled product comes individually shrink-wrapped
in plastic with the UPC number 840243110087 printed on a sticker
affixed to the product, and an expiration date of November 4,
2017, printed as "exp 110417" on the shrink-wrap. Consumers should
look at the UPC Code and expiration date on the product package to
determine if it is subject to the voluntary recall.

The voluntary recall is limited to the following product and
production lot:

  Product Name           UPC Code         Expiration Date
  ------------           --------         ---------------
  Cub Size Wilderness    840243110087     November 4, 2017
  Wild Chews Bone

Routine testing at the manufacturing site revealed the presence of
Salmonella in the product. No illnesses have been reported to date
and no other Blue Buffalo products are affected.
Consumers who have purchased the product subject to this recall
are urged to dispose of the product or return it to the place of
purchase for full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Blue Buffalo at: 888-641-9736
from 8 AM to 5 PM Eastern Time Monday through Friday and the
weekend of November 28, 2015, or by email at
Bluebuffalo4260@stericycle.com for more information.

About Blue Buffalo

Blue Buffalo, based in Wilton, CT, is a pet products company that
makes natural foods and treats for dogs and cats.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WYH98w


BOIRON INC: Judge Deies Class Status to Suit Over Flu Remedy
------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook Country Record, reported that
A federal judge has denied class certification in a lawsuit
against the maker of a homeopathic flu remedy, but is permitting
the man who filed the suit to proceed with his claim for
individual relief.

Plaintiff Chad Conrad sued Boiron Inc. and Boiron USA Inc.,
manufacturer of a homeopathic remedy called Oscillococcinum, sold
under the name Oscillo. According to the lawsuit, Boiron claimed
the remedy would relieve flu-like symptoms.

"The principal allegation . . . has been that Oscillo is nothing
more than a sugar pill because its active ingredient, Anas
Barbariae (a combination of duck hearts and livers) is diluted so
extensively in the homeopathic manufacturing process that there is
no statistical possibility that even a single molecule of it
remains in the final product," wrote U.S. District Judge William
T. Hart in his opinion issued Nov. 12.

Because Oscillo is a homeopathic remedy, it is not regulated by
the FDA, which does not regulate vitamins, herbs and homeopathic
supplements.

In his suit, Conrad, who purchased Oscillo in late July 2012,
sought to represent all people who purchased the drug on or after
the same date, as permitted by the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The judge noted similar allegations have already been made against
Oscillo, including a case in the Southern District of California
that resulted in a class settlement and was affirmed on appeal.
That settlement, reached in October 2012 and affirmed in 2015,
provided reimbursement to past purchasers of Oscillo, required
changes to the product's labeling and set up a refund program
under which customers could obtain refunds within 14 days of
purchase by providing their contact information, the product UPC
and the original cash register receipt.

The judge noted Conrad could have benefited from the refund
period, but purchased the drug outside of the class period of the
settlement. He also noted that class certification has been denied
in two other lawsuits regarding Oscillo.

Conrad's case was stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the
Southern California case. Once that case was settled, Boiron moved
to dismiss the case or at least to strike the class allegations.
Among the company's arguments was that Conrad's claim was rendered
moot by the existing refund program and the fact that the company
offered to settle with him before he filed his lawsuit.

The judge found the circumstances did not moot the case, but the
offer Boiron made to Conrad before he filed the suit --
reimbursing him the cost of the drug plus an additional 25 percent
and reasonable attorney fees and costs -- mean that he cannot be
an adequate class representative, because the amount of the offer
"exceeds any refund he could have obtained, as well as any actual
damages that he suffered." The class certification was denied, and
the claims of the putative class were dismissed.

The judge dismissed Conrad's claim for injunctive relief, finding
Conrad cannot suffer future harm because he has no intention of
buying Oscillo again. While the offer fully compensates the
individual damages claim, it also asks for complete judgment in
return, preventing Conrad from ever appealing. That finding
resulted in the court's opinion that the offer is not one of full
compensation. Hart ruled that Conrad may proceed with his
individual damages claim, and ordered the parties to discuss
settlement before the next status hearing, scheduled for Nov. 19.

Conrad is represented in the action by the firms of Siprut PC and
Boodell & Domanskis, of Chicago, and Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
Balint, of Phoenix.

Boiron is represented by the firms of Arnstein & Lehr, of Chicago,
and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, of Washington, D.C.


BOYLE'S FAMOUS: Recalls Beef Products Due to Wheat Protein
----------------------------------------------------------
Boyle's Famous Corned Beef Co., a Kansas City, Mo. establishment,
is recalling an undetermined amount of beef products due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains hydrolyzed wheat protein, a known allergen
which is not declared on the product label.

The Beef Top Round was produced between Nov. 24, 2013 and Nov. 24,
2015. The following product is subject to recall:

  --- Approximately 20-lb. cases containing "Boyle's FAMOUS USDA
      CHOICE SEASONED-COOKED BEEF TOP ROUND."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. M-
469" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The items were shipped to
distributors in Iowa, Kansas and Missouri.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel while conducting
allergen verification tasks. The inspector discovered that a
seasoning pack containing hydrolyzed wheat protein was added into
the product without listing wheat on the final product label.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and Media with questions about the recall can contact
Gregg Ouverson, General Manager, at (816) 221-6284.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls SpaghettiOs Products Due to Choking Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company (NYSE:CPB) is voluntarily recalling 14.2
ounce cans of SpaghettiOs Original due to a potential choking
hazard posed by pieces of red plastic found in a small number of
cans. This plastic material is from parts of the can lining which
may peel off.

The affected 14.2 ounce SpaghettiOs Original product has a date of
February 22, 2017 which is stamped on the base of the can, and a
UPC code of 51000 22432 printed under the bar code.

The issue was identified after the company received consumer
complaints.

This recall affects 355,000 cans and is limited to the United
States.

This product should not be eaten. People who have bought the
affected product should return it to the store where it was
purchased for an exchange or full refund. For more information
call 1-866-535-3774 between 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST, Monday to Friday
or visit Facebook/SpaghettiOs. Campbell Soup Company apologizes
for the inconvenience.

Campbell (NYSE:CPB) is driven and inspired by our Purpose, "Real
food that matters for life's moments." The company makes a range
of high-quality soups and simple meals, beverages, snacks and
packaged fresh foods. For generations, people have trusted
Campbell to provide authentic, flavorful and readily available
foods and beverages that connect them to each other, to warm
memories, and to what's important today. Led by its iconic
Campbell's brand, the company's portfolio includes Pepperidge
Farm, Bolthouse Farms, Arnott's, V8, Swanson, Pace, Prego, Plum,
Royal Dansk, Kjeldsens and Garden Fresh Gourmet. Founded in 1869,
Campbell has a heritage of giving back and acting as a good
steward of the planet's natural resources. The company is a member
of the Standard & Poor's 500 and the Dow Jones Sustainability
Indexes. For more information, visit www.campbellsoupcompany.com
or follow company news on Twitter via @CampbellSoupCo.

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


CASEY'S BAKERY: Recalls Snickers Cake Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------
Casey's Bakery Inc. of Sioux Center, Iowa is voluntarily recalling
all Snickers 8x8 cakes produced prior November 14, 2015, because
the cakes contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

Snickers 8x8 cake was distributed to stores in Orange City,
Hartley and Hawarden by delivery to grocery stores. The cakes were
also sold out of the Casey's Bakery retail store in Sioux Center.
The cakes were only distributed within the state of Iowa.

All cakes with date codes prior to 696 or purchased before Nov.
14, 2015 are being recalled. The code may be found on the back of
the product package. Cakes come in individual foil trays with
clear plastic lids and are sold frozen. Net weight is 23 oz.

No Illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was voluntarily initiated after a label inspection was
performed and it was discovered the label did not properly claim
peanuts in the toppings as an ingredient. The labeling has been
updated and all current Snickers 8x8 cakes properly declare the
peanuts in the toppings on the Ingredient List.

This recall does not apply to any other Casey's Bakery Products.

Consumers may return the product to Casey's Bakery Inc. for a full
refund. For more information, contact Kathy De Groot at 712-722-
2551 9 am to 5 pm CST Monday through Friday.

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


CHS INC: Recalls Feeds for Mature Cattle, Horses, Goats & Sheep
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHS Inc. announced it has implemented a voluntary recall of 50-
pound packages of its Kountry Buffet 14% Text and Provider 15%
Pellet, both for Mature Cattle, Horses, Goats & Sheep due to
excessive levels of copper.

No illnesses or deaths have been reported to date. Consumption of
the affected product may cause potential health risks, including
death, in sheep. Symptoms of copper toxicity in sheep include
lethargy, anemic appearance, excessive teeth grinding, extreme
thirst, pale membranes (jaundice) and bloody urine.

The recalled products were manufactured in September 2015 and
October 2015 at CHS Inc.'s Harrisburg, Ore., feed mill and
distributed to 42 customers in Oregon and Washington. Kountry
Buffet 14% Text features a salmon-colored label attached to a
brown bag. Provider 15% Pellet features a yellow label attached to
a brown bag. Affected Lot numbers for either product can be found
at the bottom of the label and are as follows:

  Kountry Buffet 14% Text Lot #       Provider 15% Pellet Lot #
  -----------------------------       -------------------------
  85092415-M702660                    85101415-M732580
  85100615-M720130                    85101515-M734810
  85101215-M728050
  85101515-M734590
  85102315-M748470

The potential presence of high copper levels was detected by
routine sample tests of the product conducted by a third-party
lab. After notifying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in
early November, the company began to proactively contact affected
dealers and end consumers to inform each of the voluntary recall
of all unconsumed product in the listed Lot numbers.
Consumers who purchased this product and have remaining quantities
should immediately discontinue use and are urged to return them to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at (800) 398-0327 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. CDT. Information also is available at
http://www.paybacknutrition.com.

CHS Inc. (www.chsinc.com) is a leading global agribusiness owned
by farmers, ranchers and cooperatives across the United States.
Diversified in energy, grains and foods, CHS is committed to
helping its customers, farmer-owners and other stakeholders grow
their businesses through its domestic and global operations. CHS,
a Fortune 100 company, supplies energy, crop nutrients, grain
marketing services, animal feed, food and food ingredients, along
with business solutions including insurance, financial and risk
management services. The company operates petroleum
refineries/pipelines and manufactures, markets and distributes
Cenex(R) brand refined fuels, lubricants, propane and renewable
energy products.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/BKEKq3


DELTA PETROLEUM: Feb. 19 Fairness Hearing of $3.2MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A summary in RE: issued by Federman & Sherwood regarding the Delta
Petroleum Corporation Securities Litigation.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01038-CMA-CBS (Consolidated for all
purposes with Civil Action No. 12-cv-01521-CMA-CBS)

PATIPAN NAKKHUMPUN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL J. TAYLOR, JOHN R.
WALLACE, CARL E. LAKEY, and KEVIN K. NANKE, Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION AND
SETTLEMENT HEARING THEREON

TO:       ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF DELTA
PETROLEUM CORPORATION ("DELTA") DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 11,
2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 9, 2011, INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, that Lead Plaintiff
in the above-captioned litigation (the "Litigation") have reached
a proposed settlement with Defendants for $3,200,000.00 in cash,
plus interest earned (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held on February 19, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Christine M. Arguello, United States District Judge,
in Courtroom A602 of the United States District Court, Alfred A.
Arraj Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, CO 80294, for the
purpose of determining:  (1) whether the Court should certify the
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed
Settlement of $3,200,000.00 in cash, plus any return thereon,
should be approved by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with
prejudice as against Defendants and their Corresponding Released
Parties as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
September 18, 2015; (4) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should be approved; (5)
whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in connection with the Litigation should be approved; and (6) such
other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If you purchased Delta's common stock during the period of March
11, 2010 through November 9, 2011, inclusive, your rights may be
affected by the settlement of the Litigation.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action and Settlement Hearing Thereon (the "Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to Delta Petroleum Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler
Claims Group, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 59028, Philadelphia,
PA  19102-9028, or by calling 1-855-887-3480.  You may also obtain
copies on the internet at www.DeltaPetroleumSettlement.com.
Complete information concerning the Litigation may be obtained
from the Court files on this matter.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely
submit a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address
provided above and postmarked no later than January 29, 2016.  If
you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound
by any judgment or orders entered by the Court.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the
address above and postmarked no later than January 29, 2016, in
the manner and form detailed in the Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Litigation
and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner
detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered
to Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Defendants, such
that it is received by each party no later than January 29, 2016,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
Any questions, should be directed to:
Claims Administrator:

Delta Petroleum Securities Litigation
c/o Heffler Claims Group
P.O. Box 59028
Philadelphia, PA  19102-9028
(855) 887-3480
www.DeltaPetroleumSettlement.com

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
(405) 235-1560

wbf@federmanlaw.com

DATED: November 23, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLORADO


DR. REDDY'S: Lundin Law Files Class Suit Over FDA Approvals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rita Mcdonald, writing for Observer Leader Daily News, reported
that an American law firm Lundin Law PC said it is initiating an
investigation against the Indian drug maker related to the FDA
action.

The development comes days after the home-grown pharma giant
received warning letters from the US Food and Drug Administration
(USFDA) over inadequate quality controls at three of its
manufacturing facilities in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. The
warning means the company would not receive USA approvals for
drugs made at the plants until it fixes the problems. Most stocks
have already corrected before law suits filed against them.

Shares of Dr Reddy's Laboratories are trading at Rs 3,330.45, down
Rs 45.1, or 1.34% at the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) on at 12:15
p.m. A class action lawsuit involves one or several persons suing
a company on behalf of a larger group of persons. In FY2015, Dr
Reddy's registered an annual sales of Rs 10,010.94 crore. Since
the announcement, the market cap of DRL has slumped by close to Rs
16,000 crore.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
or if you are a Dr Reddy's shareholder and are interested in
learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by
e-mail or by phone at 619-814-4471. The other US-based global law
firms including Goldberg Law PC, Rosen Law Firm, Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC, Khang and Khang LLP, Howard G Smith, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP have also announced investigating claims of potential
misrepresentations by Dr Reddy's Laboratories of possible
violations of federal securities laws.

Subsequent to the ANDA filings for Nexium generic by Dr Reddy's a
few years ago, the Dr Reddy's petition said AZ had sued Dr Reddy's
for patent infringement and during that suit, DRL produced
portions of its ANDA and physical samples, which disclosed the
ingredients, form, packaging and look of its proposed generic
product, including that its proposed capsule was purple.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles, according to the firm's statement.

Brian Lundin, Esq
LUNDIN LAW PC
10 Post Office Rd #300
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Tel: 888-713-1033
Email: brian@lundinlawpc.com


EAGLE BOYS: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Wage Fraud
----------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that one of the country's biggest pizza chains, Eagle Boys, is
battling to raise up to $20 million in capital, amid a savage
price war, a fractious relationship with some of its franchisees
and allegations of wage fraud in some of its stores.

An information memorandum, obtained by Fairfax Media, says Eagle
Boys "makes available access to participation in the ownership of
up to 100 per cent of this unique Australian-owned quick service
food franchising brand".

It says the funds will be used to retire a "significant" amount of
debt, open 50 corporate stores, invest in technology and expand
the franchise network ahead of an IPO in the next three to five
years.

The information memorandum was issued in September with a closing
date of October 31 and new shares to be issued on November 30.
However, speculation is rife that the raising has not been a
success.

The company refused to confirm whether the raising had closed and
if the speculation was correct.

It said in a statement: "The Eagle Boys board of directors is
looking to partner with investors across Pan Asia to help develop
and grow the brand of this legendary Australian business."

Eagle Boys is 85 per cent owned by private equity outfit NBC
Capital, which acquired the majority stake in the third biggest
pizza chain in 2007.

However, since the acquisition, Eagle Boys has been dogged by a
string of controversies, including a legal stoush with some
franchisees, a revolving door of management and a dramatic
reduction in stores to 155 in Australia and 200 globally. At its
peak Eagle Boys was the nation's second biggest pizza chain with
340 Australian stores.

The information memorandum says on a normalised basis, EBITDA was
$1.6 million in 2015, compared with $1.4 million in 2014.

The document, which says "forward looking statements should not be
regarded as a representation or warranty with respect to their
accuracy or their accuracy of the underlying assumptions",
estimates a massive spike in EBITDA to $5 million by 2018.

Franchise fight

Sydney lawyer Richard Mitry, of Mitry Lawyers, told this columnist
a class action by franchisees could not be ruled out. Mitry is
representing two franchisees in a cross claim against Eagle Boys.

He said in the past 18 months at least 30 franchisees had
contacted him in relation to taking legal action against Eagle
Boys. He said many of them had become insolvent or bankrupt as a
result of their dealing with Eagle Boys.

There are also allegations that some franchisees, who have been
squeezed by savage price wars, have underpaid workers and delivery
drivers. Eagle Boys said it wasn't aware of any "current"
allegations or complaints by delivery workers in relation to any
of the Eagle Boys franchisee stores.

It follows revelations that franchisees at Australia's second-
biggest pizza chain, Pizza Hut, are using "sham" contracts to pay
delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or
WorkCover.

It comes hot on the heels of a joint investigation by Four Corners
and Fairfax Media that revealed systemic worker exploitation at 7-
Eleven. Workers at a range of fast-food chains, nail salons,
restaurants and retail stores have also been caught out
underpaying and mistreating workers, many of whom are
international students.

During the past few years, savage price wars have erupted in the
pizza industry as the big chains, Pizza Hut, Domino's and Eagle
Boys, have slugged it out to get market share. The price war sent
some franchisees to the wall, and in Pizza Hut's case, it prompted
90 per cent of franchisees to launch a class action in the federal
court, alleging unconscionable conduct under the franchising code.

Fairfax Media reported that a number of Eagle Boy franchisees were
facing bankruptcy or insolvency. The article cited a number of
franchisees who said their problems began when NBC Capital bought
into the business and stopped radio, television and letterbox
advertising.

Advertising a common complaint

The issue of advertising has been a common theme among
franchisees. Under the terms of the franchise agreement, Eagle
Boys set up an advertising fund that it administered and
controlled to improve the advertising support of franchisees. The
arrangement required that franchisees pay an advertising levy
based on the weekly calculations of the franchisee's gross sales
for the previous week.

Legal documents lodged in the Magistrates Court of Queensland
between Eagle Boys and two franchisees, allege that at a Western
Australian franchisee meeting franchisees were told that Eagle
Boys didn't have the "requisite funds to advertise". It alleges
from May 2013 Eagle Boys had not advertised and had removed
advertising from all mediums, which is in breach of the agreement.

Asked if there was any inappropriate use of the AdFund, the
company's response was a perfunctory: "the AdFund has been audited
each year and is compliant with the Franchising Code of Conduct."

When asked why the information memorandum didn't mention its
relationship with some franchisees or threat of a legal action, it
said: "Eagle Boys remains committed to protecting the Eagle Boys
brand and maintaining focus on the business in a competitive
industry."

But the information memorandum does discuss competitor activity
and the trading environment. "The pizza war between Domino's and
Pizza Hut which started has had an impact on the group's business.
There was a lag effect of eight weeks, in line with standard
consumer behaviour. Franchisees did not support reacting to the
price war until 10 weeks after the start."

Whether that means the franchisees are to blame for dragging their
heels, or something else, is hard to tell. Whatever the case,
Eagle Boys, in its information memorandum, says it has waded into
price wars and is offering $4.95 pizzas across two menu categories
on.

Meanwhile, franchisees continue to complain, some workers and
delivery drivers allege underpayment of wages and the company is
trying to expand its footprint and find new shareholders. It will
be an interesting next chapter.


EMC CORP: Faces Suit Over Plan to Sell Co. to Dell for $64BB
------------------------------------------------------------
Su Ma, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Joseph M. Tucci, Jose E. Almeida, Michael W. Brown,
Donald J. Carty, Randolph L. Cowen, James S. Distasio, John R.
Egan, William D. Green, Edmund F. Kelly, Jami Miscik, Paul Sagan,
Laura J. Sen, EMC Corporation, Denali Holding Inc., Dell Inc., and
Universal Acquisition Co., Case no: 15-3281 (Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Suffolk County, SS. Superior Court Department of the
Trial Court, Nov. 29, 2015), was brought on behalf of purported
shareholders of EMC Corporation against EMC's Board of
Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty arising from
their attempt to sell the Company to Denali Holding Inc. and Dell
Inc. for a Proposed Transaction valued at approximately $64
billion.

EMC purports to be a global leader in enabling businesses and
service providers to transform their operations and deliver IT as
a service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
     Steven P. Harte, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 0211 0
     Phone: (617) 398-5600
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: jeff@blockesq .com
             jason@blockesq.com
             steven@blockesq.com
             jake@blockesq.com
             joel@blockesq.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     369 Lexington Avenue, lOth Floor
     New York, New York 10017
     Phone: (212)-983-9330
     Fax: (212)-983-9331
     E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
             imelamed@faruqilaw.com


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Due to Loss of Info in Cyber-Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Vazquez and Jenifer Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Experian Holdings, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-01813 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 5, 2015), asserts claims for
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business & Professional Code, and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act because of the
loss of sensitive personal information of an alleged 15 million
consumers due to a cyber-attack.

Experian is a consumer reporting agency, which regularly engages
in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit
information or other information on consumers for the purpose of
furnishing consumer reports to third parties on a nationwide
basis.

The Plaintiffs are represented by

     Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
     Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
     Marisa C. Livesay, Esq.
     Brittany N. Dejong , Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/239-4599
     Fax: 619/234-4599
     E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
            rickert@whafh.com
            livesay@whafh.com
            dejong@whafh.com

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
     Courtny E. Maccarone, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINKSY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (232) 363-7500
     Fax: (866) 367-6510
     E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
             nkulesa@zlk.com
             cmaccarone@zlk.com


FACEBOOK: Austrian Supreme Court to Decide on Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Sayer, writing for PCWorld.com, reported that the Austrian
privacy activist who has become a thorn in Facebook's side will
have his case considered by his country's supreme court as it
weighs whether a class action suit against the social networking
company can go ahead.

Max Schrems sued Facebook in the local court in his home town of
Vienna, alleging that the company breached European Union privacy
laws.

He also sought to join complaints from thousands of other Facebook
users with his own in a sort of class action.

When the local court rejected his case, saying it did not have
jurisdiction, Schrems turned to the Vienna court of appeal.It
overturned 20 of the 22 procedural and jurisdictional objections
upheld by the local court, allowing Schrems' individual case to
proceed, but still turned down his planned class action.

On Nov. 2, Schrems sought a ruling from the Austrian supreme court
that the class action could go ahead -- while Facebook also turned
to the supreme court seeking to overturn the appeals court ruling.

Now the supreme court has agreed to hear the case, Schrems said.

The supreme court may choose not to decide the class action
question for itself, and may instead refer it to the Court of
Justice of the European Union -- the same court that recently
struck down the Safe Harbor transatlantic data sharing agreement
in another case brought by Schrems against Facebook, this time in
the Irish courts.

Also on, Schrems published his legal team's response to Facebook's
appeal filing. In it he asked the supreme court not to delay the
entire case in the Vienna local court if it should choose to refer
questions to the CJEU, but only to stay those parts of the action
regarding which it had questions. He did this in the interests of
a speedy and inexpensive case, he wrote.

There will be no hearing in the supreme court case, according to
Schrems: all arguments are written, and the ruling will come
early.

Facebook had little new to say on the record about the case.

"We're awaiting the decision," a Facebook spokeswoman said via
email.

She also repeated remarks made by company representatives when the
Vienna appeals court announced its ruling: "This litigation was
unnecessary. We're pleased that the court affirmed the key rulings
that these claims could not proceed as a global class action and
that the Austrian court does not have jurisdiction to hear these
claims."


FIT FIRM: Recalls Herbal Slimcap Capsules Due to Sibutramine
------------------------------------------------------------
Fit Firm and Fabulous is voluntarily recalling lots 05/02/2015 to
05/01/2017 of Ultimate Herbal Slimcap capsules, to the consumer
level. FDA analysis has found the product to contain undeclared
sibutramine. Sibutramine was a previously approved controlled
substance that was removed from the U.S. market in October 2010
for safety reasons. This ingredient makes Ultimate Herbal Slimcap
an unapproved drug for which safety and efficacy have not been
established and, therefore, subject to recall.

Products containing sibutramine pose a threat to consumers because
sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure
and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant
risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease,
congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke. These products
may also interact in life threatening ways with other medications
a consumer may be taking. To date, Fit Firm and Fabulous has not
received any reports of adverse events related to this recall.

The product is a dietary supplement marketed for weight loss and
is packaged in 30-count bottles, labeled Part 1 of 3, UPC 5 42423
25422 1. The affected Ultimate Herbal Slimcap lots include the
following lots 05/02/2015 to 05/01/2017. The product can be
identified by. Ultimate Herbal Slimcaps was distributed Nationwide
via the website.

Fit Firm and Fabulous has notified its distributors and customers
by telephone and has arranged for return or destroy of all
recalled products. Consumers/distributors/retailers that have
product which is being recalled should stop using and discard.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Fit
Firm and Fabulous by e-mail at
customerservice@fitfirmandfabulous.com on Monday through Friday
from 9 am EST and 5 pm EST Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Ea5qKd


FIVE PAWNS: Faces Multimillion Dollar Suit for False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaleigh Rogers, writing for Motherboard, reported that a group of
three vapers has filed a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit
for false advertising against a US company that makes flavored
liquids for e-cigarettes.

The suit alleges that Five Pawns, a high-end e-liquid
manufacturer, violated state and federal false advertising laws by
misleading consumers about certain flavoring chemicals found in
some of its liquids. The chemicals have been linked to lung
disease when inhaled and are found in many vaping products, but
the lawsuit claims Five Pawns lied to its consumers about using
the chemicals.

Five Pawns, which is based out of California, has made a name for
itself in the vaping market as a luxury brand. It offers hand-
made, small-batch e-liquids-the flavored, usually nicotine-laced
liquids used in vaporizers like e-cigs-with a luxury price tag to
match. A 30 mL bottle of one of Five Pawns's flavors will run you
$27.50, compared to as little as $8 per 30 mL for some other
brands.

However, the company landed in hot water earlier this year after
it published test results that revealed many of its liquids
contained high levels of a chemical commonly used in food
flavoring called acetyl propionyl (AP). AP gives foods (and vapor)
a creamy, buttery taste and texture (it's commonly used in
microwave popcorn) and is nearly identical to another chemical
called diacetyl (DA), which has been linked to serious lung
disease when inhaled by factory workers. Though the long-term
effects of inhaling DA or AP through vaping have not been studied,
some vapers prefer to avoid the chemicals.

Five Pawns is far from the only company to use the chemicals-AP
and diacetyl are very common in certain kinds of e-liquid flavors,
like butterscotch and caramel. But the lawsuit asserts that Five
Pawns e-liquids misled customers about its use of the chemicals.
The lawsuit alleges that Five Pawns claimed to have eliminated all
diacetyl from its products, but later tests showed many liquids
still contained trace amounts. It also claims that Five Pawns
purposely told consumers its products were free of DA and AP
despite having test results that showed the contrary, and asserts
that the levels of AP were egregiously high:

Since the vaping market is unregulated in the US, there are no
laws about having to disclose certain ingredients to consumers or
warn about potential harm. However, the suit is specifically
accusing Five Pawns of misleading and deceiving its customers,
which is illegal.

John Bowerbank, the attorney representing Five Pawns, told me via
email that the company refutes the claims, and that the company
said the lawsuit is "unfounded and without merit."

"Five Pawns is leading the industry with regard to safety and
transparency on this issue and we intend to vigorously dispute the
claims and allegations in the lawsuit," the company wrote in a
statement sent by Bowerbank. "Five Pawns will fight aggressively
on behalf of itself and the entire vaping industry to set a
precedent to avoid copycat lawsuits against other vaping companies
that are driven by the improper motive to line one's pockets by
forcing undue monetary settlements."

The three plaintiffs brought forward the lawsuit in California,
under the representation of a New York law firm. Though it doesn't
demand a specific amount in damages, the suit states that the
damages sought exceed $5 million. The suit is open for any other
customer who bought Five Pawns liquids in the last three years to
join in.

Filing a suit is the easy part, but getting that suit certified
class action and actually making it to trial is a difficult task,
so it's yet to be seen whether or not Five Pawns will have to face
these allegations in court. But the filing highlights the growing
tension between a passionate consumer base and unregulated
manufacturers. There's clearly a need for some structure in the
market, which is expected to hit $3.5 billion globally this year.
And whether this lawsuit makes it to court or not, as the industry
tries to cope with its rapid growing pains, more lawsuits could
easily be on the horizon.


FLINT, MI: Show Cause Hearing in Water Bill Increase Suit Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
MLive.com reported that a court hearing has been set to see if the
city of Flint is complying with a mid-August ruling preventing it
from shutting off water for some past-due bills.

Attorney Val Washington, who is representing Flint residents in a
class action lawsuit, said in a Monday, Nov. 16, court hearing the
city may not be complying with Genesee Circuit Judge Archie
Hayman's August ruling. During nine months in 2011, city water
customers saw a 57 percent increase in their water bills -- not
the 35 percent increase that was used for the recent adjustments
to city water bills, Washington said.

"Now we know there was another illegal increase in January 2011,"
Washington said. He included 10 to 15 billing statements to show
recently issued water adjustments but said those water customers'
bills have not gone down.

Hayman scheduled a  hearing on Washington's claims and the steps
the city made to inform Flint water customers about the recent
changes made because of his August order.

"It was a great concern to me that the information be communicated
to the public correctly," Hayman said. "I think it was important
to bring this back up ... Water is serious in every community. To
me, I want to make sure that the improvement is protected." Hayman
said he was primarily concerned with senior citizens who may not
fully understand what is going on with their water bills.

The city recently sent water bills showing adjustments based on
Hayman's August judgment.

Fraser Trebilcock, who is representing the city of Flint, said the
city has followed the judge's order and this is an attempt to
prevent the city from being able to smoothly move forward with the
appeal process.

"The government is immune to those proceedings that would prevent
it from moving forward," he said. "The city has been in full
compliance with the order."

Washington also asked Hayman to prevent water shutoffs until all
court proceedings are finished. Hayman said he would not.

"We're trying to figure out if those delinquencies that they have
are because of improper increases in water rates," Hayman said.
"But once we get past that day...you can shut people water off if
they don't pay. That's all I have said. Because I believe that is
fair."

"In my opinion there are a lot of people who pay their water
bills," Hayman said. "People have to pay their water bills."
Hayman also made it clear during the Nov. 16 hearing that there is
still uncertainty where $15.7 million that was taken from the
water fund went.

"There is an issue here when you take the $15.7 million out of the
water fund and you pay this lawsuit," Hayman said. "Is that an
issue of maintenance, administration cost or operations cost of
the water fund?" Hayman said according to law the water fund is
only to be used for maintenance, administrative and operational
costs.

The class action lawsuit, which was prompted by Flint resident
Larry Shears, claims the city illegally raised water and sewer
rates in 2011.

"People also need to know how it impacted them," Hayman added.
"Are they paying higher water bills to put that money back?" The
show cause hearing is scheduled for noon in Hayman's courtroom at
the Genesee County Circuit Court building, 900 S. Saginaw St.


FUNERARIAS DE LAS: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit for FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Rodriguez and other similarly-situated individuals, v.
Funerarias De Las Americas Internacional Inc., Signal Finance
Company LLC, Miami Funeral Services & Crematories, Inc., Hilbert
Mohabir, Dayana Sosa and Estrella Rodero, individually, Case No.
1:15-cv-24154-CMA (S.D.Fla., Nov. 5, 2015), seeks to recover money
damages for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide funeral home and crematory services in the
areas of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs Due to Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
All lots of Market District brand Apricot Logs and Poppyseed Logs
prepared and sold individually from the Bakery department inside
Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets with sell by dates
from November 7, 2015 through November 17, 2015 have been
voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared milk
allergen.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. The product is safe for
consumption by those who do not have milk allergies.

Approximately 460 potentially affected Apricot Logs and Poppyseed
Logs were purchased in various transactions in Giant Eagle and
Market District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia
and Maryland. There are no reported illnesses to date associated
with this recall.

The logs were sold individually from the Bakery department with
UPCs of:

  --- 219772 509998         Market District Apricot Log
  --- 219773 509997         Market District Poppyseed Log

Giant Eagle became aware of the issue after a quality assurance
review of the ingredient declaration. The product label for the
bakery logs, which contain milk, omitted milk as an allergen.
Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected
product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant
Eagle or Market District store for a refund.  Customers with
questions may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324
Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. EST.

In addition to this public communication regarding this recall,
Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification
process. The consumer recall process uses purchase data and
consumer telephone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage
Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the
affected product and have updated telephone contact information in
the database.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fooN3j


GENERAL MOTORS: Cassels Brock Continues Appeal for $45MM Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Etienne, writing for Law TimesNews, reported that litigation
related to the class action involving Cassels Brock & Blackwell
LLP continues with the firm appealing the $45 million in damages
assessed against it in July and its third-party claim against 150
lawyers from across the country heading to a jurisdictional
hearing in early December.

In its notice of appeal, Cassels Brock is seeking to have the
judgment against it set aside, the actions against it dismissed
with costs or, failing that, a new trial.

"The reasons of the trial judge are deficient, internally
inconsistent, fail to properly characterize the evidence at trial
and do not demonstrate that the trial judge considered material
aspects of the evidence before him," the firm stated in its notice
of appeal.

In his decision this summer in Trillium Motor World Ltd. v.
General Motors of Canada Ltd., Justice Thomas McEwen found Cassels
Brock had breached contractual and fiduciary duties it owed to
some or all of the class members. As well, he found it had
breached a duty of care.

In 2009, General Motors eliminated about 200 dealers during the
government's bailout of the auto sector. The class action against
GM was seeking $750 million in damages on behalf of those dealers.
Also named in the suit was Cassels Brock, which the dealers
claimed to have retained during GM's restructuring through its
retainer with the Canadian Automotive Dealers Association. The
claim alleged Cassels Brock had failed to disclose it was also
acting for the Canadian government in the bailout and had breached
its duties to them.

In its appeal of McEwen's ruling, Cassels Brock argues that
contrary to the claims of Trillium Motor World, it never acted for
the dealers as GM never made a filing under the Companies'
Creditors Arrangement Act. It argues there was never an official
retainer with the dealers and that the trial judge had erred in
inferring that it acted differently in its representation of
dealer interests as a result of its retainer with their
association.

In addition, it argues the judge erred in his application of the
law of negligence and failed to define the standard of care for
lawyers retained in a group retainer in the circumstances of the
case. It also suggests the judge made findings that contradicted
his findings in the case against GM and that he failed to consider
or apply the concept of professional judgment to his findings.

Cassels Brock states in its appeal there were errors in the
findings of causation as that wasn't a certified common issue and
it suggests the trial judge failed to provide a chain of reasoning
that would link the breaches he attributed to the firm to any
losses by the dealers.

David Sterns, a partner in Sotos LLP who's acting for the class,
says the plaintiffs believe the decision against Cassels Brock
should stand.

"We're responding. Our position is that the decision is very well
reasoned and it's based on facts that are extraordinary," he says.

Sterns says the appellants have all filed their notices of appeal
and expects the appeals will move forward at once, most likely in
May 2016.

In the meantime, Cassels Brock's own third-party claim against 150
individual lawyers involved in the case is also moving forward.
Although she was unable to provide further comment, Jo-Anne
Demers, a senior partner with Clyde and Co. Canada LLP who's
representing the Quebec-based lawyers, confirms a jurisdictional
hearing in relation to the third-party claim will take place Dec.
3.

The claim alleges those lawyers, and not Cassels Brock, were
negligent in advising on the wind-down agreements the dealers
signed at the time of the bailout and suggests they should have to
cover any damages it may have to pay. The agreements required the
dealers to obtain independent legal advice before executing them,
according to the firm.

Sterns says the Supreme Court has granted leave to hear the
jurisdictional argument from Quebec-based lawyers named in the
third-party claim. He says those lawyers want their matter heard
in Quebec rather than Ontario.

Since McEwen's ruling, the case has spawned a series of appeals
and cross-appeals.

As part of his decision, McEwen found GM hadn't breached the
Arthur Wishart Act and dismissed the action against it. He also
dismissed a counterclaim by GM against each of the class members.
GM is cross-appealing that decision.

Sterns says the class is cross-appealing as well as it seeks to
increase the damages to at least $75 million from Cassels Brock.

Sterns says the appeal against GM relates to the duty of fair
dealing owed by the franchisor to the dealers.

"In essence, our argument is that the duty of fair dealing is not
diminished because a franchisor is in financial distress," says
Sterns.

"The answer to that is insolvency, and in this case, General
Motors made a specific decision not to go into insolvency
protection. The main argument in our appeal is that it had the
exact same duties, if not heightened duties, to its dealers
despite its own financial problems."

Class action lawyer Ward Branch of Vancouver's Branch MacMaster
LLP says the prospect of Cassels Brock's third-party claim against
150 lawyers is one many people are watching as "it's a case of
there but for the grace of God go I."

He says Cassels Brock will face a number of hurdles in stating its
case and suggests bringing together 150 individual lawyers will be
logistically challenging, especially in light of the current
jurisdictional debates.

"That group will stand together and make it very difficult on
you," he says.

"You're trying to herd 150 cats with 150 different calendars and
suddenly you're having to defend against 150 bright ideas."

Branch suggests Cassels Brock will likely pursue a strategy of
passing blame that he says can be successful in dispersing
financial responsibility but is generally far more effective
against a smaller group than 150 individuals.

"When you third-party 150 people, it's almost too deluded," says
Branch.

"I would think going up against 150 people like that would be more
bother than a help."


GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Packaging of Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sammer Zakhour and Aurelio Batista, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated, v. Glanbia Performance Nutrition,
Inc. d/b/a Optimum Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02513-AJB-WVG
(S.D.Cal., Nov. 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's slack-fill
packaging of Whey Products violates consumer protection and
labeling laws.

Optimum Nutrition sells Whey Products on a nationwide basis, in
close to 10,000 independent natural product and specialty retail
stores, gyms, and fitness centers, and several major grocery chain
and drug stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

        - and -

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


GOOGLE INC: Must Face Consolidated Suit Over Internet Cookies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy H. Koo, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that
Google Inc. and other defendants will have to face California tort
law claims in a consolidated class action alleging that the search
engine giant tricked Internet users' browsers into accepting
advertising cookies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit held Nov. 10.

The appeals court, however, affirmed the dismissal of claims under
the Wiretap Act; the Stored Communications Act; and the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act.

According to the plaintiffs, when a consumer using a Safari Web
browser or Micrsoft Internet Explorer browser visited a website
using third-party tracking cookies from the defendants, those
tracking cookies allegedly circumvented the consumer's Internet
browsers settings that blocked such cookies. The defendants
allegedly used the cookies to intercept the consumers' Internet
communications and activities, according to the plaintiffs.

The appeals court said that Google agreed to pay a $22.5 million
civil penalty to settle similar Federal Trade Commission claims
and a California district court approved that settlement in
December 2012. An online advertising company not named in the
lawsuit agreed to pay $1 million in July 2013 to settle similar
claims by the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.

California Invasion of Privacy Claim

In October 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware dismissed the class action at hand, finding that the
plaintiffs failed to satisfy Article III's injury in fact
requirement because they didn't sufficiently allege that their
ability to monetize their information was diminished or lost by
Google's collection of it.

The appeals court, however, disagreed, finding that "contrary to
the contentions of the defendants, a plaintiff need not show
actual monetary loss for purposes of injury in fact." Nonetheless,
the appeals court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims
under the three federal statutes.

Because the defendants were parties to "all electronic
transmissions," plaintiffs state no Wiretap Act violation, the
appeals court said. "The Wiretap Act is a wiretapping statute, and
just because a scenario sounds in fraud or deceit does not mean it
sounds in wiretapping," it said. Similarly, the appeals court
found that the alleged intrusion upon the consumer's personal
computing devices fail to implicate a "facility" that is protected
by the Stored Communications Act. Finally, it said that the
plaintiffs failed to plead "cognizable losses" as required to
plead a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

However, the appeals court found that a reasonable factfinder
could conclude that the means by which the defendants accomplished
the tracking-by overriding the cookie blockers-"marks the serious
invasion of privacy contemplated by California law." As such, the
appeals court vacated the lower court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' "freestanding privacy claims" under the California
Constitution and California tort law.

Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote the majority opinion.

Barnes & Associates, Bartimus Frickleton Robertson & Gorny, Finger
& Slanina, Keefe Bartels, Bryant Law Center, Seeger Weiss, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer and Strange & Carpenter represented the
plaintiffs. Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati represented Google.
Venable and Richards, Layton & Finger represented Vibrant Media
Inc. Ropes & Gray represented Media Innovation Group LLC. Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell and Ropes & Gray and WPP Plc.


HOBBY LOBBY: NLRB Steps Up Enforcement Against Class Suit Waivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth J. Yerkes, John T.L. Koenig, David B. Ritter, William A.
Nolan, Mark S. Kittaka, and Robert W. Sikkel, writing for The
National Law Review, reported that many companies have mandatory
arbitration agreements with their employees. Those agreements
often contain class and collective action waivers, meaning
employees must bring their claims individually.

In a recent decision against Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., regarding
just such an agreement, an administrative law judge (ALJ) under
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) once again ruled that
such waivers violated the National Labor Relations Act, which
protects "concerted activity" on behalf of employees to promote
their mutual aid and benefit.

However, the ALJ went further in this opinion than the NLRB has
previously ruled. First, the ALJ ruled that the Federal
Arbitration Act (which many federal courts have invoked to uphold
such class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements) is
inapplicable, stating the mandatory arbitration agreement is not a
"transaction that affects commerce," a requirement for coverage
under the FAA. Second, and even more significant for employers,
the ALJ (1) recommended that Hobby Lobby notify the federal
district courts where it had previously enforced it arbitration
agreement that it would be rescinding or revising its unlawful
mandatory arbitration agreement; and (2) ordered the company to
reimburse the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.


HOMESTAT FARM: Recalls Organic Oats & Chia with Flax and Rye
------------------------------------------------------------
Homestat Farm of Dublin, OH is recalling some of its 42-ounce
packages only of "Organic Steel Cut Oats & Chia with Flax And Rye
Flakes" because the flax seed ingredient has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled "Organic Steel Cut Oats & Chia with Flax And Rye
Flakes" was distributed on a limited basis in Sams Club retail
stores located in AK, CA, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC,
NH, OH, PA & TX.

The product comes in a 42 ounce carton UPC 8 35882 00620 4 marked
with Best Buy: 03/16/17-1, 03/16/18-1, 03/19/17-1, 03/19/17-2,
03/23/17-1, 03/23/17-2, 03/24/17-1, 03/26/17-1, 03/26/17-2,
04/08/17-2. The best buy date can be found embossed on the bottom
flap of box next to the bar code.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
issue.

A supplier informed Homestat Farm of this after a contamination
was found in flax seed provided to another customer.

Consumers who have purchased these 42-ounce packages of "Organic
Steel Cut Oats & Chia with Flax And Rye Flakes" should return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-819-3918 M-F 10AM-4PM.

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


HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Jailed for Medicaid Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Reese Cravey and Sebastian Kitchen, writing for
Jacksonville.com, reported that Amanda Barry, holding her son
Dominic who she claims was among the dozens of children brutally
treated by dentist Howard Schneider, smiled hoping the arrest of
the former Jacksonville dentist meant he could not harm any more
children.

In sign language, Barry communicated that Dominic threw his
backpack in the air in joy when she informed him about the arrest
on Monday.

Although Barry and others are involved in civil action against
Schneider, the dentist turned himself in to authorities on
criminal charges of 11 counts of unauthorized Medicaid claims of
$10,000 or less, according to a Sheriff's Office report. His bail
was set at $110,000.

Schneider, 78, gave up his license and left Jacksonville after
complaints he hurt children at his practice.

Attorney John Phillips, who represents 77 former patients and
their families, said he knows there is also an investigation into
the abuse and neglect. While he represents them in a civil case,
Phillips said the families wanted to see criminal charges.
"Trying to put dollar signs on the pain and suffering and the PTSD
these children suffered is impossible," Phillips said.

"This is definitely the justice I wanted since day one," said
Brandi Motley, who also says her daughter Bri-el was a victim of
Schneider. She said her Bri-el, who was quiet as Motley talked to
reporters at Phillips's office, has suffered post-traumatic
stress, distrusts men including her father and has a variety of
other issues, including Motley's concerns about her eating habits.

Motley said the case is headed in the right direction.

"It's affected us big time," Motley said, adding they received
threats and people said they had ruined Schneider's life after she
spoke out about her daughter's treatment.

Barry, who is deaf and communicated through an interpreter, and
Motley were excited about Schneider being in jail.

Phillips said anyone who saw the photos of Bri-el knows there was
abuse. He referred to Schneider's use of restraints and questions
about his use of medication or lack of medication.

Bri-el went to Schneider's office Dec. 9 to have a tooth pulled.
Three hours later, Motley said Schneider told her there had been
"an incident." A visit to the emergency room revealed her daughter
had a fractured nose, a black eye and a bruise on her neck, and
seven teeth were gone. Motley previously told the Times-Union her
daughter told her that "he threw her, sat on her, choked her and
pulled her teeth."

Schneider has claimed no wrongdoing when confronted about the
abuse allegations.

Schneider is facing multiple lawsuits in connection with abuse
claims. In April, angry parents protested outside his 1871
University Blvd. S. office and accused him of performing
unnecessary procedures as well as harming the youngsters.
Protesters said Schneider pulled more teeth than necessary and did
substandard work on their children.

Those allegations also sparked a criminal investigation and caused
the closing of his office. On May 6 four people joined for a
class-action lawsuit against Schneider -- all of them parents who
said their children were mistreated and hurt by the dentist -- and
he surrendered his license May 30.

The lawsuit and protests come on top of a criminal investigation
by the Florida Attorney General's Office's Medicaid fraud unit.
Schneider initially moved to Charleston, but his Sheriff's Office
arrest report listed his address as an apartment on St. Simons
Island, Ga.

Phillips said he is nearing the end of the pre-lawsuit process
required when filing legal action against a doctor.

Schneider turned himself in at the office of his attorneys on N.
Washington Avenue. The Times-Union could not reach an attorney at
Sheppard, White, Kachergus & DeMaggio for comment.


JOE ARPAIO: Judge Doubts Truth of Sheriff's Testimony
-----------------------------------------------------
James Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
during closing arguments, the federal judge overseeing Sheriff Joe
Arpaio's contempt-of-court hearing questioned Arpaio's
"willingness to tell the truth while he's on the stand."

Arpaio and four of his top assistants are accused of civil
contempt, for failing to deliver data to the court and failing to
train deputies on how to make constitutional traffic stops without
racially profiling Latinos, as required by a 2013 court order.

The assistants are Maricopa County Sheriff's Chief Deputy Jerry
Sheridan, Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre, Lt. Joe Sousa and Brian
Sands, a retired executive chief.

In the underlying case, Melendres v. Arpaio , U.S. District Judge
G. Murray Snow found that Arpaio's deputies violated the Fourth
Amendment rights of Latinos by arresting them during traffic stops
and so-called crime-suppression sweeps based on their race.

After about 21 days of testimony, Judge Snow challenged the six-
term lawman's "forthcomingness," asking one of Arpaio's attorneys
what kind of orders he must make to ensure the plaintiff class is
protected.

"The substantial question is whether these gentlemen are trying to
deceive the court," Snow told attorney John Masterson, with Jones,
Skelton & Hoculi. "Are they telling the truth or are they having
us incur hundreds of thousands of dollars?"

Snow's questions came after Masterson mentioned Arpaio's
involvement in an investigation by a confidential informant the
sheriff hired to look into whether Judge Snow and the Department
of Justice were conspiring against Arpaio.

According to the informant, the federal government wiretapped
Sheridan's and Arpaio's cellphones, possibly at the behest of
Snow.

"No one at MCSO was actively investigating you," Masterson told
the judge. "We had a guy that was providing information for the
most part we think now was completely false."

Sheridan testified in September that the informant, Dennis
Montgomery, was hired after he claimed the federal government had
illegally accessed the bank records of about 150,000 Maricopa
County residents. Montgomery, a former CIA consultant, gained
notoriety for duping the federal government into awarding him
millions of dollars in contracts for fake computer software to
catch terrorists.

Masterson said that Arpaio was merely "curious" about Montgomery's
claims.

"Was this information that I think should have been followed up
on? I do," Masterson said. "I don't think the sheriff of this
county can ignore a complaint that someone has hacked data."

Plaintiff's attorneys painted a very different picture of Arpaio's
actions, claiming he set out to violate the court's order to
advance his "political imperative."

The court has heard a number of testimonies that Arpaio had been
told repeatedly by his aides and then-attorney, Tim Casey , that
under a preliminary injunction order in the class action, his
deputies must stop detaining people suspected to be in the country
illegally.

"I don't know if I heard the sheriff say a lot of times that he
wasn't really sure about the injunction," Snow inquired of Stanley
Young, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

"The problem is the sheriff sets the policy for the department,"
Young answered. "He doesn't delegate that."

Instead of complying with the injunction, the Sheriff's Office
distributed a number of press releases that described ordering
deputies -- as a "backup plan" -- to transport undocumented
immigrants to U.S. Customs and Border Patrol despite having no
criminal charges against them. The action was a direct violation
of Snow's injunction, Young said.

Arpaio also gave an interview to Fox News during the 2012
Republican National Convention, in which he said he had $7.5
million in campaign contributions because people supported his
actions.

"It's a political imperative that causes him to do it," Young
said. "He sends out press releases because he wants everyone to
know what he is doing."

Failures by Arpaio and his aides did not stop after Snow's 2013
order instituted a long list of reforms , including appointment of
a federal monitor, enhanced data collection, improved record-
keeping and training, and a video recorder in every patrol
vehicle.

Arpaio and Sheridan have already admitted they are in contempt of
Snow's order. They could face fines and criminal charges.

"The sheriff's attorneys have argued or implied that somehow the
sheriff should be able to rely on shady characters or criminals,"
Young said, mentioning Arpaio's involvement with Montgomery's
investigation. In the process, he said, Arpaio and his aides
became "shady and unsavory people themselves."

According to Young, all this activity shows intentional contempt.

"That activity is not worth the sacrifices that rank-and-file MCSO
employees make every day and the risks they take to their lives,"
Young said.

It is unclear when Snow will issue a ruling.


KAISER PERMANENTE: Agrees to Settle with Mental Health Clinicians
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Noguchi, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reported that
after intense negotiations, Kaiser Permanente and its mental
health clinicians reached a tentative contract settlement
providing a raise of more than 15 percent over three years.

The pact, reached late Sunday, averted a strike that had been
planned to start Monday.

If ratified by the union's 1,400 members, the new contract will
award Kaiser psychologists, psychiatric social workers, and
marriage and family therapists a 6 percent raise in the first year
and 4 1/2 percent raises in each of the next two years. The
agreement also provides for more return appointments in
therapists' schedules, according to Kaiser.

The tentative agreement allows therapists to advocate for their
patients and meet their treatment needs without threat of
discipline or discharge, according to the National Union of
Healthcare Workers. The agreement also calls for a 1-to-4 ratio of
new-to-return patients, which the union says would ensure timely
access to ongoing care for Kaiser mental health patients. Patients
and therapists have complained about the difficulty of scheduling
follow-up care.

"It's a positive first step," said Clement Papazian, a psychiatric
social worker at Kaiser Oakland and president of the union's
Northern California chapter of Kaiser mental health clinicians, in
an emailed statement. "Kaiser has opened the door to a positive
working relationship with us with the goal of providing timely,
quality care to our patients by hiring hundreds more mental health
professionals."

Don Mordecai, regional director for Kaiser Permanente Northern
California, said the agreement demonstrates "that Kaiser
Permanente and our mental health professionals have a shared
commitment to our members."

In reaching the compromise mediated by former state Senate leader
Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, Kaiser also agreed to drop
proposed cuts to pensions and create a joint committee to review
retirement benefits. The pact also offers up to 5 percent in
performance bonuses, higher supplemental pay for bilingual ability
and the inclusion of staff on teams that anaylyze how to improve
mental health services.

Kaiser mental health care has been criticized not only by
therapists but also by patients and the state.

California fined Kaiser $4 million in 2013 for failing to provide
mental health treatment in a timely manner. The state Department
of Managed Health Care found that Kaiser violated state law
requiring equal access for both mental and physical health
treatment.

Kaiser also faces class-action lawsuits from families who contend
their loved ones did not receive adequate, timely mental health
treatment.

The contract negotiations were often contentious, with therapists
walking out for a week in January.

Union members will vote on the proposed three-year contract.


LOWELL ELECTRICAL: Accused of Violating FLSA in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Chervinski and Christopher Schaefer, on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated v. Lowell Electrical
Contracting, Inc., and Frederick Fragola, Case No. 2:15-cv-05956
(E.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Lowell Electrical Contracting is based in Medford, New York.
Lowell specializes in electrical contracting work in the Medford
area.


LSB INDUSTRIES: Tostrud Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Tostrud Law Group, P.C. reminds investors that a class action has
been filed on behalf of investors of LSB Industries, Inc. ("LSB
Industries" or the "Company") that purchased shares between May 8,
2015 and August 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
that have suffered a loss on their LSB Industries securities
holdings are encouraged to contact Jon Tostrud, Esq. to discuss
their legal rights prior to the November 24, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline.

On August 7, 2015, the Company revealed that it intended to
implement certain recommendations after the Strategic Committee of
the LSB Industries Board of Directors reviewed the Company's
business strategy, corporate governance structure, related party
transactions and other governance practices of the Company.
Additionally the Company announced that the total cost to complete
the El Dorado Facility expansion would now be in the range of $660
million to $680, significantly higher that its previous estimates
of $495 million to $520 million on May 8, 2015. On this news,
shares of LSB declined $12.09 per share, over 34%, to close on
August 7, 2015, at $23.01 per share, on heavy volume. Then on
September 3, 2015, the Company announced that LSB President and
Chief Executive Officer Barry H. Golsen had resigned effective
immediately.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) that the Company's costs related to the expansion of the
El Dorado Facility would be significantly higher than reported;
and, (2) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Recent Developments: On November 6, 2015, the Company reported
third quarter 2015 earnings, announcing an EBITDA loss of $1.6
million, on net sales of $157 million. The Company further
reported an increase in the cost of completion of its El Dorado
Facility to $831 to $855 million. On this news shares of LSB
Industries fell sharply in value.

If you purchased shares of LSB Industries, if you have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or if you wish to
discuss these matters or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Jon Tostrud, Esquire, of Tostrud Law
Group, P.C., 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 278-2600 or by e-mail at
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com.

Jon Tostrud, Esq.
TOSTRUD LAW GROUP,P.C.
1925 Century Park East Suite 2125 Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 278-2600
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Elson" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Elson, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00107, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02767-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

Based in Toano, Virginia, Lumber Liquidators is the largest and
fastest-growing retailer of hardwood flooring in North America.
Lumber Liquidators operates as a multi-channel specialty retailer
of hardwood flooring and hardwood flooring enhancements and
accessories, and supervises and controls the manufacturing,
packaging, distribution, marketing, and sales of laminate wood
flooring products throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol St.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 340-7864
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
          E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Gregory Yann Porter, Esq.
          James L. Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 543-0226
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


MI TIENDA: Recalls Masa and Tostadas Due to Metal Fragments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mi Tienda, committed to high-quality products, is issuing a
precautionary recall for masa and tostadas produced in-store and
packed on November 16 and November 17 only at the Mi Tienda #1
store located at 1630 Spencer Highway, South Houston, TX. The
precautionary recall is due to the possible presence of metal
fragments in the Masa Preparada by the pound, Tostadas Botoneras
Rojas and Tostadas Siveria Large Tostadas.

"Mi Tienda is committed to the highest standards of food safety
for our customers," said Cyndy Garza-Roberts, Public Affairs
Director. "We take every precaution necessary to ensure the
integrity and quality of the products sold in our stores."

The precautionary recall is isolated to only this one store and
affects the following products:

Masa Preparada by the pound packed on Monday, November 16
Tostadas Botoneras Rojas packed on Monday, November 16 and
Tuesday, November 17
Tostadas Siveria Large Tostadas packed on Monday, November 16 and
Tuesday, November 17

Customers who purchased the affected product can return the
product to the store for a full refund. Customers with any
questions or concerns may contact Customer Relations at 210-938-
8357.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/RgomI9


MISSISSIPPI: Moss Point to Stop Jailing Impoverished People
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Justice Under Law and the Roderick and Solange MacArthur
Justice Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law
announced the following:

"Moss Point, a small city in Jackson County, Mississippi, has
agreed to stop the practice of jailing impoverished people for up
to a week while they wait to appear in court on misdemeanor cases.
The agreement is part of a settlement reached in a federal civil
rights class action lawsuit filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a
non-profit civil rights organization in Washington, D.C., and the
Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center at the University of
Mississippi School of Law.

"The lawsuit challenged Moss Point's use of money bail without any
individualized assessment of a defendant's ability to pay or the
reasons for detaining or releasing the defendant. Under the
challenged system, two defendants charged with the same alleged
offense were treated differently based only on their wealth: those
who could afford to pay a predetermined amount of money were
released from jail with the requirement to appear in court at some
later date, while those who were too poor to pay remained
imprisoned at the City's expense.

"The lawsuit alleged that this practice resulted in the
incarceration of hundreds of indigent defendants for up to a week
while they waited to see a judge in misdemeanor cases such as
disorderly conduct and public intoxication.

"Several cities in Mississippi use similar money bail systems, and
could face similar class action lawsuits, according to Equal
Justice Under Law and the MacArthur Justice Center.

"Judge Louis Guirola Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District for the
Southern District of Mississippi, entered a declaratory judgment
finding that the practice in Moss Point "implicates the
protections of the Equal Protection Clause when such a schedule is
applied to the indigent. No person may, consistent with the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, be held in custody after an arrest because the
person is too poor to post a monetary bond. If the government
generally offers prompt release from custody after arrest upon
posting a bond pursuant to a schedule, it cannot deny prompt
release from custody to a person because the person is financially
incapable of posting such a bond."

"As part of the settlement, the City of Moss Point has agreed to
an injunction prohibiting the use of secured money bail and
requiring that all defendants in misdemeanor cases prosecuted by
the City of Moss Point be released upon their written agreement to
appear for court hearings and to abide by specified conditions of
pre-trial release.

"Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law,
explained "no human being should be kept in a cage because she
cannot make a monetary payment. The Constitution forbids it, and
cities across the country are finally beginning to end the scourge
of money bail."

"When the lawsuit was filed in June, the City of Moss Point
immediately ceased using its fixed bail schedule and began
releasing misdemeanor defendants without imposing money bail.

"We commend the leaders of Moss Point for the seriousness with
which they approached this problem and their prompt response,"
said Cliff Johnson, Director of the MacArthur Justice Center at
the University of Mississippi School of Law. "In addition to
ending a policy that mandated the harmful and unnecessary
detention of poor people at the City's expense, they saved Moss
Point taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's
fees and allowed the City to avoid class action damages that, we
believe, would have amounted to several million dollars."
Johnson said the money bail system previously in place in Moss
Point is not unusual in Mississippi and that similar litigation
against other Mississippi cities is likely.

"We recognize that Moss Point was not alone in the use of this
unlawful practice," Johnson said. "We hope that other Mississippi
cities and counties will follow the example of Moss Point and
immediately cease the incarceration of their poorest citizens
simply because they do not have the money to pay bail imposed
without any consideration of their financial condition."


MONROE COUNTY, NY: Residents Ink $59MM Settlement of Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Lahman, writing for Democrat & Chronicle, reported that
thousands of Monroe County residents who had their wages garnished
by unscrupulous debt collectors may be entitled to compensation.

The settlement in a federal class action suit reached will provide
$59 million to about 75,000 victims across New York state, and
more than 115,000 judgments that the debt collectors obtained in
court will be vacated. The lawsuit was brought by the New Economy
Project, a Manhattan-based consumer advocacy group.

Debra Greenberger, one of the attorneys representing the victims,
said the ruling was a tremendous victory.

"It's an excellent result for the class," she said, "and I'm
hopeful that this leads to much needed reforms in the debt
collection industry."

Greenberger is a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP,
which is co-counsel in the case with the New Economy Project and
MFY Legal Service.

The suit alleged that a group of debt collectors filed false
affidavits claiming to have notified individuals that they were
being sued for an unpaid debt. It also accused them of telling the
court they had evidence of the alleged debt when they did not.

Consumers would not show up in court to defend themselves because
they were unaware of the legal action, and that set off a legal
proceeding that almost always resulted in a judgment against them.

These consumers often didn't learn about this sequence of events
until their bank accounts were frozen or their wages were
garnished.

These judgments would also leave a black mark on individuals'
credit reports, which affected their ability to apply for credit,
rent an apartment or get a job.

Greenberger said as many as 5,000 individuals in Monroe County
could be eligible for compensation as part of the settlement.

'Sewer service'

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of four New York City residents,
alleged that three companies -- a law firm, a debt-buying company
and a process service company -- engaged in a scheme to
fraudulently obtain default judgments against hundreds of
thousands of consumers in New York.

That law firm, Mel Harris and Associates, went out of business in
September.  The other defendants were Leucadia National Corp. and
its various subsidiaries, which purchased consumer debt, and
Samserv Inc, which claimed to deliver the legal notices to
consumers.

The suit alleged that Samserv engaged in a practice called "sewer
service," where it would fail to serve the summons and complaint
but still submit proof of service to the court. The phrase implies
that rather than delivering the documents, the process servers
throw them into a sewer drain, at least figuratively.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said that this case
was part of an ongoing battle to protect consumers.

"I applaud the advocates and plaintiffs for bringing this case,
and for achieving a settlement which represents an important
victory against debt collectors who use abusive tactics,"
Schneiderman said.

Since taking office in 2011, Schneiderman's office has sued and
obtained dozens of settlements with process servers, debt
collectors and debt collectors' attorneys for engaging in sewer
service.  Those actions have resulted in hundreds of thousands of
dollars in restitution to consumers who were victims of deceptive
and unlawful practices by debt collectors.

"We remain committed to cracking down on those who use
unscrupulous and illegal business practices to make a quick buck,"
Schneiderman said.

In a 2009 investigation of another debt collection company, Long
Island-based American Legal Process, the attorney general's office
found that the process servers' own records often proved they
couldn't have done what they claimed.

For example, one individual process server claimed to have made 69
service attempts in a single day in two different New York
counties that were 400 miles apart.  At 8:19 a.m., he claimed to
have attempted service on a defendant in Brooklyn, and one minute
later on another defendant in Cattaraugus County. To have made all
69 delivery attempts, the server would have had to drive more than
10,000 miles in a single day.

Not surprising to some

For local consumer advocates, the circumstances of the class
action suit did not come as a surprise.

"We have clients who come to us with a judgment or notice but who
haven't been adequately served," said Destiney Fraguada,
counseling supervisor for the Consumer Credit Counseling Service
of Rochester.

According to Fraguada, the Mel Harris law firm was one of the
largest debt collectors working in Western New York.  She said
this case highlights the need for people to be vigilant about
their own credit records.

"Most consumers don't pay too much attention because they assume
they are OK," Fraguada said.

She recommended that consumers take advantage of the website
AnnualCreditReport.com to get a free copy of their credit report.
Those without Internet access can call a toll free number (1-
(877)-322-8228) and have a report mailed to them.

What's most important, Fraguada said, is to be proactive when
dealing with debt collectors.

"The typical response is to bury your head in the sand and hope it
goes away," she said. "There's always an opportunity to resolve a
debt issue, even after a judgment has been entered."

Next steps

In fact, some of the plaintiffs in the class action suit believed
that the debts in question weren't valid. They would have disputed
the claims had they been given an opportunity to do so.

"As the person trying to collect, the burden is on you to prove
that the debt is legitimate," said Greenberger.

But debt collectors often just receive a spreadsheet with a
person's name, Social Security number, and the amount owed to a
creditor. When seeking a judgment, they would tell the court they
had detailed evidence of the debt -- specific dates of retail
purchases, for example -- when they did not.

Federal Judge Denny Chin gave preliminary approval to the terms of
the settlement Nov. 16.

"The expectation is that every person who had money collected
pursuant to a judgment will get back all of the money they had
taken from them," Greenberger said. "In addition, there will no
more collection efforts made on any of these debts."

Greenberger says that the settlement covers 195,000 judgments and
$800 million worth of collections. It will take several weeks to
identify and locate each of the individuals entitled to
compensation,

An administrator will start notifying those individuals by mail in
early January, with instructions on how to proceed.

As part of the settlement, the defendants also agreed to get out
of the debt collection business.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued Over Athletic Scholarships Prohibition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Devin Pugh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:15-cv-01747-JMS-DML (S.D.Ind., Nov. 5, 2015), challenges the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules which
prohibited multi-year athletic scholarships for Division I
football players and the continuing cap on the number of football
scholarships a Division I football team may award.  These rules
are allegedly horizontal restraints intended to reduce the cost of
essential inputs in the production of high quality Division I
football games.

NCAA is an unincorporated association that acts as the governing
body of college sports.

The Plaintiff is represented by

     William N. Riley, Esq.
     Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
     RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
     Hammond Block Building
     301 Massachusetts Avenue
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Phone: (317) 633-5270
     Fax: (317) 426-3348
     E-mail:  wriley@rwp-law.com
              jwilliams@rwp-law.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (708) 628-4960
     Fax: (708) 628-4950
     E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Jon T. King, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Phone: (510) 725-3000
     Fax: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: jonk@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
     THE PAYNTER LAW FIRMPLLC
     1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Phone: (202) 626-4486
     Fax: (866) 734-0622
     E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com


NATIONAL GRID: Plaintiffs Seek Class Suit Status
------------------------------------------------
ABC reported that a judge is considering a request to grant class-
action status to plaintiffs suing to stop National Grid from
shutting off utilities of low-income and medically vulnerable
individuals.

The nonprofit Rhode Island Center for Justice is suing National
Grid and the state Division of Public Utilities and Carriers on
behalf of five named plaintiffs in Superior Court.

It says the utility is violating the law and the state isn't
enforcing it. The parties met with a judge Monday.

The plaintiffs are asking a judge to certify their cases as a
class action and order National Grid to restore service to
medically vulnerable people who've lost it.

The state's objection says a class action isn't necessary or
appropriate.

The justice center says the judge asked them to return and didn't
rule. The defendants declined to comment.


NATION PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizza Products Due to Soy
------------------------------------------------------
Nation Pizza, a Schaumburg, Ill. establishment, is recalling
approximately 59,028 pounds of frozen Mama Cozzi's Pizza Kitchen
products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The products contain soy, a known allergen which
is not declared on the product label.

The Mama Cozzi's Pizza Kitchen Rising Crust Pepperoni Pizzas were
produced between Aug. 25, 2015, and Nov. 9, 2015. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 27.5 ounce carton containing one "MAMA COZZI'S RISING CRUST
      PEPPERONI PIZZA."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
1682A" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped exclusively to ALDI grocery stores in Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.

The problem was discovered during in-plant review activities.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Teresa
Martinez, Vice President of Quality Assurance, Research &
Development, at (847) 348-5433. Media with questions about the
recall can contact Richard Auskalnis, President, at (847) 348-
5454.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces "Pham" Suit for FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Tarn Anh Pham, Sun Young Pham v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC Formerly
Known as Aurora Loan Services, LLC, Deutsche Bank, National Trust
Company, Deutsche Bank, Trust Company Americas, Atlantic Law
Group, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC, Residential Capital,
LLC, Case 1:15-cv-01467-TSE-TCB (D.Va., Nov. 5, 2015), seeks
relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the nature
of an order of cease and desist ordering the Defendants to stop
foreclosure proceedings and eviction, and to refrain from all
foreclosure actions, including eviction, on the Plaintiffs' home
unless or until they can show a documented enforceable interest in
the note and mortgage, as required under state law, the Uniform
Commercial Code, and federal law Title 15 US Code, Sections
1692(e) and 1692(f).

Nationstar Mortgage is a residential mortgage servicer and
originator focused on capitalizing on the consolidation of the
mortgage servicing sector.


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. ("Osiris"
or the "Company") (NasdaqGM: OSIR) and certain of its present and
former officers.  The class action filed in the United District
Court for the District of Maryland is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Osiris
securities between May 12, 2014 and November 16, 2015 inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

Throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and financial information. Specifically, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company overstated revenues from several contracts
and failed to follow GAAP standards, fixing its financial
statements only a year and half later and causing millions in
losses to the Company and Investors; and (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, Osiris's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

It is alleged that on November 16, 2015, Osiris surprised
investors by disclosing that it has "determined to correct the
revenue recognition for three contracts which will result in a
decrease in product revenues of $1.8 million in the first quarter
of 2015, a decrease in product revenue of $1.0 million in the
second quarter, an increase in product revenues of $0.8 million in
the third quarter of 2015 and a decrease in product revenues of
$1.1 million in 2014." Thus, three restatements were made related
to distributor relationships, which completely removed about $3.1
million of sales and shifted about $3.9 million of sales between
quarters.  As a result of these errors, Osiris missed its revenue
targets in three of the last four quarters.

Following this news, Osiris shares fell sharply.  They dropped
$3.02, or 21.53%, to close at $10.97 on November 17, 2015,
damaging investors.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
60 days from.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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

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


PITTSBURGH, PA: Judge OKs Settlement with ACLU
----------------------------------------------
Torsten Ove, writing for Pittsburgh Post Gazette, reported that a
federal judge approved a settlement reached last spring between
the city and the American Civil Liberties Union in a 2012 class-
action suit over the hiring of black police officers.

The settlement, announced last May, includes $985,000 in payments
to black candidates who were rejected during the hiring process
and another $600,000 in lawyers' fees and costs.

U.S. District Judge David Cercone signed off on the deal after a
short hearing.

As part of the settlement, the city also has $250,000 set aside in
its budget to monitor the hiring process in the next two years.
The case began in 2012 when five black men sued the city, saying
they were bypassed as police candidates because of their race.

Vic Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the
evidence revealed that a black candidate had one-fifth the chance
of becoming a police officer as a white candidate.

But, he said, the situation has improved. About 26 percent of the
city's population is black, and the most recent police academy
graduating class is 25 percent black, the highest percentage since
the early 1990s.


RALEY'S FAMILY: Recalls Sweet Pumpkin Ravioli Due to Cashew
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raley's Family of Fine Stores removed Raley's Frozen Sweet Pumpkin
Ravioli 10 oz. from our Raley's, Bel Air and Nob Hill stores on
November 17, 2015. According to the manufacturer, the product may
contain an undeclared cashew and almond allergen.
The UPC Code for the product is 046567021218 and the recall is for
all lot numbers.

There is no health risk associated with these products for
individuals who are not allergic to cashews and/or almonds.
Raley's is not aware of any injuries or illnesses reported to date
associated with this product.

Raley's cares about the health and safety of our customers.
Customers who purchased the recalled product from our stores
should return the product and Raley's will refund you for your
purchase of this product in our stores.  Additional information
can also be found at our website www.raleys.comdisclaimer icon.
Customers with questions or concerns may contact Raley's at 1-800-
925-9989.

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


ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Parents of Yeshiva Sue Educ. Department
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Evans, writing for Gothamist.com, reported that the parents
of several Rockland County yeshiva students filed a class action
lawsuit on against New York State's Department of Education and
several yeshiva administrators for allegedly failing to offer
adequate levels of secular education to students, which they say
is badly handicapping their prospects for the future.

While secular education for girls is generally fairly
comprehensive -- including several hours of English and math
instruction per day -- the same cannot be said for boys, the
lawsuit alleges. Secular education begins around the equivalent of
4th grade and ceases when boys turn 13, though the lessons they do
receive are reportedly lackluster, and amount to little more than
unqualified teachers "babysitting" students.

"Although a religious education may be cherished as integral to
the ultra-Orthodox/Hasidic community life, the consequence of not
providing a secular education is that students are never given the
opportunity to learn even the basic Three R's that all American
children receive: reading, writing, and arithmetic," the lawsuit
says. "Because of their gender, male, and their religion, ultra-
Orthodox/Hasidic, they have been and are being denied their right
to receive a sound basic education as guaranteed by law. As a
consequence, their lifelong earning power is greatly diminished,
leaving many to become dependent on the public weal."

The filings were made by a public interest law firm on behalf of
seven unnamed plaintiffs, who declined to be identified for fear
of retaliation from the Orthodox community. It does make clear,
though, the deep sense of dissatisfaction that many students and
their families appear to feel with the current status quo.

"Regardless of whether children attend religious school or public
school, all children are entitled to receive a meaningful
education -- one that allows them the opportunity to become
productive participants in our civic society -- able to serve
meaningfully on a jury, able to participate meaningfully in public
debates, and able to participate meaningful at the voting booth,"
the lawsuit says.

"No parent or child should be forced to choose between substantive
rights: the right to a religious education and the right to
receive an education substantially equivalent to that received by
public school students."

Naftuli Moster, the executive director of Young Adults For A Fair
Education, or Yaffed, knows firsthand the difficulty of finding a
career after graduating from yeshiva. Having been raised in
Borough Park as one of 17 kids in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish family,
Moster's educational trajectory was the same as the rest of his
peers: Many hours spent on Judaic studies, and very little time
spent on general education. When he decided to go to college to
study psychology, he found himself woefully unprepared.

"There's no talk of college in yeshiva," Moster told Gothamist in
August. "You never heard the word 'semester,' you never heard of
financial aid...these concepts don't exist. I was asked about my
high school diploma and I didn't know what that was."

The DOE is currently investigating 39 yeshivas around New York
City on similar allegations, though Moster is concerned that the
probe won't go deep enough -- the agency, he said, is simply
sending surveys to schools with the delusional expectation that
questions will be answered honestly.

In October, video of a yeshiva teacher allegedly giving students
the answers to an English test surfaced online.

The lawsuit is seeking a "graduated introduction" of secular
subjects into a curriculum taught by qualified teachers, as well
as three hours of enforced secular study per day.

A spokesman for the State's Department of Education declined to
comment, saying the agency does "not comment on pending
litigation."


SAFEWAY INC: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Underfilled Canned Tuna
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ehder Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, V. Safeway Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-05078 (N.D.Cal., Nov.
5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant is cheating purchasers by
providing less tuna than they are paying for 5-ounce cans of
Safeway Chunk Light Tuna in Water and 5-ounce cans of Safeway
Solid White Albacore Tuna in Water because the cans are
underfilled and thus substantially underweight.

Plaintiff asserts claims on behalf of himself and a nationwide
class of purchasers of Safeway Tuna for breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose, unjust enrichment, violation of California's Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, violation of California's False Advertising Law,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.

Safeway is an American supermarket chain. With over 2,200 stores
and over 250,000 employees, Safeway is the second largest
supermarket chain in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by

     Timothy L. Fisher, Esq.
     Julia A. Luster, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Fax: (925) 407-2700
     E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
             jluster@bursor.com

        - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 989-9113
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: scott@bursor.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Reaches $2.5-Mil. Settlement of Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
the California labor lawsuit that reached right across the nation
is poised for a fair and reasonable outcome after plaintiffs urged
the presiding judge to approve a settlement worth $2.5 million.
The California labor lawsuit, which involves former and current
security guards employed by Securitas, alleged various violations
to California and federal statutes.

The California and labor law settlement could affect more than
24,000 opt-in class members if approved.

The action, originally filed in October 2013 by plaintiff Michael
Deatrick, alleged various violations to California labor and
employment law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) concerning
the issuance of vacation pay -- or lack thereof, according to the
lawsuit. Deatrick, a former security guard once employed by the
defendant, alleged that Securitas violated state and federal
statutes by not providing employees with vacation pay, as required
under California state labor laws.

Guards were given sums of money, however, in the form of lump-sum
payments once per year as compensation for vacation time.

In his California labor code lawsuit, Deatrick asserts that the
payment provided by Securitas was, in effect, a nondiscretionary
retention bonus based on the number of hours worked, yet not
dependent on vacation time taken. Not only was the lump sum
payment denied to guards having left the employ of Securitas prior
to their employment anniversary, or so it was alleged, but
Deatrick claimed the lump sum payment was not included in overtime
calculations, as required under the FLSA.

Securitas responded to the lawsuit by moving for summary judgment,
but its petition was denied in June of last year, with the court
ruling that the annual payments did indeed need to be properly
included as part of the regular rate for overtime pay calculation.

The California labor employment lawsuit was certified as a class
action some five months later, in November 2014.

In sum, the lawsuit held that the Securitas vacation pay scheme is
just a bonus program dressed up to appear as vacation pay, when it
really isn't. After a settlement was hammered out between the two
parties, plaintiffs urged US District Judge Jon S. Tigar to give
initial approval to the settlement, calling it "fair, adequate and
reasonable.

"The payments to the class are appropriate in light of the risks
and delays attendant to further litigation, and are reasonable in
light of likely potential recovery at trial," the plaintiffs'
motion said.

The case is Michael Deatrick v. Securitas Security Services USA,
Inc., case number 13-cv-05016, in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California.


SEMPRA ENERGY: Calif. Man Sues Over Month-Long Gas Leak
-------------------------------------------------------
Paige Austin, writing for Patch.com, reported that a Porter Ranch
man sued Southern California Gas Co. and its parent company Sempra
Energy, alleging his home was negatively affected by odors and
pollutants generated by the recent leak at the Aliso Canyon
storage facility in the Northridge-Chatsworth area..

William Gandsey filed the proposed class-action lawsuit in Los
Angeles Superior Court, alleging negligence and both public and
private nuisance. He seeks unspecified damages.

A Gas Co. representative said he may have a comment later on the
lawsuit.

County health officials directed the utility to expedite repairs
and offer residents free temporary relocation options. The leak
was discovered Oct. 23 by crews at the storage facility located
near Northridge and was reported to the county five days later.

The Gas Co. has said the leak, which could take months to repair,
does not pose a threat because it is outdoors and over a mile away
from and more than 1,200 feet higher than homes or public areas.

Gandsey "lives well within the exposure zone within the Porter
Ranch community," his suit states. He says his home has been
"physically invaded by gases, chemicals, noxious odors, pollutants
and contaminants" from the facility, which is located a mile from
Porter Ranch and is the largest of four natural gas storage fields
owned by the Gas Co.

The Southern California Air Quality Management District has
received nearly 500 complaints from residents having nausea,
dizziness, vomiting, shortness of breath, nose bleeds and
headaches, according to the lawsuit.


SPACE EXPLORATION: Blumenthal Files Wage Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
On October 19, 2015, the Los Angeles employment attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint
against Space Exploration Technologies Corp. for allegedly
shorting non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis all the
overtime that was due to them. The pending class action lawsuit
against SpaceEx, Case No. BC598297 is currently pending in the Los
Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the class action complaint filed against SpaceEx,
SpaceEx allegedly "caused of violation of the California Labor
Code by directing its employees to alter the time records, or
'shave' the time worked by Plaintiff and other California Class
members." As a result, the lawsuit against Spacex alleges that
employees being paid on an hourly basis in California have been
shorted their proper overtime wages.

If you feel your rights have been violated by your current or
former employer, call an experienced unpaid overtime attorney in
Los Angeles at (310) 981-3918.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law
firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors
and consumers fight back against unfair business practices,
including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Norman B. Blumenthal,Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 9203
Phone: +1 858-367-9913


SPECIAL NEED AND INTERGIRTY: Sued Over Violation of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kwiatkowski, writing for Indy Star, reported that an
Indianapolis nonprofit is accused of withdrawing millions of
dollars in excessive fees from trusts owned by people with
disabilities, according to a lawsuit filed Monday.

Monroe County resident Timothy Todd claims the National Foundation
for Special Needs Integrity, which does business as Special Needs
Integrity, violated its fiduciary duty by taking millions of
dollars from people's trust funds to pay unjustified legal and
other fees, according to the lawsuit filed in Marion Superior
Court.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, also accuses the
nonprofit of failing to respond to Todd's repeated requests for
information about the expenditures.

Special needs trusts are meant to help people with limited
means retain their eligibility for government benefits, such as
Social Security or Medicaid.

Todd, who receives disability funds because of a job-related
accident that left him unable to work, has a special needs trust
that includes money he inherited from his mother after she died.
He became concerned when he received a letter from Special Needs
Integrity, which acts as his trustee, telling him thousands of
dollars had been taken from his trust to pay "general fees," court
records state. The nonprofit also withdrew "trustee fees" and
excessive annual fees, according to the lawsuit.

The letter from Special Needs Integrity, which Todd received in
July, said the money withdrawn reflected Todd's "proportionate
share" of fees paid to an Indianapolis-based law firm for "various
legal services," including ensuring compliance with state, federal
and local laws.

The lawsuit estimates that Special Needs Integrity has used
beneficiary funds to pay about $2.4 million to the law firm since
2011.

In Internal Revenue Service filings, Special Needs Integrity
reported spending far less than that on legal fees. A Star review
of the nonprofit's filings found $274,163 spent on legal fees from
2011 through 2014. Special Needs Integrity also paid $146,411 to
Carmel-based Special Needs Consultants, LLC, for legal and adviser
services.

Additional charges may be included in the nonprofit's "program
fees" line item, which increased 89.5 percent during that time
period.

According to Todd's lawsuit, Special Needs Integrity improperly
withdrew $9,630.18 from his trust.

Special Needs Integrity did not return calls from The Indianapolis
Star seeking comment.

"We will never, ever, treat our beneficiaries as if they were
means to an end," the nonprofit said on its website. "We will
never ignore them or dismiss their concerns. We will treat each
beneficiary as a human being, and we will be ever mindful of the
frustrating situation in which our beneficiaries find themselves."

Todd's attorney, Richard Shevitz, of the firm Cohen and Malad,
said the nonprofit's behavior was "particularly troubling" because
it happened to "some of the most economically vulnerable members
of our society, who depend on various forms of social benefits to
survive."

The lawsuit seeks "to remedy the breaches of trust," including
payment of damages and attorneys' fees and costs for those
affected.

"As a community, we're seeing some of our most vulnerable members
become mistreated," Shevitz said.


STARZ: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of purchasers of Starz securities from
August 1, 2014 through October 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Starz
investors under the federal securities laws.

If you purchased Starz securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than January 8, 2016, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Starz lacked adequate internal
controls; (2) according to a former Starz senior executive,
Starz's contract with Comcast Corporation was a result of illicit
business practices; and (3) as a result, Starz's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

On October 29, 2015, online magazine Deadline Hollywood revealed
that the Company's former Senior Vice President of Sales and
Affiliate Marketing Keno Thomas filed a lawsuit against the
Company and several of its subsidiaries, Defendant Christopher P.
Albrecht, the Company's Chief Revenue Officer Michael Thornton and
Liberty Media Corp.

Following this news, shares of STRZA fell $3.69 per share or over
9% from its previous closing price to close at $33.51 per share on
October 30, 2015, and shares of STRZB fell $4.98 per share or over
13% to close at $32.73 per share on October 30, 2015, damaging
investors.

                      About Morgan & Morgan

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

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


STRAIGHT PATH: Andrews LLC Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:15-cv-
08051, on behalf of investors of Straight Path Communications Inc.
(NYSE:STRP) ("Straight Path Communications" or the "Company") that
held shares between October 29, 2013 through November 5, 2015 (the
"Class Period"). If you purchased Straight Path Communications
securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than January
12, 2016, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Andrews & Springer LLC. If you would like to join the class
action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer,
Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-
423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
https://www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
- www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the commercialization prospect
for Straight Path Communications' spectrum assets is less than
touted; (2) Straight Path Communications' spectrum licenses were
improperly obtained; and (3) as a result, Straight Path
Communications' public statements were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On October 29, 2015, Kerrisdale Capital published a report that
questioned the commercial viability of Straight Path
Communications' spectrum licenses. On this news, Straight Path
Communications' stock fell $18.23 per share, or over 38%, to close
at $29.35 per share on October 29, 2015. Then, on November 5,
2015, Sinclair Upton Research published a report asserting that
the company's licenses for the 39 Gigahertz wireless sites were
renewed only after the company made fraudulent representations to
the FCC. On this news, the company's stock fell $13.70 per share,
or nearly 52%, to close at $12.81 per share on November 5, 2015.

As a result of the foregoing news, Straight Path Communications'
stock price has fallen substantially since October 20, 2015
causing shareholders to incur millions in losses.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 12, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to
prosecute. For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com

Craig J. Springer, Esq
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
3801 Kennett Pike #305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Tel: 1-800-423-6013
Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


SUMMERSET VILLAGE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Apartment Gas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Tran, writing for Your Central Valley, reported that the
organization Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries or FIRM
said it plans on helping tenants file a class-action lawsuit
against the apartment owner of Summerset Village.

Firm's executive director Zach Darrah said they'd like to work
with a lawyer who can take on the case pro-bono. Darrah said they
plan on pursuing legal action on. He said the residents have been
living in uninhabitable conditions.

"When it comes to things like this, it just required an advocate
to really get involved. And that's where FIRM kinda got involved,"
stated Darrah.

He said the property owner has not been helpful in getting the
heat back on. We attempted to speak with the property owner, but
they did not pick up our phone calls.

Darrah said, "They are simply not been moving fast enough, so it
seems to me, I spoke personally with the apartment owner, and he
just said he's doing his best and this is just kinda how it is.
That wasn't a good enough answer for me."

Legal analyst Charles Magill said the apartment owners have to
provide utilities in order for the complex to be inhabitable.

"The tenants have a right to withhold their rent until that
eviction changes. They also have the right to mediate the loss and
that is they can go to hotel and charge the landlord for the
costs," said Magill.

We're told PG&E officials will be coming out on. But the apartment
owner has to fix the broken pipes before gas is turned back on.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Pyramid Files Suit for Securities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pyramid Holdings, Inc., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Sunedison, Inc.
Ahmad Chatila, Carlos Demonech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Marin
Tuong, Brian Wuebbels, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & CO.
LLC, Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital LLC,
Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America,
Inc., SG Americas Securities LLC, and Kotak Mahindra, Inc.,
(N.D.Cal.), was filed on behalf of purported purchasers of the
common stock of TerraForm that was issued pursuant to and/or was
traceable to the Registration Statement in its July 31, 2015
Initial Public Offering, and who were damaged thereby.  Plaintiff
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

TerraForm owns and operates "clean power" generation assets in
emerging market countries. It is structured as a "YieldCo," which
is an entity designed to generate dividends and grow by acquiring
these power generation assets from its sponsor.

The Plaintiff is represented by

     Ian D. Berg, Esq.
     Takeo A. Kellar, Esq.
     ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
     11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Phone: (858) 764-2580
     Fax: (858) 764-2582

        - and -

     Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
     Cassandra L. Porsch, Esq.
     Mitchell M.Z. Twersky
     ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 279-5050
     Fax: (212) 279-3655


TITO'S: Bid to Oust Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------
Amy Hopkins, writing for The Spirits Business, reported that Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller refused to reject a proposed class action
against Tito's on the grounds of safe harbour during a hearing on
20 November, reports Law360.

Safe harbour is a provision of law that states certain actions
will be considered not to violate a given rule, usually in
connection with a more vague, overall standard.

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiff Gary Hofmann is a proposed class
action accusing brand-owner Fifth Generation Inc. of misleading
consumers over the "fact" its Tito's Handmade Vodka is made mostly
with machines.

Hofmann said the firm's claims cannot fall within California's
safe harbour simply because the US Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Bureau
(TTB) approved its use of the word "handmade".

He added that Janet Scalese, director of Fifth Generation's
advertising and labelling unit, said "labelling specialists" do
not verify terms such as "handmade".

Hofmann told Law360: "The TTB's issuance of a COLA [Certificate of
Label Approval] is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking or
anything like it. Thus, the TTB's approval of a given label -- one
of roughly 135,000 such approvals carried out by the TTB -- is not
the type of formal regulatory action sufficient to trigger the
safe harbour.

"The TTB's regulations are a floor on the regulation of alcohol
beverage labelling, not a ceiling; thus, the TTB's approval of a
label does not mean that the label is 'clearly permitted' by law."

Judge Miller said that the TTB's COLA process is "insufficient"
the grant Fifth Generation safe harbour protection, and thus end
the proposed class action.

In September, a federal district judge dismissed five out of six
lawsuits against Tito's Handmade Vodka that accuse the brand of
false advertising.


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Butternut Squash Triangoli Due to Tree Nuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's of Monrovia, California is voluntarily recalling
Trader Giotto's Butternut Squash Triangoli (UPC 00943482/SKU
94348) sold in the refrigerated deli section with "Use or Freeze
by" codes 04 16 15 through 01 15 16, because it may contain
undeclared tree nuts. All affected product has been removed from
store shelves. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

The Trader Giotto's Butternut Squash Triangoli is packaged in an
8.8 oz. package, with code information printed on the upper-right
corner of the front of the package. The product was distributed to
Trader Joe's stores nationwide. Trader Joe's initiated the
voluntary removal of this product after customers reported having
an allergic reaction after consuming the product. The customers
are allergic to tree nuts, which are not an intended ingredient in
this product.

Customers who have purchased the Trader Giotto's Butternut Squash
Triangoli may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund.
Customers with questions may contact Trader Joe's customer
relations at (626) 599- 3817, 6AM-6PM PST, Monday-Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ME4bgw


TYSON FOODS: Recalls Chicken Wing Products Due to Off Odor
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods Inc., a Pine Bluff, Ark. establishment, is recalling
approximately 52,486 pounds of chicken wing product that may be
adulterated because of having an "off odor" scent, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The fully cooked buffalo style chicken wing section item was
produced on October 24, 2015 and October 25, 2015. The following
product is subject to recall:

  --- 28-oz. retail bags containing multiple pieces of "Tyson(R)
      Any'tizers(R) Fully Cooked Hot Wings(R) CHICKEN WING
      SECTIONS COATED WITH A FLAVORFUL HOT, TANGY SAUCE" with use
      by/sell by dates of October 24, 2016 and October 25, 2016,
      packaging dates 2975PBF0508-23/2985PBF0500-01 and case
      codes 2975PBF0508-23/2985PBF0500-01.

The product subject to recall bear establishment number "P-13456"
inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as on the back of the
bag above the heating instructions. These items were shipped to
retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered when Tyson Foods Inc. received consumer
complaints about the product being "off-odor" as well as mild
illness associated with consumption. After these consumer
complaints, Tysons Food Inc. brought this to the attention of
FSIS.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products by FSIS. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media with questions about the recall can contact Derek Burleson,
Public Relations Manager, (479) 290-6466. Consumers with questions
about the recall can contact Tyson Foods' Consumer Relations,
(toll free) 866-328-3156.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


UBER: Faces Suit Filed by St. Louis Taxi Drivers
------------------------------------------------
Leah Thorsen, writing for St. Louis Today, reported that four taxi
drivers are suing Uber and seeking class-action status, alleging
they've seen up to a 40 percent dip in business since the ride-
hailing service began operating in violation of local regulations.
The plaintiffs in the suit filed in St. Louis County Circuit Court
are Aaron Vilcek and Jeffrey Hamilton, drivers for St. Louis
County Cab; Robert Glynn, who drives for Laclede Cab; and Douglas
Uchendi, an ABC Cab driver.

On Sept. 18, the St. Louis Metropolitan Taxicab Commission voted
to allow ride-hailing services such as UberX, an app-based service
in which drivers use their own cars to ferry passengers, but
directed that drivers be fingerprinted as part of a criminal
background check.

Drivers for ride-hailing services also are required to possess a
class E Missouri commercial drivers license, also known as a
chauffeur's license.

Those requirements are mandated by Missouri law, the commission
said. The state law that requires vehicle-for-hire drivers to have
fingerprint checks is specific to St. Louis and St. Louis County.

Local cabdrivers also must have drug tests, vehicle inspections
and get notes from doctors to prove they're in good health.
But Uber described the regulations as onerous, saying it conducts
its own background checks of drivers, many of whom drive less than
six hours a week -- but not fingerprint checks.

On the same day the taxicab commission approved ride-hailing
services, Uber launched UberX in defiance of commission
regulations and filed a federal lawsuit against the commission
alleging anti-competitive practices in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

Uber has said St. Louis is the largest metropolitan area in the
country not to allow UberX.

Then in October, the taxi commission filed suit against Uber and
sought a restraining order to bar it from operating in the city
and in St. Louis County.

Both suits are being heard in federal court. A hearing is set for
Thursday.

The latest suit, which was filed Friday, alleges that Uber's
service and its drivers are "functionally and legally
indistinguishable" from taxi services and taxi drivers in St.
Louis and St. Louis County.

"The purpose of the suit is to recognize that Uber is operating
illegally and as a result of that, the existing taxi drivers are
being harmed," said Gary Growe, the Clayton attorney representing
the taxi drivers.

He said if class-action status is granted, the suit could cover
the roughly 1,100 cabdrivers licensed by the taxi commission.
Since Uber began operating, the plaintiffs have seen a drop in
revenue of 30 percent to 40 percent compared to the same time
period last year due to a decrease in passenger calls, the suit
alleges. It also says those drops were directly caused by Uber's
entry into the local taxi market.

An Uber spokeswoman said that the company had not yet seen the
suit and declined to comment.

The plaintiff's individual damages are less than $75,000 each, the
suit says, and the damages sought in a class-action case would be
less than $5 million.


VIRGINIA DINER: Recalls Pecan Candies Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------
Virginia Diner, Inc. is voluntarily recalling, as a precaution, 10
oz. cans of Happy Holidays Pecan Turtledoves Chocolate Caramel
Pecan Clusters (Candy) at the company's Wakefield, VA location
because they may contain peanuts and peanut allergens. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products. This problem was discovered by a consumer who
received and opened a Pecan Turtledove can and found Peanut
Turtledoves within.

The Virginia Diner, Inc. is working with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in administering this voluntary recall. The
Virginia Diner has not received any reports of illness or injury
to date regarding this product.

Only the following PRODUCT and LOT CODE is affected, found on the
bottom of each can:

  --- UPC Code: 0 85582 01155 2
  --- Weight: 10 oz
  --- Package Type: Can
  --- Label: Happy Holidays Pecan Turtledoves Chocolate Caramel
      Pecan Clusters
  --- Lot Code:  092915 PNT
  --- BEST BY: 09 23 16

The recall does not apply to any other Virginia Diner branded
products.

These Pecan Turtledoves were sold and distributed via fundraising
organizations between September 30, 2015 and November 5, 2015.
Participants accepted pre-orders on order forms, turned the
completed forms in to the organization, which then turned the
complete groups order in to the Virginia Diner for fulfillment.
Orders were packed and shipped back to the organization for
distribution within this 9/30/15-11/05/15 time frame. Each
participant delivered the products to the end buyer. The Virginia
Diner, Inc. is contacting affected groups and customers who may
have received this mislabeled product, and are providing a list of
participants of each group to be contacted. Consumers should
return the product to the organization from which it was purchased
for a replacement.

Additionally, orders were entered by the end consumer on the
www.virginiadiner.comdisclaimer icon website.  The web orders were
shipped directly to the consumer.  Each buyer has been contacted
via phone and/or email.

Consumers who may have questions or concerns should contact the
Virginia Diner at 800-935-4004, Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm
EDT.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/EdI6kY


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Powell" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon K. Powell, Marsha Powell, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
A New Jersey Corporation Serve Registered Agent Corporation
Service Company Bank of America Center 1111 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219 And Volkswagen Ag, A Foreign Corporation
Rubenkamp 2 Wolfsburg, Germany 38442, Case No. 4:15-cv-00863-SRB
(W.D.Mo., Nov. 5, 2015), alleges breach of express warranty and
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Missouri
Revised Statutes in relation to the sale by Defendants of vehicles
with "defeat devices" in the engine systems.

Volkswagen manufactured, distributed, sold, leased, and warranted
the Class Vehicles under the Volkswagen Audi brand names
throughout the United States.  Volkswagen or its agent designed,
manufactured, and installed the CleanDiesel engine systems in the
Class Vehicles, which included the "defeat device."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John M. Parisi, Esq.
     SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHTD
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 550
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 474-0004
     Fax: (816) 474-0003
     E-mail: jparisi@sjblaw.com


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Butternut Squash Ravioli Due to Nuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is recalling Wegmans Italian Classics
Butternut Squash Ravioli, 9 oz. (UPC #77890 36434), because the
product may contain undeclared cashews and almonds. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to cashews or almonds run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

Approximately 54,000 units of Wegmans Italian Classics Butternut
Squash Ravioli, 9 oz. was sold in 88 Wegmans stores located in New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and
Massachusetts. This product, packaged in a plastic tray, is sold
in a refrigerated case in the dairy department. All date codes
sold since June 6, 2015 are included in the recall.

There have been no injuries or illnesses reported to date
associated with this product. The recall was initiated because
Wegmans was notified by the manufacturer that product testing
showed the presence of almonds and cashews not declared on the
label.

Wegmans will place automated phone calls to customers who
purchased the product using their Shoppers Club card.

Customers who purchased the recalled product from Wegmans should
return it to the service desk for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Wegmans consumer affairs department toll
free at 1-855-934-3663 Monday through Friday, between 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. is an 88-store supermarket chain with
stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland,
and Massachusetts. The family-owned company, founded in 1916, is
recognized as an industry leader and innovator. Wegmans has been
named one of the '100 Best Companies to Work For' by FORTUNE
magazine for eighteen consecutive years. In 2015, Wegmans ranked
#7 on the list. The company also ranked #1 for Corporate
Reputation, among the 100 'most-visible companies' nationwide in
the 2014 Harris Poll Reputation Quotient (R) study.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/uVJkz6


YAHOO: Autodialer Class Suit Revived
------------------------------------
Hanna Nakano, writing for Penn Record, reported that a class
action lawsuit against Yahoo has been revived after a federal
appeals court ruled a man who received unsolicited text messages
from the company may have another chance in court.

Bill Dominguez claims he received 27,809 texts from Yahoo after
purchasing a cell phone that used the number of its previous
owner, who had signed up for a text alert every time an email was
received, according to The Legal Intelligencer.

Dominguez filed his class action lawsuit under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, but it was dismissed after the district
court found his definition of an autodialer -- the device used to
send him the text messages from Yahoo -- wasn't the same as the
definition the TCPA used for an autodialer.

Lauri Mazzuchetti, co-chair on the Kelley Drye TCPA defense group,
told the Pennsylvania Record remanding this case has multiple
ramifications.

"First, The Third Court endorsed the FCC's clarification of the
statutory definition of an automatic telephone dialing system
(autodialer/ATDS) that could violate the TCPA in the recent July
2015 Order," Mazzuchetti said.

Mazzachetti said that order states: "So long as the equipment is
part of a 'system' that has latent 'capacity' to place autodialed
calls, the statutory definition is satisfied."

Second, she said the remand gives the district court the
opportunity to reevaluate Yahoo's dialing equipment in light of
the order.

"The district court must decide anew whether Yahoo's notification
text services utilizes an ATDS as a matter of law under the FCC's
Order, or solicit further factual evidence from the parties about
the texting platform's "capacity" (or lack thereof) to store or
produce numbers to be called using a random or sequential number
generator," Mazzuchetti said.

The 2015 order updated the TCPA's 1992 definition of an
autodialer, which was as Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro said, a
reflection of the times.

Before filing this suit, Dominguez claims he contacted Yahoo to be
taken off the text message alert, but was told because he was not
the account holder of the email address registered to the phone he
couldn't authorize a removal.

"The district court may come to the same conclusion as it did in
2014, or side with the plaintiff and permit the case to proceed
beyond the summary judgment stage," Mazzuchetti said.


ZAFFEN INC: Faces Probe Over Violations of Securities Exchange Act
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is conducting an investigation
to determine whether Zafgen, Inc. ("Zafgen" or the "Company") and
certain of its officers and directors made false and misleading
statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts by another law firm on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Zafgen (NASDAQ:ZFGN) between
January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Zafgen is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to developing
drugs for patients affected by obesity and complex metabolic
disorders. The Company's lead product candidate is beloranib,
which was undergoing testing in clinical trials. Zafgen describes
beloranib as a "novel, first-in-class, twice-weekly subcutaneous,
or SC, injection being developed for the treatment of multiple
indications, including severe obesity."

The complaint alleges that Zafgen and its Chief Executive Officer
("Defendants") misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
thrombotic events in the clinical studies of beloranib were
underreported; and (2) thrombotic events all occurred in patients
treated with beloranib, while none occurred in patients treated
with a placebo.

The claims in this case followed the drop in the Zafgen share
price in response to the news that the FDA had placed a partial
clinical hold on beloranib following the death of a patient in an
ongoing Phase 3 trial of the drug. Zafgen reported that the
clinical hold was due to "previously reported thromboembolic
events in ongoing and prior clinical trials of beloranib and the
unknown nature of the death."

On October 16, 2015, the Company revealed that the patient who had
died had been treated with beloranib rather than a placebo, and
also reported that there had been a total of six thrombotic events
in ongoing and previous trials of the drug. Moreover, it disclosed
that all six instances of thrombotic events had occurred in
patients treated with beloranib; no events occurred in any
patients in the placebo arms of the studies.

The price of Zafgen shares fell from $21.02 to $10.36 on October
16.

Cohen Milstein encourages all investors who purchased Zafgen
common stock between January 12, 2015 and October 16, 2015 or
former employees with information concerning this matter to
contact the firm.

If you are a Zafgen shareholder and would like to discuss your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without any cost
or obligation, call Cohen Milstein's Managing Partner, Steven J.
Toll at (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, or email him at
stoll@cohenmilstein.com. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff,
you must move the Court no later than December 21, 2015 to request
appointment. Any member of the proposed class may retain Cohen
Milstein or other attorneys to serve as your counsel in this
action, or you may do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Cohen Milstein has significant experience in prosecuting investor
class actions and actions involving securities fraud, and is
active in major litigation pending in federal and state courts
throughout the nation. Cohen Milstein has taken a lead role in
numerous important cases on behalf of defrauded investors, and has
been responsible for a number of outstanding recoveries which, in
the aggregate, total over two billion dollars. Prior results do
not guarantee a similar outcome. For more information visit
www.cohenmilstein.com.

If you have any questions about this notice or the action, or with
regard to your rights, please contact either of the following:

         Steven J. Toll, Esq.
         Rhys Tucker
         Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
         1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
         West Tower, Suite 500
         Washington, D.C. 20005
         Telephone:  (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600
         Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com


* Serial Class Suit Objector Smacked with Serious Sanctions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that pro tip for
class action objectors hoping to extract six-figure payoffs in
exchange for dropping protests to big-ticket settlements: Make
sure you are actually a member of the class whose settlement you
are trying to hold up.

Michael Narkin, a onetime California lawyer turned serial class
action objector, learned the unhappy consequences of defying that
basic rule on, when U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary of Cleveland
hit him with $10,000 in sanctions for filing a frivolous objection
to an antitrust settlement with two manufacturers of polyurethane
foam. Judge Zouhary found that Narkin not only falsely claimed to
be a member of the class but also "sought to extort money" from
class counsel with an offer to drop his appeal of the judge's
approval of a $150 million settlement.

Dropping appeals in exchange for payments from class counsel is,
as you probably recall, a common tactic of "serial objectors,"
whose business model is to stand in the way of big class action
settlements until plaintiffs' lawyers get sick of waiting for
their fees and pay the objector to go away. Class counsel in the
polyurethane foam case -- William Isaacson of Boies Schiller &
Flexner and Stephen Neuwirth of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
-- argued in their motion for sanctions last June that Narkin
deserves that dubious distinction.

The motion pointed out that he had cut and pasted big chunks of
his filings in the foam case from allegations he previously raised
in four different class actions. His objection to the foam
settlement accused class counsel of misconduct in a case they
weren't involved in, presumably because Narkin mistakenly copied
material from a filing in a previous class action. He also
referred to subclasses, although there aren't any in the foam
litigation, and asserted legal fees were part of the settlement
agreement when they were separately negotiated. "Narkin's
objections are remarkable in that they reflect a complete
ignorance about (or purposeful disregard of) the most basic facts
related to this action and have no foundation in the law," the
class counsel brief said.

Narkin himself is remarkable, according to the brief. He resigned
from the California bar in the 1980s, facing possible disbarment,
and proceeded to open an Internet-based law school in 1996. By
2004, according to an article in the San Jose Mercury News,
California regulators were investigating complaints from Narkin's
students that he had taken their money and disappeared.

Narkin brought his objection in the foam case without counsel,
and, after Judge Zouhary approved the $150 million settlement
despite Narkin's filings, asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals to allow him to appeal without paying a filing fee.
(Narkin actually brought his appeal at the Federal Circuit, which
referred him to the 6th Circuit.) Judge Zouhary, who had
previously raised doubts about Narkin's standing, ordered him to
provide evidence that he had purchased polyurethane foam directly
from manufacturers.

Narkin eventually submitted a 2008 contract for carpet
installation at his home in Eugene, Oregon. But as class counsel
pointed out in a sanctions reply brief in July, Narkin's carpet
suppliers are not defendants in the antitrust litigation so, if
that's his only proof, he is not a class member.

Moreover, according to the class counsel brief, when plaintiffs
lawyers called Narkin to inform him he was not in the class, he
revealed the motive for his objection. Narkin allegedly said he
would drop his objection for "something additional," the brief
said. Plaintiffs' lawyer Adam Wolfson of Quinn Emanuel asked what
he meant. "Narkin refused to provide details, stating that he had
been 'nailed down in previous situations,'" class counsel's brief
said. "Narkin did say that in exchange for a generous
'contribution' to his charity, he would withdraw his objections
and the related appeal."

Narkin serves on the board of the charity but refused to say
whether he controls the group's disbursements, according to a
declaration by Wolfson. In a previous case in which Narkin
requested a contribution to an animal-welfare charity in exchange
for dropping an appeal, a judge concluded that his family
apparently owned the charity.

In his two responses to accusations by class counsel, Narkin did
not attempt to justify his class membership or to deny he offered
to drop his objection if class counsel contributed to his charity.
He insisted that class counsel had inflated their hourly billings
on the case and said he had standing to object as an indirect
purchaser of foam products. Narkin claimed that because the direct
purchasers passed overcharges on to consumers, he has a cause of
action.

In sanctions opinion, Judge Zouhary said that was absurd as a
matter of longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Narkin's
"shift in standing theory -- from his baseless sworn statement
that he bought flexible foam from a defendant to his absurd theory
of a 46,000-member price-fixing conspiracy -- is further proof of
Narkin's improper purpose," he wrote. "Having had one theory
exposed as meritless, Narkin simply fabricates a different theory
so that he can further delay disbursement of the settlement
funds."

Narkin and his "meritless" objections have singlehandedly delayed
a nearly $150 million settlement for 8 months, the judge said. But
perhaps, he said, a $10,000 sanction will "deter Narkin's repeat
frivolous conduct."

Or perhaps not: According to the declaration from class counsel
Wolfson, Narkin said he wasn't worried about sanctions because he
is "judgment proof."

In addition to objecting to the two-defendant foam settlement,
Narkin objected to subsequent settlement with four other
defendants that brings the total class recovery to $433.1 million.
Judge Zouhary granted final approval to the settlements on and
authorized a fee of $102.4 million, or 23 percent of the recovery,
for class counsel, in addition to $9.3 million in expenses.
(Plaintiffs' lawyers had asked for a 30 percent fee, or $130.6
million.)

Judge Zouhary brushed off Narkin's objection to the second
settlement in his approval opinion, reiterating that Narkin is not
a class member -- and adding that he filed his second objection
too late, in any event. I suppose Narkin, who did not respond to
my email request for comment, could appeal this approval ruling.
But I think it is safe to say that if he doesn't have much of a
shot.


* Shareholder Filings Drop After Chancery Crackdown on M&A Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that class action lawyers can't stay in business
unless they earn contingency fees from settling cases. That's just
a plain economic truth. And based on new data compiled by the
indefatigable folks at The Chancery Daily, it has not taken long
at all for shareholder lawyers to respond like the rational
economic actors they are to the new reality of M&A litigation in
Delaware.

The judges of Delaware Chancery Court spent the summer and early
fall warning shareholders and defendants that they would no longer
approve deal-challenge settlements that benefited everyone but
shareholders. One by one, Chancellor Andre Bouchard and the four
vice-chancellors said they were sick and tired of being asked to
bless broad releases for defendants and hundreds of thousands of
dollars in legal fees for plaintiffs' lawyers in settlements
granting investors no more than additional proxy disclosures that,
more often than not, had no discernible impact.

The judges' restlessness culminated on Sept. 18, when Vice-
Chancellor Sam Glasscock said in a written decision in In re
Riverbed that plaintiffs and defendants should no longer expect
Chancery Court to approve disclosure-only settlements. As if to
prove Glasscock's point, on Oct. 9, Vice-Chancellor Travis Laster
not only rejected a proposed disclosure-only settlement in In re
Aruba Networks but also dismissed the suit, finding that
plaintiffs' lawyers hadn't done an adequate job of investigating
HP's acquisition of the software company Aruba.

To measure the impact of these decisions -- which have prompted
geologically cataclysmic metaphors from The Chancery Daily -- the
newsletter's staff went back to January 2015 to compile a month-
by-month tally of the number of new shareholder class action
complaints filed in Chancery Court. In raw numbers, there were
fewer new cases, 16, filed in October than any previous month.
November seems headed for an even lower total, with only five
filings in the first half of November.

As The Chancery Daily explained in a post accompanying the data,
the trend held when the newsletter looked at shareholder class
actions as a monthly percentage of all corporate and commercial
disputes launched in Delaware. October's ratio, 23 percent, was
the year's lowest. In the first half of November, shareholder
class actions made up only 18 percent of Chancery Court's
corporate docket.

The drop-off in filings, according to The Chancery Daily, is not
the result of fewer large M&A transactions being announced in
October and November. To control for fluctuations in deal volume,
the newsletter counted up announced transactions of more than $100
million in every month since the beginning of the year and
calculated a ratio of shareholder class action filings per big
deal. Between January and September, the ratio was greater than 1
-- meaning there were more class action suits than announced
deals, probably because multiple shareholders challenged certain
transactions -- in every month except May, when it dipped to .83
(24 announced deals of more than $100 million and 20 new
shareholder class actions).

In October, by contrast, there were only 16 new suits and 24 new
deal announcements -- a ratio of .69. That's notably low,
especially because most of the class actions were filed in the
first half of the month, before Vice-Chancellor Laster's
blistering ruling from the bench in the Aruba case. In the first
half of November, shareholder firms filed only 5 new class
actions, despite the announcement of 15 big new deals -- a ratio
of .33. That's a pretty dramatic number.

Studies in the past few years by law professor Steven Davidoff
Solomon of Berkeley and Matthew Cain of the Securities and
Exchange Commission have shown that shareholders bring class
actions challenging more than 95 percent of deals involving at
least $100 million. Not every case is filed in Delaware, of
course. It could be that plaintiffs -- with the tacit acquiescence
of defendants that understand the value of global releases -- are
filing deal challenges outside of Chancery Court. And six weeks is
not a long enough time period to declare a decisive trend.
But if the numbers continue along the same lines, as they probably
will, we're witnessing the death throes of reflexive M&A
litigation. Corporate boards that run robust, unconflicted sales
with untainted advisors will soon be able to stop assuming
shareholder litigation is a cost of doing business.

These are going to be challenging times for small plaintiffs'
shops whose lawyers have made a nice living in the era of
disclosure-only settlements. Delaware judges seem confident that
ending incentives for reflexive deal tax litigation will encourage
the shareholder bar to devote its time and money to suing over
truly flawed deals. That would be an ideal outcome. I fear,
however, that when boards stop worrying about suits, they will
start getting sloppy. Chancery Court has given the pendulum of
deal litigation a big shove. Let's hope the judges didn't push too
far.

                            *********

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  * * *