CAR_Public/151202.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, December 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 240


                            Headlines


AETNA INC: Out-of-Network Benefit Claims Still Pending
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
ALPINE ELECTRONICS: Recalls Audio Amplifiers Due to Fire Risk
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plumbers and Steamfitters Filed Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Houssain" Class Action Filed in New York

AMERICAN HONDA: "Oakes" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
AMERICAN HONDA: "Cushing" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
ASHLEY MADISON: "Deloach" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
AUTONATION INC: Defending Wage and Hour Suits in California
AVID LIFE: "Doe" Suit Removed to Eastern District of Arkansas

BACK 2: Recalls Organic Chia Seed Powder Due to Salmonella
BARCLAYS BANK: Removes "Gallaway" Suit to Nevada District Court
BAYLIS MEDICAL: Recalls Protrack Injectable Catheters
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 31 Units of All American Non-School Bus
BLUE BIRD: Recalls 47 Units of All American School Bus

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Afzal" Sues for Vehicle Engine Defects
BMW: Recalls 5 Series 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
BOFI HOLDING: "Golden" Class Action Filed in S.D. California
BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Smoke Alarm Product Due to Fire Hazard
BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Risk

CAMPBELL COMPANY: Recalls Ready to Serve Soup Products
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in NY Action Entered Into MOU
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Not Yet Responded to Delaware Action
CLECO CORPORATION: 2nd Amended Class Action Petition Filed
CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Remanded

COCA-COLA: 3 Merger Class Actions Filed in Del. Chancery
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
CVR PARTNERS: Faces Mustard Class Suit Related to Rentech Merger
CVR PARTNERS: Faces Sloan Class Action Related to Rentech Merger
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Additional Ignition Switch Class Action Filed

DIONO: Recalls Multiple Booster Seat Models Due to Injury Risk
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Facing "Hansen" Class Action in N.D. Ill.
DISTRIBUTION EPICERIE: Recalls Pesto Products Due to Milk
EMCOR GROUP: Remainder of Funds to be Paid Before Yearend
FAIRWAY GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Judge Tossed Securities Class Action

FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Reaches Settlement in Daisy Case
FORD: Recalls Mustang 2016 Model Due to Noncompliance
FORD: Recalls E450 Cutaway Chassis 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Roberts" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces 33 Lawsuits Related to DMAA/Aegeline Claims

GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Brewer Case Postponed to February 2016
GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Naranjo" Class Action
GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Cranberry Ginger Dressing
GREAT DANE: Recalls 2016 Heavy Trailer Model Due to Crash Risk
HONDA: Recalls 2016 CR-V Models Due to Injury Risk

HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata 2015, 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in N.D. Ill. Action
INTEL CORPORATION: Class Certification Hearing in December 2015
INTEL CORPORATION: Paid Settlement Amount in HTEAL Case
INTEL CORPORATION: Appeal in McAfee Shareholder Suit Pending

INVENSENSE INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
KM IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Milk
LAOS: Faces California Class Action Over Government Atrocities
LARIVIERE PARKING: "Cappelli" Suit Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
LIVE NATION: Briefing Next Year on Appeals in Ticketing Fees Case

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Class Action Pending
MASTERCARD INCORPORATED: District Court Order Reversed
MCNEILUS TRUCK: Recalls 41 Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Actions Consolidated in N.D. Ill.
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: TalentBin Faces Consumer Class Action

NEUSTAR INC: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for December 3
NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome 2016 Models
NXSTAGE MEDICAL: Recalls Portable Hemodialysis Systems
ORMCO CORPORATION: Recalls Orthodontic Archwires
OTTO BOCK: Recalls Triton Prosthetic Foot Products

OUTDOOR GEAR: Recalls Bicycle Crank Sets Due to Fall Hazard
PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against "Lofstedt" Action in California
POLYCOM INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
PORSCHE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
POTTERY BARN: Recalls Kids' Stainless Steel Water Bottles

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement in Celera Litigation Has Initial OK
QUEST MEDICAL: Recalls MPS Delivery Sets
RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Stockholder Litigation
SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in W.D. Tex. Case
SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed in New York

SANOFI AVENTIS: Recalls Allerject Sterile Auto-injectors
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Steck Class Action Transferred to N.D. Tex.
SEA TOWN OF GARDENS: "Ledo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens
SHANGHAI DUPLICATE: "Guerrero" Suit to Recover Wages

SKI-DOO: Recalls Multiple Snowmobiles Due to Fire Risk
SPICE SANCTUARY: Recalls Asafoetida Products Due to Gluten
ST JUDE MEDICAL: Recalls Optisure Defibrillation Leads
T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens
TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case

TIME WARNER: New York Class Action Stayed by December 9
TOSHIBA MEDICAL: Recalls Image-Processing Devices
TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
TRITON CPTL: Faces "Pebble" Suit in California District Court
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Broadbent" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Cornell" Suit to District of Vermont
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Glowacki" Suit to D. South Carolina
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "De Britz" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hoekstra" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Labbate" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating

WESTERN UNION: Shareholder Action in Colo. in Preliminary Stage
WESTERN UNION: Settlement in Douglas Class Action Awaits Approval
WESTERN UNION: Speedpay Fails in Bid to Dismiss Florida Action
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholders File Class Actions Over Merger
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholder Class Suit Filed Over WPZ Deal

WORLD WRESTLING: Defending Lawsuits Related to Brain Injuries
WORLD WRESTLING: Filed Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Ch.



                            *********


AETNA INC: Out-of-Network Benefit Claims Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the plaintiffs' remaining claims in the
Out-of-Network Benefit Proceedings.

"We are named as a defendant in several purported class actions
and individual lawsuits arising out of our practices related to
the payment of claims for services rendered to our members by
health care providers with whom we do not have a contract ("out-
of-network providers")," the Company said.  "Among other things,
these lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan
members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons,
because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary
of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers
are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation."

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").

"In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual
lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District
Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without
prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's action followed a
ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the
physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020
due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician
plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of
approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied. On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey
District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating
the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments
since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe
terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As
a result of this termination, we released the reserve established
in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0
million pretax).

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining
claims."


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. intends to vigorously defend itself against
a securities class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"),
Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock (the "Securities
Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which
named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our common stock between January 31, 2012 and
October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr.
Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended
complaint alleged that during the purported class period
defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment
charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent
Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of
2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered our financial
statements and projections of future earnings materially false and
misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint
sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.

On August 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any.


ALPINE ELECTRONICS: Recalls Audio Amplifiers Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Posting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55692

This recall involves three Alpine Electronics audio amplifiers
used in vehicles. The amplifiers are approximately 25.4
centimeters (10 inches) long x 20.32 centimeters (8 inches) wide.
The amplifiers are black with silver edge pieces and the Alpine
company trademark is in the center on top of the product.

The following audio amplifiers are included in this recall:

  Model Number    Parts Number        Production Dates
  ------------    ------------        ----------------
  PDR-F50         31210001-50714742   December 01, 2013 - July
                                      01, 2015
  PDR-M65         31210001-50514241   December 01, 2013 - May 01,
                                      2015
  PDR-V75         40410001-50817384   April 01, 2014 - September
                                      01, 2015

The model and part numbers can be found on the bottom cover of the
underside of the product, printed on a white composite label.

The recalled products have a manufacturing defect of the power
circuit board, leading to overheating and posing a fire hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this product in Canada.

Approximately 444 units were sold in Canada.

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

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Daesung Electric Co., Ltd
              KOREA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF

Distributor: Alpine Electronics of America, Inc.
             Torrance
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled amplifiers
and contact an authorized Alpine dealer to arrange for a free
replacement of the recalled amplifiers in their vehicle.

For more information, consumers may contact Alpine Electronics of
America, Inc. at 1-800-832-4101 from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m. PST,
Monday to Friday or visit the firm's website.  To find the nearest
authorized dealer, consumers may search through the company
website's store locator.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Q1nTBr


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plumbers and Steamfitters Filed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and
other purchasers of American Express stock, filed on July 30,
2015, a suit against American Express Company, Kenneth I. Chenault
and Jeffrey C. Campbell for violation of federal securities law,
alleging that the Company deliberately issued false and misleading
statements to, and omitted important information from, the public
and investors relating to the financial importance of the Costco
co-brand relationship to the Company, including, but not limited
to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew the co-brand
agreement.

"We intend to vigorously defend against those claims," the Company
said.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Houssain" Class Action Filed in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a putative
class action, Houssain v. American Express Company, et al., was
filed on October 16, 2015, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain
officers of the Company under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating to disclosures of the
Costco co-brand relationship. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated certain ERISA obligations by: allowing the
investment of American Express Retirement Savings Plan ("Plan")
assets in American Express common stock when American Express
common stock was not a prudent investment; misrepresenting and
failing to disclose material facts to Plan participants in
connection with the administration of the Plan; and breaching
certain fiduciary obligations.

"We intend to vigorously defend against those claims," the Company
said.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Oakes" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Linda Oakes v. American Honda
Motor Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01076, 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-02925-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:

          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
                  stevelopez@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David K. Stein, Esq.
          BRICKER & ECKLER LLP
          100 S. Third Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 227-7740
          Facsimile: (614) 227-2390
          E-mail: dstein@bricker.com

The Defendants are 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


AMERICAN HONDA: "Cushing" Suit Consolidated in CR-V Vibration MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cushing v. American Honda Motor
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00028, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Columbus).  The
Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02921-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:

          Edward Kyle McNew, Esq.
          MICHIE, HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN & TWEEL, PLLC
          P.O. Box 298
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (434) 951-7200
          Facsimile: (434) 951-7218
          E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel A. Spira, Esq.
          J. Simone 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

               - and -

          Michael Mallow, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 W. 5th Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6666
          E-mail: mmallow@sidley.com

               - and -

          Jason C. Hicks, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
          1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 857-4536
          Facsimile: (202) 261-0013
          E-mail: jahicks@wcsr.com


ASHLEY MADISON: "Deloach" Suit in Georgia Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Grant Deloach, and others similarly-situated v. Avid Life Media,
Inc. and Avid Dating Life, Inc. operators of the Ashley Madison
Website, Case No. 4:15-cv-00299-WTM-GRS (S.D. Ga., November 10,
2015), seeks damages as a result of purchasing Ashley Madison
services resulting to the compromise of customers' personal and
confidential data to include addresses, phone number, email
addresses, intimate preferences and practices and credit card
information due to lack of data security measures implied and
expressly marketed by Defendants.

Avid Life Media and Avid Dating Life, Inc. are corporations
organized and existing under the laws of Ontario, Canada and
maintain principal place of business in Toronto, Canada. They own
and operate various companies that operate online dating websites
including the website operated under the trademark of "Ashley
Madison," which advertise and sell its services throughout the
U.S. Ashley Madison is an adult website that sets up extra-marital
affairs based on personal data provided by its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.LP.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: 612-596-4097
      Fax: 612-339-0981
      Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
             ra1ockridge@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Ste 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856) 685-7420
      Fax: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


AUTONATION INC: Defending Wage and Hour Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
AutoNation, Inc. is defending several purported class action
lawsuits in California arising out of alleged violations of state
wage and hour laws relating to compensation of automotive
technicians, AutoNation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"We establish accruals for specific legal proceedings when it is
considered probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount
of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Our accruals for loss
contingencies are reviewed quarterly and adjusted as additional
information becomes available. We disclose the amount accrued if
material or if such disclosure is necessary for our financial
statements to not be misleading. If a loss is not both probable
and reasonably estimable, or if an exposure to loss exists in
excess of the amount accrued, we assess whether there is at least
a reasonable possibility that a loss, or additional loss, may have
been incurred. If there is a reasonable possibility that a loss,
or additional loss, may have been incurred, we disclose the
estimate of the possible loss or range of loss if it is material
or a statement that such an estimate cannot be made. Our
evaluation of whether a loss is reasonably possible or probable is
based on our assessment and consultation with legal counsel
regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter," the Company said.


AVID LIFE: "Doe" Suit Removed to Eastern District of Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Doe v. Avid Life Media Inc., et
al., Case No. 63CV-15-00600-3, was removed from the Saline County
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Arkansas (Little Rock).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:15-cv-00640-SWW to the proceeding.

Avid Life Media, Inc. is a social entertainment company that
operates online social networking and dating communities for women
and men worldwide.  The Company was founded in 2007 and is based
in Toronto, Canada

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles D. Davidson, Esq.
          David Louis Gershner, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Linam, Esq.
          DAVIDSON LAW FIRM, LTD.
          Post Office Box 1300
          Little Rock, AR 72203-1300
          Telephone: (501) 374-9977
          Facsimile: (501) 374-5912
          E-mail: skipd@dlf-ar.com
                  davidg@dlf-ar.com
                  stephaniealinam@gmail.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON & VINES, PLLC
          2226 Cottondale, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Facsimile: (888) 909-0505
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com


BACK 2: Recalls Organic Chia Seed Powder Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Back 2 the Garden Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10154

Back 2 the Garden Inc. is recalling Back 2 the Garden brand
Organic Sprouted Chia Seed Powder from the marketplace due to
possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold nationally as well as through
internet sales.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand       Common      Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  name        name        ----    product         ---
  -----       ------              ----------
  Back 2 the  Organic     200 g   EVCH0150529-04  6 27843 15900 1
  Garden      Sprouted            BB/MA JUL-2016
              Chia Seed
              Powder



Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/0EdC82


BARCLAYS BANK: Removes "Gallaway" Suit to Nevada District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Gallaway v. Barclays Bank
Delaware, Case No. A-15-722859-C, was removed from the Eighth
Judicial District Court in and for the County of Clark to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02003 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint purports to state three causes of action for failure
to pay wages and failure to pay overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Barclays Bank is a foreign corporation incorporated in the state
of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  laborlawyer@pacbell.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
          Roger L. Grandgenett II, Esq.
          Montgomery Y. Paek, Esq.
          Kathryn B. Blakey, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 300
          Las Vegas, NV 89 169-5937
          Telephone: (702) 862-8800
          Facsimile: (702) 862-8811
          E-mail: rroskelley@littler.com
                  rgrandgenett@littler.com
                  mpaek@littler.com
                  kblakey@littler.com


BAYLIS MEDICAL: Recalls Protrack Injectable Catheters
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 28, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55860

Baylis Medical Company is recalling lots of Protrack Microcatheter
due to the possibility that the catheter may have circumferential
defects along its shaft. If the affected device is used for
infusions, there is a possibility of fluid leakage.

Affected products: Protrack Coaxial Injectable Catheter
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: CIC 35/145
                         CIC 38/145

Manufacturer: Baylis Medical Company Inc.
              5959 Trans-Canada Highway
              Montreal
              H4T 1A1
              Ontario
              CANADA


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 31 Units of All American Non-School Bus
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 31
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015523TC
ID number: 2015523
Manufacturer recall number: R15YI-C

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift
platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities
will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks,
damage or misalignment and if found to be damaged, link arms
and/or platform will be replaced. Note: This recall supersedes
recall 2014-359. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will
require re-inspection and potential repair.

  Make        Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----            ----------------------
  BLUE BIRD   ALL AMERICAN     2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
              NON-SCHOOL BUS


BLUE BIRD: Recalls 47 Units of All American School Bus
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 47
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015522TC
ID number: 2015522
Manufacturer recall number: R15YI

On certain school buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the
lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities
will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks,
damage or misalignment and if found to be damaged, link arms
and/or platform will be replaced. Note: This recall supersedes
recall 2014-360. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will
require re-inspection and potential repair.

  Make        Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----           ----------------------
  BLUE BIRD   ALL AMERICAN    2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
              SCHOOL BUS


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Afzal" Sues for Vehicle Engine Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Afzal, and all others similarly-situated v. BMW of North
America LLC and Bavarian Motor Works, Case No. 2:15-cv-08009-MCA-
LDW (E.D. Va., November 10, 2015), seeks to recover damages and
injunctive relief for breach of express and implied warranty,
breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and common law
fraud under the New Jersey and California consumer fraud statutes.

The class action complaint arises out of numerous concerns about
the defective rotating assembly in S65 engines in the Class
Vehicles, including defective connecting rod bearings, defective
main bearings, defective connecting rod side clearance and
insufficient channels of engine lubrication that inevitably cause
engine failure.

BMW North America LLC, is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place
of business located at 300 Chestnut Ridge Road in Woodcliff Lake,
New Jersey, distributing BMW vehicles through its network of
dealers in the U.S.

Bavarian Motor Works is an automotive company manufacturing
vehicles under the BMW brand, a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Germany, with its principal place of business
located in Munich, Bavaria, Germany with dealership al over the
world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Tel: (610) 642-8500
      Fax: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: MDS@chimicles.com
              JBK@chimicles.com

         - and -

      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C
      Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8729
      E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com

         - and -

      Benjamin I. Siminou, Esq.
      THORSNES BARTOLOTTA McGUIRE LLP
      2550 Fifth Avenue, Eleventh Floor
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Tel: 619-236-9363
      Fax: 619-236-9653
      E-mail: siminou@tbmlawyers.com


BMW: Recalls 5 Series 2016 Model Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 301
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015517TC
ID number: 2015517

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 210.2 - Lower Universal Anchorage
Systems for Restraint Systems and Booster Cushions. The inboard
child restraint fixture anchor on the left rear seat may have been
bent downwards during vehicle assembly. This could result in a
child restraint system not fully engaging both lower anchors,
contrary to the requirements of the standard. In the event of a
crash, if a child seat is not properly secured, it could increase
the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect the inboard
lower anchor on the left rear seat, and if necessary, repair.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  BMW       5 SERIES     2016


BOFI HOLDING: "Golden" Class Action Filed in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a complaint (the
"Class Action Complaint") was filed on October 15, 2015, against
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer under the case Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al in the
United States District Court, Southern District of California on
behalf of the named plaintiff and a putative, but as yet
uncertified, class.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based upon allegations made in a
complaint in a wrongful termination of employment lawsuit (the
"Employment Matter") filed against BofI Federal Bank, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company, by a former employee. The Company
disputes the allegations advanced by the plaintiff in the
Employment Matter, as well as the plaintiff's perception of the
underlying factual circumstances, and is vigorously defending that
lawsuit. The Class Action Complaint seeks monetary damages and
other relief on behalf of all class members. The Company and the
other named defendants dispute the allegations raised in the Class
Action Complaint and are vigorously defending this lawsuit.


BOSCH SECURITY: Recalls Smoke Alarm Product Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Posting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55594

This recall involves Bosch's Radion wireless round smoke alarms
installed as part of Bosch security systems. Bosch security alarm
systems use a control keypad labeled "Bosch" on the front surface.
The alarms are made of white plastic and measure 14.22 centimetres
across and 6.10 centimetres high (5.6 inches x 2.4 inches). The
alarms have a Bosch label on the back with "RFSM-A," a bar code
with "F01U263962" and a 17-digit serial number starting with
0922320XXX. The XXX in the 8th through 10th positions of the
serial number designates the date code. Only alarms with date
codes 001 through 458 are included in the recall.

The alarms can fail to alert consumers to a fire, posing a fire
hazard.

Bosch Security Systems has received two reported incidents of
alarms failing to sound during installation testing, with no
reported injuries.

Health Canada has not received any reports of injuries or
incidents related to the use of these alarms.

Approximately 34 recalled smoke alarms were sold in Canada at
professional alarm installation dealers as part of a
burglar/household fire alarm system.

The recalled smoke alarms were sold from April 2014 to December
2014.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Bosch Security Systems, Inc.
              Fairport
              New York
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately contact their dealer/installer for a
free replacement alarm. Bosch has contacted dealers and installers
directly.

For more information consumers can call Bosch Security Systems,
Inc. at 1-800-289-0096 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET or visit the
firm's website and click on Service and Support, then Customer
Service and Presales, then Related Links and go to Technical
Bulletins and Safety Recalls at the bottom of the page for more
information.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:
http://is.gd/NiBe5X


BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Child Bicycle Trailers Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Posting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55590

This voluntary recall involves six models of Burley Design child
bicycle trailers manufactured from 2009 to 2015. The trailers
allow cyclists to tow children behind their bicycles while riding.
The trailers are connected to the bicycle by a tow bar, which
attaches to the rear axle of the bicycle on one end and to a tow
bar receiver on the trailer at the other end. The tow bar receiver
is on the front left side of the trailer as it faces the rear
wheel of the bicycle. Recalled trailers have a black plastic tow
bar receiver with an integrated wheel guard.

Recalled trailers can be identified by the first four characters
of the serial numbers on the trailer. The serial number is on a
sticker in the rear cargo area behind the seat of the trailer on
the left inside frame bar.

The following six trailer models and serial numbers are being
recalled:

  Model          Serial Numbers
  -----          --------------
  Cub            K943
  Rental Cub     K943
  D'Lite and     D948 and K948
  D'Lite ST
  Encore         K942
  Solo and       D939, K939 and KK939
  Solo ST

Trailers with aluminum tow bar receivers are not included in the
recall.

Trailers with black plastic tow bar receivers can separate from
the tow bar, posing a crash hazard to the child in the trailer.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
of injuries related to the use of these products.

Burley Design has received 35 reports of trailers with black
plastic tow bar receivers separating from the tow bar in the
United States, including two incidents that resulted in abrasions
to a child.

Approximately 820 units of the recalled trailers were sold in
Canada and about 34,000 units were distributed in the United
States.

The recalled trailers were sold from January 2009 to October 2015
at sporting goods stores, bike shops and online retailers in
Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Burley Design LLC
          Eugene
          Oregon
          UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XsM2Sa


CAMPBELL COMPANY: Recalls Ready to Serve Soup Products
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Campbell Company of Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10117

                                     Code(s) on
  Brand name   Common name    Size    product      UPC
  ----------   -----------    ----   ----------    ---

  Campbell's   Chunky         420 ml  OCT 20 2016   0 63211-
               Chicken                P8039 RR MD   16755 9
               Noodle Ready           08215
               to Serve
               Soup
  Campbell's   Chunky Beef    420 ml  NOV 08 2016   0 63211-
               Ready to               EST4R RR MB   16754 2
               Serve Soup             09095


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Parties in NY Action Entered Into MOU
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
parties in the class action in the New York Supreme Court have
entered into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") to settle the
action.

The Company said, "As described in our Proxy Statement filed
August 20, 2015, in connection with the formerly proposed Comcast-
TWC merger, eight putative class action complaints were filed on
behalf of purported TWC stockholders in the New York Supreme Court
(the "NY Actions") and the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. These complaints named as defendants TWC, the members of
the TWC board of directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger
subsidiary. The complaints generally alleged, among other things,
that the members of the TWC board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during merger negotiations
and by entering into the merger agreement and approving the
merger, and that Comcast aided and abetted such breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaints further alleged that the joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the SEC on March
20, 2014 was misleading or omitted certain material information.
The complaints sought, among other relief, compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount, injunctive relief and costs and fees. The
parties entered into a settlement agreement, conditioned on the
consummation of the Comcast-TWC merger. Now that the Comcast-TWC
merger agreement has been terminated, this settlement agreement is
no longer operative."

Following the announcement of the mergers on May 26, 2015, on June
29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a stipulation
agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second Consolidated Class
Action Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), and dismissing
the action with prejudice as to Comcast and Tango Acquisition Sub,
Inc. After the court so ordered the stipulation, the plaintiffs in
the NY Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015.
The Second Amended Complaint named as defendants TWC, the members
of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger
subsidiaries. The Second Amended Complaint generally alleged,
among other things, that the members of the TWC board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the
Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the merger
agreement and approving the mergers, and that Charter and its
subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaint sought, among other relief, an injunction against
the stockholder vote on the mergers, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, and costs and attorneys' fees.

On September 9, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the action. Pursuant to the MOU,
defendants issued certain supplemental disclosures relating to the
mergers on a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to release with
prejudice all claims that could have been asserted against
defendants in connection with the mergers. The settlement is
conditioned on, among other things, consummation of the
transactions between TWC and Charter, and must be approved by the
New York Supreme Court. In the event that the New York Supreme
Court does not approve the settlement, the defendants intend to
defend against any further litigation.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Has Not Yet Responded to Delaware Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Charter
has not yet responded to the class action filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

On August 21, 2015, a purported stockholder of Charter filed a
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of a putative
class of Charter stockholders, challenging the transactions
between Charter, TWC, A/N and Liberty Broadband announced by
Charter on May 26, 2015 (collectively, the "Transactions"). The
lawsuit is captioned Sciabacucchi v. Liberty Broadband Corp., C.A.
No. 11418-VCG (the "Delaware Action"), and names as defendants
Liberty Broadband, Charter, the board of directors of Charter, and
New Charter. Plaintiff alleged that the Transactions improperly
benefit Liberty Broadband at the expense of other Charter
shareholders, and that Charter issued a false and misleading proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions. Plaintiff
requested, among other things, that the Delaware Court of Chancery
enjoin the September 21, 2015 special meeting of Charter
stockholders at which Charter stockholders were asked to vote on
the Transactions until the defendants disclosed certain
information relating to Charter and the Transactions. The
disclosures demanded by the plaintiff included (i) certain
unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and (ii) a Form
of Proxy and Right of First Refusal Agreement ("Proxy") by and
among Liberty Broadband, A/N, Charter and New Charter, which was
referenced in the description of the Second Amended and Restated
Stockholders Agreement, dated May 23, 2015, among Charter, New
Charter, Liberty Broadband and A/N.

On September 9, 2015, Charter issued supplemental disclosures
containing unlevered free cash flow projections for Charter and
the Proxy. In return, the plaintiff agreed his disclosure claims
were moot and withdrew his application to enjoin the Transactions.
The defendants in the Delaware Action believe that the complaint
is without merit. Charter has not yet responded to this suit but
intends to deny any liability and believes that it has substantial
defenses.


CLECO CORPORATION: 2nd Amended Class Action Petition Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation on October 17, 2014, entered into the Merger
Agreement with Cleco Partners L.P., and Cleco Merger Sub, Inc.,
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Cleco
Corporation, with Cleco Corporation surviving the Merger as an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners. Pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, at the effective time of the Merger each
outstanding share of Cleco Corporation common stock, par value
$1.00 per share (other than shares that are owned by Cleco
Corporation, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, or any other direct or
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Cleco Partners or Cleco
Corporation), will be converted into the right to receive $55.37
per share in cash, without interest, with all dividends payable
before the effective time of the Merger.

A Special Meeting of Shareholders of Cleco Corporation was held on
February 26, 2015, in Pineville, Louisiana to obtain shareholder
approval of the Merger Agreement. Cleco Corporation received
approval of the Merger Agreement by a vote of approximately 77% of
shares of common stock of Cleco Corporation entitled to be cast.

Cleco Partners L.P., a Delaware limited partnership that prior to
the closing of the Merger will be owned by a consortium of
investors, including funds or investment vehicles managed by
Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, British Columbia
Investment Management Corporation, John Hancock Financial, and
other infrastructure investors.

Cleco Corp. and Cleco Power LLC said in their Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
three of the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated Amended
Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition.

In connection with the Merger, four actions were filed in the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana. The petitions in each action generally allege,
among other things, that the members of the Cleco Corporation
Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, conducting an allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing
to the Merger at a price that allegedly undervalues Cleco, and
failing to disclose material information about the Merger. The
petitions also allege that Cleco Partners, Cleco Corporation,
Merger Sub, and in some cases, certain of the investors in Cleco
Partners, either aided and abetted or entered into a civil
conspiracy to advance those supposed breaches of duty. The
petitions seek various remedies, including an injunction against
the Merger and monetary damages, including attorneys' fees and
expenses.

The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:

* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October 27,
2014),

* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No. 251,417C
(filed October 30, 2014),

* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014), and

* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).

On November 14, 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved
for a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion
was granted on November 19, 2014. On December 3, 2014, the Court
consolidated the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-
lead counsel. On December 18, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a Consolidated Amended Verified
Derivative and Class Action Petition for Damages and Preliminary
and Permanent Injunction (the Consolidated Petition), which is now
the operative petition in the consolidated action. The action
names Cleco Corporation, its directors, Cleco Partners, and Merger
Sub as defendants. The Consolidated Petition alleges, among other
things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Cleco's shareholders and grossly mismanaged Cleco by approving the
Merger Agreement because it does not value Cleco adequately,
failing to structure a process through which shareholder value
would be maximized, engaging in self-dealing by ignoring conflicts
of interest, and failing to disclose material information about
the Merger. The Consolidated Petition further alleges that all
defendants conspired to commit the breaches of fiduciary duty.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the Consolidated Petition
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in the Consolidated Petition.

The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish are captioned as follows:

* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November 7,
2014),

* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-
11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and

* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November 21,
2014).

Both the Butler and Cashen actions name Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, Macquarie Infrastructure
and Real Assets Inc. (MIRA), British Columbia Investment
Management Corporation, and John Hancock Financial as defendants.
The Creative Life Services action names Cleco Corporation, its
directors, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, MIRA, and Macquarie
Infrastructure Partners III, L.P., as defendants.

On December 11, 2014, the plaintiff in the Butler action filed an
Amended Class Action Petition for Damages, which is now the
operative petition in that action. Each petition alleges, among
other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Cleco's shareholders by approving the Merger Agreement because
it does not value Cleco adequately, failing to structure a process
through which shareholder value would be maximized and engaging in
self-dealing by ignoring conflicts of interest. The Butler and
Creative Life Services petitions also allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose material
information about the Merger. Each petition further alleges that
Cleco, Cleco Partners, Merger Sub, and certain of the investors in
Cleco Partners aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On December 23, 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish or dismissed.

On December 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed
a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans
Parish and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead
counsel.

On January 23, 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial
District Court for Rapides Parish. On February 5, 2015, the
plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also consented to the dismissal of
their cases from Orleans Parish so they could be transferred to
the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish. On February
25, 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed by
plaintiffs Moore, L'Herisson, and Trahan seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote at the Special Meeting of Shareholders scheduled
for February 26, 2015, for approval of the Merger Agreement.
Following the hearing, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

On June 19, 2015, three of the plaintiffs filed their Second
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition. This will be considered according to a schedule
established by the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish. Cleco filed exceptions seeking dismissal of the amended
petition on July 24, 2015. Cleco's exceptions have been fully
briefed and will be set for hearing at a later date.

Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each
action are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.


CMS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation and Consumers Energy Company said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation have been
remanded back to the federal district court.

CMS Energy, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services, Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been named as
defendants in five class action lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.  Allegations include manipulation
of NYMEX natural gas futures and options prices, price-fixing
conspiracies, restraint of trade, and artificial inflation of
natural gas retail prices in Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs are making claims for the following:  full
consideration damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, costs,
interest, and/or attorney fees.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases were transferred
to a single federal district court pursuant to the multidistrict
litigation process.  In 2010 and 2011, all claims against CMS
Energy defendants were dismissed by the district court based on
FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs filed appeals in all of the cases.
The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the district court decision and remanded the case to the district
court judge for further proceedings.  The appellate court found
that FERC preemption does not apply under the facts of these
cases.  The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial
of leave to amend to add federal antitrust claims.  The matter was
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in April 2015 upheld the
Ninth Circuit's decision.  The cases have been remanded back to
the federal district court.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could negatively affect CMS Energy's liquidity, financial
condition, and results of operations.


COCA-COLA: 3 Merger Class Actions Filed in Del. Chancery
--------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. on August 6, 2015, entered into
agreements with The Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), Coca-Cola Iberian
Partners (CCIP), the privately-owned Coca-Cola bottler operating
primarily in Spain and Portugal, and Coca-Cola
Erfrischungsgetranke (CCEAG), the wholly-owned TCCC bottler
operating in Germany, related to a pending merger.

Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that in connection
with the agreements entered into between the Company, TCCC, CCIP,
and CCEAG on August 6, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits
were filed in Delaware Chancery Court between the announcement
date and the present.

The Company said, "The lawsuits are similar and assert claims on
behalf of our shareholders for various alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty in connection with the agreements. The lawsuits
name us, our Board of Directors, CCIP, CCEAG, CCEP, and TCCC as
defendants. Plaintiffs in each case seek to enjoin the
transaction, to rescind the transaction if it is consummated and
allow termination damages, and to recover other damages,
attorneys' fees, and litigation expenses."

The cases as filed are: Wilhelm v. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., et
al., No. 11492-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 10, 2015), Ackerman v. Brock,
et al., No. 11501-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept. 11, 2015), and Freedman v.
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc., et al., No. 11533-VCN (Del. Ch. Sept.
22, 2015).

"We believe the cases to be without merit and intend to defend
them vigorously."


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Class Action Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing on
the motion to dismiss a class action was held on October 13, 2015
but a ruling regarding the motion to dismiss has not been made.

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer.  The case is captioned In re Commvault
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-
05628-MAS-LHG).  The suit alleges that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, regarding our financial results, business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May
7, 2013 through April 24, 2014.  It is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of our common stock during that period, and
seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as well as
equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers
Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March
18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.
Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26,
2015, and the plaintiff's filed their opposition brief on July 1,
2015. The Company's reply was filed on August 24, 2015 and a
hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on October 13, 2015 but
a ruling regarding the motion to dismiss has not been made.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend itself and its officers vigorously. At this time, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and cannot
currently estimate a range of any possible losses that it may
experience. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to
estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows. As of September 30, 2015 the
Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter.


CVR PARTNERS: Faces Mustard Class Suit Related to Rentech Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVR Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Mike Mustard, a
purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed on August 29,
2015, a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders
of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP,
Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners,
DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of the
Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Mustard Lawsuit").

The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and
that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly
conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have
breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen,
and are engaging in self-dealing.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the director defendants:
(i) failed to take steps to maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen
to its public shareholders, (ii) failed to properly value Rentech
Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored or did not protect against the
numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed
transaction.

The Mustard Lawsuit also alleges that Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech
Nitrogen GP, Rentech Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR
Partners, DSHC, LLC, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and
abetted the director defendants in their purported breach of
fiduciary duties.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to
enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The
lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such
litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may
cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could
cause the Partnership not to realize some or all of the
anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been
recognized in these condensed consolidated financial statements
regarding the lawsuits.


CVR PARTNERS: Faces Sloan Class Action Related to Rentech Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVR Partners, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Jesse Sloan, a
purported unitholder of Rentech Nitrogen, filed on October 6,
2015, a class action complaint on behalf of the public unitholders
of Rentech Nitrogen against Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP,
CVR Partners, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, and the members of
the Rentech Nitrogen Board, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (the "Sloan Lawsuit").

The Sloan Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the attempted
sale of Rentech Nitrogen to CVR Partners was conducted by means of
an unfair process and for an unfair price. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that (i) Rentech Nitrogen GP and the Rentech
Nitrogen Board breached their obligations under the partnership
agreement and their implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by
causing Rentech Nitrogen to enter into the merger agreement and
failing to disclose material information to unitholders of Rentech
Nitrogen, (ii) the Rentech Nitrogen Board violated fiduciary
duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen based primarily
on allegations of inadequate consideration, restrictive deal
protection devices and improper disclosure, (iii) each of the
defendants aided and abetted in the foregoing breaches described
in items (i) and (ii), and (iv) Rentech Nitrogen and the Rentech
Nitrogen Board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 thereunder based on improper
disclosure contained in the Registration Statement on Form S-4
(Registration No. 333-206982), which was filed with the SEC by CVR
Partners on September 17, 2015.

Among other remedies, the plaintiffs in these actions seek to
enjoin the mergers and seek unspecified money damages. The
lawsuits are at a preliminary state, and the outcome of any such
litigation is uncertain. An adverse ruling in these actions may
cause the mergers to be delayed or not be completed, which could
cause the Partnership not to realize some or all of the
anticipated benefits of the mergers. No amounts have been
recognized in these condensed consolidated financial statements
regarding the lawsuits.


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Additional Ignition Switch Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delphi Automotive PLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an additional
class action related to the GM Ignition Switch Recall has been
filed.

In the first quarter of 2014, GM, Delphi's largest customer,
initiated a product recall related to ignition switches. Delphi
received requests for information from, and cooperated with,
various government agencies related to this ignition switch
recall. In addition, Delphi was initially named as a co-defendant
along with GM (and in certain cases other parties) in class action
and product liability lawsuits related to this matter. During the
second quarter of 2014, all of the class action cases were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "District Court") for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. Two consolidated amended class action
complaints were filed in the District Court during the fourth
quarter of 2014. Delphi was not named as a defendant in either
complaint.

An additional class action complaint, brought outside of the
consolidated class actions mentioned above, named Delphi as a
defendant. Delphi believes the allegations contained in this
additional class action are without merit, and intends to
vigorously defend against them. Although no assurances can be made
as to the ultimate outcome of these or any other future claims,
Delphi does not believe a loss is probable and, accordingly, no
reserve has been made as of September 30, 2015.


DIONO: Recalls Multiple Booster Seat Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Booster Seat
Notification type: Compliance
TC System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 2518
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015515TC
ID number: 2015515

Certain booster seats may not comply with the requirements of the
Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety
Regulations. The seat fabric does not meet flammability
requirements specified in the regulations. This could increase the
risk of injury. Correction: Owners will be supplied with
replacement fabric seat covers. Click here for more information

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  DIONO               2014, 2015


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Facing "Hansen" Class Action in N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class
action lawsuit was filed on July 9, 2015, against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover Home
Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted
her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on their
cellular and residential telephones without their express consent
or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations). The Company is not in a position at this time
to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with respect
to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against all
claims asserted by the plaintiff.


DISTRIBUTION EPICERIE: Recalls Pesto Products Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Distribution Epicerie C.T.S. Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10138

  Brand          Common      Size    Code(s) on         UPC
  name           name        ----    product            ---
  -----          ------              ----------
  Mediterranean  Red Pesto   180 g   All codes where    8 005391-
  Classics                           milk is not        210863
  Campagna                           declared on the
                                     label and all
                                     codes where
                                     "noix de cajou"
                                     are not declared
                                     in French on
                                     the label.
  Mediterranean  Green Pesto 180 g   All codes where    8 005391-
  Classics                           milk is not        210861
  Campagna                           declared on the
                                     label and all
                                     codes where
                                     "noix de cajou"
                                     are not declared
                                     in French on
                                     the label.


EMCOR GROUP: Remainder of Funds to be Paid Before Yearend
---------------------------------------------------------
Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that during 2015, a
payment of $1.0 million was made to a third party claims
administrator who is holding the funds pending approval by the
Court of the consent decree, and the remainder is expected to be
paid before the end of 2015.

"One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in
California provides, among other things, janitorial services to
its customers by having those services performed by independent
janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns
retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal
class action lawsuit brought by six employees of USM's California
janitorial subcontractors," the Company said.  "The action was
commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California
and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM
and the Customer, during a period that began before our
acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits
USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor
when it knows or should know that the contract does not include
funds sufficient to allow the janitorial contractor to comply with
all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the
labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that
the amounts USM pays to its janitorial subcontractors are
insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet
their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all
hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal
and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only
themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial
services at the Customer's stores in California during the
relevant four year time period.

"We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California
statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class
action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with
whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to
the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a
class action and USM is found to have violated the California
statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek
a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California
statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon,
restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and
costs."

On February 17, 2015, USM and its Customer entered into a consent
decree which, subject to final approval of the consent decree by
the federal judge in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California following a determination by the
Court of the consent decree's fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness,will resolve the claims and defenses asserted in
the class action. Under the terms of the consent decree, USM is to
(a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to
the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the class
representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act payments to the State of California for an
immaterial amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and
administration of the claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the
class an aggregate of $1.3 million, of which $0.2 million is to be
allocated for their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and
$1.1 million is to be allocated for attorneys' fees, and (c)
establish procedures to monitor USM's California subcontractors
providing janitorial services to its Customer designed principally
to ensure janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no
less than minimum wage. The settlement amount was accrued for as
of December 31, 2014.

During 2015, a payment of $1.0 million was made to a third party
claims administrator who is holding the funds pending approval by
the Court of the consent decree, and the remainder is expected to
be paid before the end of 2015.


FAIRWAY GROUP: S.D.N.Y. Judge Tossed Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a district
judge has granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities
litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

In February and March 2014, three purported securities class
action lawsuits alleging the violation of the federal securities
laws were filed against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors and the underwriters for
the Company's initial public offering. The actions were
consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group
Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950.

On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed,
adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants.
The complaint sought unspecified damages and alleged misleading
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications
regarding the Company's business and financial results.

On September 9, 2015, the district judge to whom the case was
assigned granted the Company's motion to dismiss the case.


FIESTA RESTAURANT: Pollo Reaches Settlement in Daisy Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that Pollo
Operations, Inc. has reached a settlement in the class action
filed by Daisy, Inc.

On September 29, 2014, Daisy, Inc., an automotive repair shop in
Cape Coral, Florida, filed a putative class action suit against
Fiesta Restaurant Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, Pollo Operations, Inc.
("Pollo") in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The suit claims that Pollo allegedly engaged
in unlawful activity in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Sec. 227 et seq. occurring in December 2010 and
January 2011. As of September 27, 2015, Pollo has reached a
settlement with the plaintiff and has recorded a charge of $0.7
million to cover the estimated costs related to the settlement,
which include estimated payments to class members, plaintiffs
attorneys' fees and related settlement administration costs, but
does not include legal fees incurred by Pollo in defending the
action. The settlement, which is subject only to approval by the
Court, will result in dismissal of the case.



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

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

Affected products

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


FORD: Recalls E450 Cutaway Chassis 2016 Model Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 7
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015510TC
ID number: 2015510
Manufacturer recall number: 15S32

On certain cutaway chassis vehicles equipped with 6.8L engines and
optional trailer brake controllers, during tow operation, the
integrated trailer brake controller may not actuate the trailer
brakes when the driver depresses the brake pedal. There would be
no warning to the driver that vehicle braking does not actuate the
trailer brakes, which could increase stopping distances,
potentially resulting in a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the powertrain
control module.

  Make    Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----    -----           ----------------------
  FORD    E450 CUTAWAY    2016
          CHASSIS CAB


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Roberts" Suit Consolidated in Zofran MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Roberts v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00320, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-13584-FDS to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a prescription
medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth defects in
children when their mothers ingest the drug while pregnant.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a limited liability corporation based in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  GSK designed, manufactured or
distributed Zofran, the drug that is the subject of the lawsuit.
Zofran is a drug developed to treat severe nausea on cancer
patients resulting from chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristian Rasmussen, Esq.
          CORY WATSON P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2200
          E-mail: krasmussen@corywatson.com

               - and -

          Stephen Ray Hunt, Jr., Esq.
          CORY, WATSON, CROWDER & DEGARIS
          2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205-2854
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          E-mail: shunt@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com

               - and -

          M. Elizabeth Graham, Esq.
          Thomas V. Ayala, Esq.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bryan A. Coleman, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC
          1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 714-6498
          E-mail: bcoleman@maynardcooper.com

               - and -

          Maibeth J. Porter, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254-1000
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: mporter@maynardcooper.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces 33 Lawsuits Related to DMAA/Aegeline Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as of September
30, 2015, the Company was named in approximately 33 personal
injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA and/or
Aegeline.

Prior to December 2013, the Company sold products manufactured by
third parties that contained derivatives from geranium known as
1.3-dimethylpentylamine/dimethylamylamine/13-dimethylamylamine, or
"DMAA," which were recalled from its stores in November 2013,
and/or Aegeline, a compound extracted from bael trees.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company was named in approximately
33 personal injury lawsuits involving products containing DMAA
and/or Aegeline. One of the personal injury suits in which the
Company is named, Leanne Sparling and Michael Sparling on behalf
of Michael Sparling, deceased v. USPLabs, GNC Corporation, et al.,
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (Case No. 2013-
00034663-CU-PL-CTL), filed February 13, 2013, is the subject of
pending motions for summary judgment filed by the Company, while
the trial previously scheduled for June 2015 has been postponed
until February 2016.

As a general matter, the proceedings associated with these cases,
which generally seek indeterminate money damages, are in the early
stages, and any liabilities that may arise from these matters are
not probable or reasonably estimable at this time. The Company is
contractually entitled to indemnification by its third-party
vendor with regard to these matters, although the Company's
ability to obtain full recovery in respect of any such claims
against it is dependent upon the creditworthiness of the vendor
and/or its insurance coverage and the absence of any significant
defenses available to its insurer.


GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Brewer Case Postponed to February 2016
-------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the trial in the
California Wage and Break Claims filed by Charles Brewer has been
postponed until February 2016.

In July 2011, Charles Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in federal
court, alleging state and federal wage and hour claims (U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, Case No.
11CV3587). In October 2011, plaintiff filed an eight-count amended
complaint alleging, inter alia, meal, rest break and overtime
violations on behalf of sales associates and assistant store
managers, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

In January 2013, the Court conditionally certified a Fair Labor
Standards Act class with respect to one of Plaintiff's claims, and
in November 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a California class, and granted
Defendant's Motion for Decertification of FLSA Collective Action.

In May 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary
judgment as to the Company's alleged liability for non-compliant
wage statements, which was granted in part and denied in part in
August 2015. The trial in this matter previously scheduled for
November 2015 has been postponed until February 2016. As of
September 30, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued in
the accompanying financial statements.


GNC HOLDINGS: Still Defends "Naranjo" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a class action filed by Elizabeth Naranjo.

In February 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth Naranjo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued
General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. RG 12619626).
The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, inter
alia, meal, rest break, and overtime violations.

In October 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a
Class of approximately 900 current and former managers.  A
mediation conducted in April 2015 was unsuccessful in resolving
the Plaintiff's claims.

As of September 30, 2015, an immaterial liability has been accrued
in the accompanying financial statements.


GOURMET TRADING: Recalls Cranberry Ginger Dressing
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Gourmet Trading Company Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10130

  Brand       Common      Size      Code(s) on    UPC
  name        name        ----      product       ---
  -----       ------                ----------
  Stonewall   Cranberry   11 oz     30NOV2016     7 11381 31681 8
  Kitchen     Ginger
              Dressing


GREAT DANE: Recalls 2016 Heavy Trailer Model Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Suspension
Units affected: 40
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015520TC
ID number: 2015520

On certain trailers, the PRO-TORQ axle spindle nut
keeper/retaining clips may not have been properly seated or may
have been omitted. Disengagement or omission of the axle nut
keeper/retaining clips could lead to excessive wheel end play and
result in a loss of control, which could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or property damage. Also, should a wheel
separate from the vehicle, it could pose a danger to nearby
motorists or bystanders, which could result in injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect the PRO-TORQ
wheel end retainer clips, and repair as necessary.

  Make          Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----     ----------------------
  GREAT DANE              2016


HONDA: Recalls 2016 CR-V Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 17
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015513TC
ID number: 2015513

On certain vehicles, the airbag inflator contained in the driver
frontal airbag module may have been improperly stamped and/or
contains a defect in the material used to manufacture the airbag
inflator's metal housing, which, in the event of airbag
deployment, may cause inflator components to separate. If the
inflator components separate, this could allow fragments to be
propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury.
This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent
proper deployment. Failure of the airbag to fully deploy during a
crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of
personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will
replace the driver frontal airbag module. Note: All affected units
are still in the possession of dealers, and will be corrected
before delivery.

  Make     Model   Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----   ----------------------
  HONDA    CR-V    2016


HYUNDAI: Recalls Sonata 2015, 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 3378
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015516TC
ID number: 2015516
Manufacturer recall number: R0103 (51CA19)

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 135 - Brake Systems. If an ABS
malfunction occurs during vehicle operation, the ABS warning lamp
may fail to illuminate, contrary to the requirements of the
standard. This could allow an ABS malfunction to go undetected by
the driver, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Dealers will update ABS control
software.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  HYUNDAI   SONATA     2015, 2016


IMAX CORPORATION: Discovery Ongoing in N.D. Ill. Action
-------------------------------------------------------
IMAX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery is
ongoing in a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In November 2013, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (the "Court") against IMAX Chicago Theatre LLC ("IMAX
Chicago Theatre"), a subsidiary of the Company. The plaintiff,
Scott Redman, alleges that IMAX Chicago Theatre provided certain
credit card and debit card receipts to customers that were
purportedly not in compliance with the applicable truncation
requirements of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The
plaintiff seeks statutory damages individually and on behalf of a
putative class.

On February 20, 2014, IMAX Chicago Theatre filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which the Court denied on January 23, 2015.
Discovery is ongoing in this matter. IMAX Chicago Theatre believes
that it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


INTEL CORPORATION: Class Certification Hearing in December 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that a hearing on
plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is scheduled to
take place in December 2015.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts. "These actions generally repeat the
allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against us by AMD
in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware (AMD litigation)," the Company said. "Like the AMD
litigation, these class-action lawsuits allege that we engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by,
among other things: providing discounts and rebates to our
manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on exclusive or
near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly interfered with
AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors; interfering with
certain AMD product launches; and interfering with AMD's
participation in certain industry standards-setting groups.  The
class actions allege various consumer injuries, including that
consumers in various states have been injured by paying higher
prices for computers containing our microprocessors. We dispute
these class-action claims and intend to defend the lawsuits
vigorously."

"All of the federal and state class actions other than the
California class actions were transferred by the Multidistrict
Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in Delaware for all
pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL proceedings). The
Delaware district court appointed a Special Master to address
issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by the court. In
January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed a motion
for sanctions for our alleged failure to preserve evidence. This
motion largely copies a motion previously filed by AMD in the AMD
litigation, which has settled. The plaintiffs in the MDL
proceedings also moved for certification of a class of members who
purchased certain personal computers containing products sold by
us.

"In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The
MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report,
and a hearing on those objections was held before the district
court in July 2013.

"In July 2014, the district court affirmed the Special Master's
ruling and issued an order denying the MDL plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. In August 2014, plaintiffs filed a petition
for interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Third
Circuit denied in October 2014. In December 2014, Intel filed a
motion for summary judgment on the claims of the remaining
individual plaintiffs.

"We subsequently negotiated a settlement of the claims and the
case was dismissed in September 2015,"

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs
in the California actions moved for class certification, which we
are in the process of opposing.

"At our request, the court in the California actions agreed to
delay ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district
court ruled on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings," the
Company said.

The plaintiffs asked the court for leave to retain a new expert
and to amend their previous motion for class certification. The
court granted plaintiffs' request in February 2015 and the hearing
on plaintiffs' amended class certification motion is, scheduled to
take place in December 2015.

"Given the procedural posture and the nature of these cases, we
are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from these matters," the Company
said.


INTEL CORPORATION: Paid Settlement Amount in HTEAL Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that the Company made
its settlement payment in October 2015 in the High Tech Employee
Antitrust Litigation.

Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe
Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class action lawsuits in
the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had
entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their
employees. The lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and in September
2011 the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation. The
plaintiffs' allegations reference the 2009 and 2010 investigation
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in
the technology industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and
subsequent stipulated final judgments with the seven companies
named as defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to
cold call employees of particular other defendants and that there
was an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs
assert one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and
Google entered into an agreement starting in 2005, not to cold
call each other's employees. Plaintiffs assert claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the
Clayton Antitrust Act and seek a declaration that the defendants'
alleged actions violated the antitrust laws, damages trebled as
provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton Act,
restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2013, the district court certified a class consisting
of approximately 65,000 current or former employees of the seven
defendants and set the matter for trial in late May 2014. The so-
called "technical class" consists of a group of current and former
technical, creative, and R&D employees at each of the defendants.
In January 2014, Intel filed a motion for summary judgment, which
the court denied in March 2014.

In April 2014, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached an
agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, but in August
2014, the district court denied preliminary approval of the
settlement. In September 2014, defendants filed a petition for
writ of mandamus asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit to reverse the district court's decision. The Ninth
Circuit ordered briefing and scheduled a March 2015 hearing date
on the writ petition. Defendants have withdrawn the petition for
writ of mandamus in light of the settlement agreement.

In January 2015, Intel, Adobe, Apple, and Google reached a second
agreement with plaintiffs to settle this lawsuit, which the court
preliminarily approved in March 2015. The court held a final
fairness hearing in July 2015, and, in September 2015, gave its
final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment in the
lawsuit.

"We made our settlement payment in October 2015, which we accrued
for in our operating expenses for 2014," the Company said.
"Although we disputed the plaintiffs' claims, we agreed to settle
the lawsuit to avoid the uncertainties, expenses, and diversion of
resources from continued litigation."


INTEL CORPORATION: Appeal in McAfee Shareholder Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that the appeal in the
McAfee, Inc. Shareholder Litigation remains pending.

"On August 19, 2010, we announced that we had agreed to acquire
all of the common stock of McAfee, Inc. (McAfee) for $48.00 per
share," the Company said.  Four McAfee shareholders filed putative
class-action lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior
Court challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty. The complaint requested rescission of the
merger agreement, such other equitable relief as the court may
deem proper, and an award of damages in an unspecified amount,"
the Company said.

In June 2012, the plaintiffs' damages expert asserted that the
value of a McAfee share for the purposes of assessing damages
should be $62.08.  In January 2012, the court certified the action
as a class action, appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to
act as the class representative, and scheduled trial to begin in
January 2013. In March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the
class certification order; the petition was denied in June 2012.
In March 2012, at defendants' request, the court held that
plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench
trial. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the
California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that
order, which the court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August
2012, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

The trial court granted that motion in November 2012, and entered
final judgment in the case in February 2013. In April 2013,
plaintiffs appealed the final judgment. Intel, McAfee, and
McAfee's board of directors filed an opposition to plaintiff's
appeal in December 2014.

"Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, we are unable to make a
reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter," the Company said.  "We dispute the
class-action claims and intend to continue to defend the lawsuit
vigorously."


INVENSENSE INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that a hearing on the
motion to dismiss was held on October 7, 2015, in the class action
by shareholders.

In January and March of 2015, purported shareholders filed five
substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two
of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action
Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v.
InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on
January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on
January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and
Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v.
InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11,
2015).

On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single
proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the
"Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead
plaintiff. On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks
unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees. On June 25, 2015, the Class Action
Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the case and a
hearing on that motion was held on October 7, 2015.


KM IMPORTS: Recalls Coconut Milk Powder Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: K.M. Imports Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10137

K.M. Imports Inc. is recalling Karibbean Flavours brand Coconut
Milk Powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should
not consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand       Common    Size   Code(s) on        UPC
  name        name      ----   product           ---
  -----       ------           ----------
  Karibbean   Coconut   50 g   All codes where   8 18253 00807 6
  Flavours    Milk             milk is not
              Powder           declared on the
                               label.

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


LAOS: Faces California Class Action Over Government Atrocities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hmong I, and others similarly-situated v. Choummaly Sayasone,
Thongsing Thammavong, Bounkert Sangsomsack, Sengnuan Xayalath and
Thongbanh Sengaphone, Case No. 2:15-cv-02349-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.,
November 12, 2015), seeks full compensatory and punitive damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, appropriate protective orders
and attorneys fees available under the Alien Tort Claims Act and
specific violations of the 1973 Vientiane Ceasefire Agreement,
1962 Geneva Convention and the 1966 United Nations International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Hmong I, a fictitious name, lost her husband during an aggressive
campaign against the Hmong people pursuant to the Pathet Laos
Paper that seeks to exterminate them. Her people suffered rape,
mutilation, torture, disembowelment, poisoning vis-a-vis poisoning
of the water and food systems and murder.

Choummaly Sayasone is President of the Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Thongsing Thammavong is the Prime Minister of Laos, Dr.
Bounkert Sangsomsack is the Minister of Justice of Laos,
Lieutenant General Sengnuan Xayalath is the Minister of Defense.
Thongbanh Sengaphone is the Minister of Public Security.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Herman Franck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Vogel, Esq.
      FRANCK & ASSOCIATES
      1801 7th Street, Suite 150
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Tel: (916) 447-8400
      Fax: (916) 447-0720


LARIVIERE PARKING: "Cappelli" Suit Seeks Overtime & Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Miguel Naranjo Cappelli, and others similarly-situated v.
Lariviere Parking Systems LLC, Case 1:15-cv-24235-PCH (S.D. Fla.,
November 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours a week for a period of three years in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lariviere Parking Systems LLC is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida and provides
building facilities maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LIVE NATION: Briefing Next Year on Appeals in Ticketing Fees Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that appeals
related to the Ticketing Fees Consumer Class Action Litigation
have been consolidated and will be briefed in 2016.

In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets.

In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
then pleading the case as a putative class action and adding the
claim that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in respect of its
ticket order processing fees constitute false advertising in
violation of California's False Advertising Law. On this new
claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or disgorgement of
the entire amount of order processing fees charged by Ticketmaster
during the applicable period.

In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to file a second amended complaint adding new claims that (a)
Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable under the
UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices further
violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiffs
later filed a third amended complaint, to which Ticketmaster filed
a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled Ticketmaster's
demurrer in October 2009.

The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.

In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate
with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class
certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied
plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's
Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal
granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered
the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new
order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on
the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed
its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the
Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion
for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted
by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
to Decertify Class.

In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and later that same month, the Court granted in part
and denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval.

In June 2013, the parties reached a revised settlement, which was
preliminarily approved by the Court in April 2014. In February
2015, the Court granted the parties' motion for final approval of
the settlement. Several objectors to the settlement appealed the
Court's final approval ruling. Those appeals have been
consolidated and will be briefed in 2016.

Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not acknowledged
any violations of law or liability in connection with the matter.

As of September 30, 2015, the Company had accrued $34.9 million,
its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement referred to above. The calculation of this liability is
based in part upon an estimated redemption rate. Any difference
between the Company's estimated redemption rate and the actual
redemption rate it experiences will impact the final settlement
amount; however, the Company does not expect this difference to be
material.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the appeal
in a Maryland class action filed by several former Marriott
employees is pending.

On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against us
and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain
equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs
and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963
through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those
set forth in the awards. The action was brought in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt
Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman were
the remaining named plaintiffs. Class certification was denied,
and on January 16, 2015, the court granted Marriott's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the case.

Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Company has cross-appealed
on statute of limitations grounds.


MASTERCARD INCORPORATED: District Court Order Reversed
------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Court of
Appeals has reversed the district court's order and sent the ATM
Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints back for further
proceedings.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs
have not quantified their damages although they allege that they
expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.

Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reversed the district court's order in August 2015 and
sent the case back for further proceedings.


MCNEILUS TRUCK: Recalls 41 Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 41
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015519TC
ID number: 2015519

On certain vehicles outfitted with an optional hydraulic test port
tube, the tube could crack or break due to fatigue. This could
allow high pressure hydraulic fluid to spray onto nearby hot
exhaust or turbo components, which could increase the risk of fire
resulting in injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
McNeilus will provide a Technical Service Bulletin to show how to
remove the optional hydraulic test port tube and cap off the
valve.


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Class Actions Consolidated in N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mondelez International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that several
class action complaints have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois.

In April 2013, the staff of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission ("CFTC") advised us and Kraft Foods Group that it was
investigating activities related to the trading of December 2011
wheat futures contracts that occurred prior to the Spin-Off of
Kraft Foods Group. We cooperated with the staff in its
investigation. On April 1, 2015, the CFTC filed a complaint
against Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global LLC ("Mondelez
Global") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division (the "CFTC action"). The complaint
alleges that Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global (1) manipulated
or attempted to manipulate the wheat markets during the fall of
2011; (2) violated position limit levels for wheat futures and (3)
engaged in non-competitive trades by trading both sides of
exchange-for-physical Chicago Board of Trade wheat contracts. The
CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties of either triple the monetary
gain for each violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (the "Act")
or $1 million for each violation of Section 6(c)(1), 6(c)(3) or
9(a)(2) of the Act and $140,000 for each additional violation of
the Act, plus post-judgment interest; an order of permanent
injunction prohibiting Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global from
violating specified provisions of the Act; disgorgement of
profits; and costs and fees.

On June 1, 2015, Mondelez Global and Kraft Foods Group filed a
motion to dismiss the CFTC's claims of market manipulation and
attempted manipulation.

Additionally, several class action complaints were filed against
Kraft Foods Group and Mondelez Global in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois by investors in wheat
futures and options on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated. The complaints make similar allegations as those made in
the CFTC action and seek class action certification; an
unspecified amount for damages, interest and unjust enrichment;
costs and fees; and injunctive, declaratory, and other unspecified
relief.  On June 4, 2015, these suits were consolidated in the
Northern District of Illinois.

"It is not possible to predict the outcome of these matters;
however, based on our Separation and Distribution Agreement with
Kraft Foods Group dated as of September 27, 2012, we expect to
predominantly bear any monetary penalties or other payments in
connection with the CFTC action," the Company said.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: TalentBin Faces Consumer Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Monster Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that TalentBin,
Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, was served on or about October
12, 2015, with notice of a purported consumer class action for
allegedly assembling, scoring and sharing candidate profiles in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.  The lawsuit,
entitled Eric Halvorson, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. TalentBin, Inc. (Case No. CGC 15
548270), was brought in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, statutory penalties of between one hundred dollars and
one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages and other
costs and attorney's fees. The Company intends to vigorously
defend this matter and is currently unable to estimate any
potential losses.


NEUSTAR INC: Final Settlement Hearing Scheduled for December 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuStar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a final hearing
before the Alexandria Division is scheduled for December 3, 2015.

On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, or the Alexandria
Division, against the Company and certain of its senior executive
officers.  The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for purported
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased
the Company's securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014,
inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive
relief.

On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order
appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public
Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff.  On November 6,
2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014,
the Company moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint.  On
December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a
reply brief to the IPRS opposition.  The Alexandria Division heard
oral arguments on the motions on January 22, 2015 and on January
27, 2015, and issued an order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with prejudice.  On February 25,
2015, counsel for IPRS filed a notice of appeal.

On July 28, 2015, the IPRS, on behalf of itself and the proposed
settlement class, on the one hand, and certain of the Company's
senior executive officers on the other hand, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Alexandria
Division, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the
proposed settlement of the claims. The Alexandria Division granted
preliminary approval on September 22, 2015. The final hearing
before the Alexandria Division is scheduled for December 3, 2015.
As of September 30, 2015, the impact of the proposed settlement
amount is not material to the Company's consolidated financial
position and results of operations.


NEWMAR: Recalls Multiple Motorhome 2016 Models
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System:Power train
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015512TC
ID number: 2015512

Certain motorhomes built on Ford F-53 and F-59 chassis may have
been built with an incorrect shift cable bracket. This could allow
the transmission to be shifted into reverse without the brakes
being applied, which could increase the risk of unintended vehicle
movement, potentially resulting in a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Ford authorized service centers
will replace and adjust the shift cable bracket.
Affected products

  Make     Model                Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----                ----------------------
  NEWMAR   CANYON STAR          2016, 2016, 2016
           CLASS A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR   BAY STAR CLASS A     2016
           MOTORHOME


NXSTAGE MEDICAL: Recalls Portable Hemodialysis Systems
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:  Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55866

NxStage has identified a software error in the NxStage System One
S Cycler Model No. Nx1000-3 with software versions 4.9 and 4.10.
If specific conditions are met and a software error does occur,
the ultrafiltration (UF) volume target will not decrease during
the treatment even if the uf pump is running.

Affected products:
NxStage System One-Cycler (Chronic Application)
Lot or serial number:
More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.

Model or catalog number: Not Applicable

Manufacturer: NxStage Medical, Inc.
              350 Merrimack Street
              Lawrence
              01843
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES


ORMCO CORPORATION: Recalls Orthodontic Archwires
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 2, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55988

The label on the Copper Ni-Ti Preformed Archwire, an orthodontic
archwire, indicates the transformation temperature as 40 degrees
centigrade, but the actual transformation temperature is 29
degrees centigrade due to the second heat treatment being skipped
in manufacturing.

Affected products: Tru-Arch
Lot or serial number: 021538339
Model or catalog number: 211-0952

Manufacturer: Ormco Corporation
              1332 South Lone Hill Avenue
              Glendora
              91740
              California
              UNITED STATES


OTTO BOCK: Recalls Triton Prosthetic Foot Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55854

Affected Products: Triton Smart Ankle

When sitting, the prosthetic foot can go into the 'relief
function' and move the footplate towards the ground if this
function is not switched off or if the foot is in stand-by mode.
When operating machines with foot pedals, the possibility is given
that the foot -- unnoticed by the user -- activates the 'relief
function' and for example get stuck under the foot pedal. The foot
pedal can be blocked and this could lead to a hazardous situation.

Also, an iOS software issue has been identified where the
restricted range for dorsiflexion in the 'relief function' does
not save when the re-training is done via iOS Galileo application.

Lot or serial number: Not applicable

Model or catalog number: 1C66*

Manufacturer: Otto Bock Healthcare GMBH
              MAX NADER STRABE 15
              DUDERSTADT
              37115
              GERMANY


OUTDOOR GEAR: Recalls Bicycle Crank Sets Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Posting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55086

This recall involves Eclat Aeon bicycle crank set and WTP Envy BLK
Titan bicycles equipped with Aeon crankset. The crank set can be
identified by the "AEON" logo close to the pedal boss. "ECLAT ESS
22MM" is etched on the end of the spindle.

The following crank sets and bicycles are included in this recall:

  Product      Description   Size     Colour   UPC
  -------      -----------   ----     ------   ---
  Eclat Aeon   2 pc Crank    170 mm   Black    4055822002455
  Eclat Aeon   2 pc Crank    175 mm   Black    4055822002486
  Eclat Aeon   2 pc Crank    170 mm   Green    4555822002462
  Eclat Aeon   2 pc Crank    175 mm   Green    4055822002493
  Eclat Aeon   2 pc Crank    170 mm   Chrome   4555822002462
  Eclat Aeon   2 pc Crank    175 mm   Chrome   4055822002509
  WTP Envy                   0.5"     Black    4055822001205
  Bicycle                             Titan
  WTP Envy                   21"      Black    4055822001212
  Bicycle                             Titan

The crank set may break, posing a fall hazard to the rider.

Neither Health Canada nor Outdoor Gear Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of these bicycle crank sets.

In Germany and Belgium, WeMakeThings has received five reports of
the crank breaking at the spindle. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 78 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 240
units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from April 2015 to July 2015 in
Canada.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: We Make Things GmbH
              Koln/Cologne
              GERMANY

Distributor: Outdoor Gear Canada
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

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


PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against "Lofstedt" Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 29, 2015, that the Company is
prepared to vigorously defend a class action by Jason Lofstedt in
California state court.

On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against one of the Company's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a
former employee of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside.
The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified
damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such
other relief as the Court might find just and proper.

The Company believes its subsidiary has meritorious defenses to
each of the claims in the lawsuit and is prepared to vigorously
defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company's subsidiary will be successful, and an adverse resolution
of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. The
Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate potential
losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.


POLYCOM INC: Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, Inc. and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in a class action are pending, Polycom
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action, initially
captioned Neal v. Polycom Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC,
and presently captioned Nathanson v. Polycom, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03476-SC, was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors. On
December 13, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and
approved lead and liaison counsel.

On February 24, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint. The amended complaint alleged that, between January 20,
2011 and July 23, 2013, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements or failed to disclose information regarding
the Company's business, operational and compliance policies,
including with respect to its former Chief Executive Officer's
expense submissions and the Company's internal controls. The
lawsuit further alleged that the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading. The amended complaint
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On April 3, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims against Polycom
and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The lead plaintiff filed a
second complaint on May 4, 2015. Polycom and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on June
26, 2015. Those motions are pending.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any range of
reasonably possible loss relating to the securities class action
lawsuit.


PORSCHE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 3490
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015514TC
ID number: 2015514
Manufacturer recall number: AF06

On certain vehicles, a defect in the fuel low pressure line could
result in a fuel smell and/or fuel leak. A fuel leak in the
presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing
injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will install an
improved fuel low pressure fuel line.

  Make      Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----       ----------------------
  PORSCHE               2015, 2016, 2015, 2016


POTTERY BARN: Recalls Kids' Stainless Steel Water Bottles
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 28, 2015
Posting date: October 28, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55598

This recall involves the Avengers and Darth Vader themed stainless
steel water bottles. The Avengers bottle has images of Thor, The
Incredible Hulk and Iron Man. The Darth Vader bottle has an image
of Darth Vader and the Death Star. The water bottles are grey and
have a blue or black plastic top, a vacuum-valve stopper and are
13.75 centimetres tall by 6.87 centimetres in diameter.  The
bottom of the bottle has one of the following date codes imprinted
on it: 12/2013, 8/2014, or 12/2014.

The price sticker affixed to the bottom of the bottles have the
following SKU numbers:

  SKU Number     Character
  ----------     ---------
  7607161        Darth Vader
  7939721        Avengers

The grey paint on the metal portion of the water bottle can
contain levels of lead in excess of legal standards.

Neither Health Canada, the CPSC, nor Pottery Barn Kids has
received any reports of incidents.

For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead exposure,
visit Reduce your exposure to lead.

Approximately 430 units were sold at various Pottery Barn Kids
locations across Canada. Approximately 15,200 units were sold in
the USA.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from June 2014 to
September 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Amax Enterprises (HK) Limited
              CHINA

Distributor: Pottery Barn Kids
             San Francisco
             California
             UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/43W2yS


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Settlement in Celera Litigation Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California has
preliminarily approved the settlement in the Celera Corp.
securities litigation.

In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the District Court against
Celera Corporation and certain of its directors and current and
former officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010
alleges that from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding Celera's business
and financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement.

Celera and the director and officer defendants have reached an
agreement to settle this action, which the court has preliminarily
approved. The settlement is fully covered by insurance.


QUEST MEDICAL: Recalls MPS Delivery Sets
----------------------------------------
Starting date: October 29, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55974

The identified lots of MPS Delivery Sets have shown a possible
seal failure along the blood source channel of main pump cassette,
resulting in blood loss from the bypass circuit and interruption
of cardioplegia solution delivery.

Affected products:
A. MPS Delivery Set w/arrest agent and additive cassette
Lot or serial number:
More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 5001102

Manufacturer: Quest Medical, Inc.
              ONE ALLENTOWN PARKWAY
              Allen
              75002
              Texas
              UNITED STATES

B. MPS Delivery Set
Lot or serial number: 0492205E03
                      0492765E07
                      0493695U04
                      0494485U07
                      0495965G04
                      0497265S02
                      049925G02
Model or catalog number: 5001102AS
                         7001102

Manufacturer: Quest Medical, Inc.
              ONE ALLENTOWN PARKWAY
              Allen
              75002
              Texas
              UNITED STATES


RAYONIER ADVANCED: Discovery Stayed in Stockholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Advanced Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that all
discovery has been stayed in the Stockholder Litigation pending
the court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

On May 4, 2015 the Company was served with a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System vs. Rayonier
Advanced Materials Inc., Paul G. Boynton, Frank A. Ruperto and
Benson K. Woo. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on
September 11, 2015.

The case is a purported class action alleging securities laws
violations, primarily related to claims the Company failed to
record adequate environmental reserves related to disposed
operations which, the plaintiffs allege led to a decrease in the
Company's stock price between June 30, 2014 and January 28, 2015.
The allegations are couched as violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and as violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On September 16, 2015, the case against Mr. Ruperto was dismissed
by the plaintiffs. All discovery has been stayed pending the
court's ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

The Company strongly believes the amended complaint and its
allegations to be baseless and without merit, and will continue to
vigorously defend this action. This matter is not expected to have
a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in W.D. Tex. Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
intends to appeal the final judgment of the Western District of
Texas to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against
Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the
City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury
verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for
purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury
verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged
by the OTAs are subject to hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs
have a duty to collect and remit these taxes.

"We disagree with the jury's finding and with the W.D.T.'s
conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the
final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest,
is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and
therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case," the
Company said.


SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that two putative class
action lawsuits (with virtually identical complaints) were filed
on July 14, 2015 and July 20, 2015, against the Company and two
other GDSs, in the Federal District Court of New York, Southern
Division.

In August 2015, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the second
lawsuit that was filed on July 20, 2015. The plaintiffs, who are
asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in
various states, are generally alleging that the GDSs conspired to,
for example, negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws. Although the amount of damages
allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs has not been asserted to
date, the plaintiffs are also seeking declaratory and injunctive
relief.

"We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as
this litigation is ongoing.  We intend to vigorously defend
against these claims," the Company said.


SANOFI AVENTIS: Recalls Allerject Sterile Auto-injectors
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 28, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55688

Potential device defect affecting delivery of drug to patient.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers/distributors, pharmacies,
hospitals and health care professionals across Canada.

Affected products: Allerject 0.15 mg / 0.15 mL
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02382059
Dosage form: Sterile auto-injector
Strength: Epinephrine 0.15 mg / 0.15 mL
Lot or serial number: 3060865
                      2974282
                      2883603
                      2857508
                      2692155
                      2654767
                      2546918
                      2506422
                      2081284
                      2081285
                      3060862
                      2974283
                      2883600
                      2857505
                      2692158
                      2654764
                      2546909
                      2506413
                      2144101
                      2081287
                      2113805

Recalling Firm: Sanofi Aventis (Canada) Inc.
                2905 Louis R. Renaud Place
                Laval
                H7V 0A3
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Sanofi Aventis (Canada) Inc.
                                2905 Louis R. Renaud Place
                                Laval
                                H7V 0A3
                                Quebec
                                CANADA



SANTANDER CONSUMER: Steck Class Action Transferred to N.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
venue of the Steck class action lawsuit has been transferred from
the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of
Texas.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York (the "Steck Lawsuit"). On October 6, 2014, another
purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas and was subsequently
removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas.

Both lawsuits were filed against the Company, certain of its
current and former directors and executive officers and certain
institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering. Each lawsuit was brought by a purported
stockholder of the Company seeking to represent a class consisting
of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public
offering. Each complaint alleged that the Registration Statement
and Prospectus contained misleading statements concerning the
Company's auto lending business and underwriting practices.  Each
lawsuit asserted claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks damages and other relief.

In February 2015, the purported class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, was
voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June 2015, the venue of
the Steck Lawsuit was transferred from the Southern District of
New York to the Northern District of Texas.


SEA TOWN OF GARDENS: "Ledo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Manuel Ledo, and all others similarly situated v. Sea Town Of
Gardens, Corp. 1:15-cv-24234-UU Document 1 (S.D. Fla., November
12, 2015) seek to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly for
the past three years and damages and reasonable attorney fees from
Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sea Town of Gardens, Corp is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Miami-Dade County, operating restaurants
within Miami under "Snappers Fish & Chicken."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish, Allergen - Fish,
Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corporation (ON)
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10134

  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on         UPC
  name      name         ----    product            ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Cuisine   Sweet Curry  108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Mango &           anchovy, mustard,  740003
            Banana               and oyster are
                                 not declared on
                                 the label
  Cuisine   Sour Curry   108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Tomato &          anchovy, mustard   739984
            Yogurt               and sand lance
                                 are not declared
                                 on the label
  Cuisine   Rich Curry   108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Roasted           anchovy, mustard   739991
            Garlic &             and sand lance
            Onion                are not declared
                                 on the label


SHANGHAI DUPLICATE: "Guerrero" Suit to Recover Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Horpinel Cantoran-Guerrero, Narbol Cantoranguerrero and Migdalio
Temac-Miranda v. Shanghai Duplicate Corp. Case No. 1:15-cv-08868
(S.D.N.Y., November 10, 2015) seek to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York State
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Shanghai Duplicate Corp. is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the State of New York with principal
place of business at 9 Pell Street, New York, New York 10013. It
operates a restaurant business under the "Joe's Shanghai" brand
with two other restaurants in New York City under the same brand
located at 24 West 56th Street and 136-21 37th Avenue, Flushing,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      6th Floor, 708 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102


SKI-DOO: Recalls Multiple Snowmobiles Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Snowmobile
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 2680
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015518TC
ID number: 2015518

On certain snowmobiles, the fuel hose assembly may have internal
damage which could lead to a fuel leak. A fuel leak in the
presence of an ignition source could result in a fire causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace
the fuel hose assembly.

  Make       Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----            ----------------------
  SKI-DOO    GSX SE 600       2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016, 2016,
                              2016, 2016
  SKI-DOO    MX Z TNT 600     2016
  SKI-DOO    MX Z X 800       2016
  SKI-DOO    MX Z X 600       2016
  SKI-DOO    MX Z X-RS 800    2016
  SKI-DOO    RENEGADE         2016
             ADRENALINE 600
  SKI-DOO    RENEGADE         2016
             BACKCOUNTRY 600
  SKI-DOO    RENEGADE X 800   2016
  SKI-DOO    SUMMIT SP 800    2016
  SKI-DOO    SUMMIT SP 600    2016
  SKI-DOO    SUMMIT X 800     2016


SPICE SANCTUARY: Recalls Asafoetida Products Due to Gluten
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Spice Sanctuary Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island,
Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10141

  Brand      Common name    Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name       -----------    ----    product       ---
  -----                             ----------
  Spice      Asafoetida     25 g    Lot 53265     X000RXKLS7
  Sanctuary  (Hing) -                             571001 or
             Gluten &                             8 95344 00059 1
             Grain Free


ST JUDE MEDICAL: Recalls Optisure Defibrillation Leads
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 2, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55864

During the manufacturing process of a limited number of Optisure
leads, a trim technique used to remove excess medical adhesive
around the superior vena cava (SVC) shock coil may have introduced
damage to the lead's insulation.

Affected products:
OPTISURE DEFIBRILLATION LEAD (ACTIVE FIXATION)
Lot or serial number: S/N BRG010437
                      S/N BRL010010

Model or catalog number: LDA220Q
                         LDA230Q

Manufacturer: St. Jude Medical, Cardiac Rhythm Management
              Division
              15900 VALLEY VIEW COURT
              Sylmar
              91342
              California
              UNITED STATES


T-BROTHERS FOOD: Recalls Curry Products Due to Allergens
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Crustacean/Shellfish, Allergen - Fish,
Allergen -- Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: T-Brothers Food And Trading Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10121

  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on         UPC
  name      name         ----    product            ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Cuisine   Sweet Curry  108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Mango &           anchovy, mustard,  740003
            Banana               and oyster are
                                 not declared on
                                 the label
  Cuisine   Sour Curry   108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Tomato &          anchovy, mustard   739984
            Yogurt               and sand lance
                                 are not declared
                                 on the label
  Cuisine   Rich Curry   108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Roasted           anchovy, mustard   739991
            Garlic &             and sand lance
            Onion                are not declared
                                 on the label
  Cuisine   Soft Curry   108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Cheese &          anchovy, mustard   745930
            Coconut              and oyster are
                                 not declared on
                                 the label
  Cuisine   Spicy Curry  108 g   All codes where    8 801052-
            of Seafood           anchovy, mustard   745923
                                 and sand lance
                                 are not declared
                                 on the label


TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
remains a defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box
Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal
district courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for
pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: New York Class Action Stayed by December 9
-------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that all litigation
deadlines in a class action in New York are stayed pending
negotiation, execution of a settlement agreement by December 9,
2015.

In connection with the formerly proposed Comcast merger, eight
putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of purported
TWC stockholders in the New York Supreme Court (the "NY Actions")
and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These
complaints named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board
of directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The
complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the members
of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
TWC stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into
the Comcast Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and
that Comcast aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints further alleged that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on March 20, 2014 was misleading
or omitted certain material information. The complaints sought,
among other relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
injunctive relief and costs and fees. The parties entered into a
settlement agreement, conditioned inter alia on the consummation
of the Comcast merger. Now that the Comcast Merger Agreement has
been terminated, the settlement is no longer operative, although
the plaintiffs have the right to petition the court for the award
of attorneys' fees and TWC has the right to oppose that
application.

Following the announcement of the Charter merger on May 26, 2015,
on June 29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a
stipulation agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), and dismissing with prejudice Comcast and Comcast's
merger subsidiary. After the court so ordered the stipulation, the
plaintiffs in the NY Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on
July 1, 2015. The Second Amended Complaint names as defendants
TWC, the members of the TWC board of directors, Charter and the
merger subsidiaries. The Second Amended Complaint generally
alleges, among other things, that the members of the TWC board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders
during the Charter merger negotiations and by entering into the
Charter Merger Agreement and approving the Charter merger, and
that Charter and its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches
of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the shareholder vote on the Charter
merger, unspecified declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, and costs and fees.

On September 9, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), which reflects an agreement
in principle to settle the case. Pursuant to the MOU, all
litigation deadlines are stayed pending negotiation, execution of
a settlement agreement by December 9, 2015, and final approval of
the agreement.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it are
without merit and, if the settlement does not receive final
approval by the New York Supreme Court or otherwise is not
consummated, intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TOSHIBA MEDICAL: Recalls Image-Processing Devices
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: October 30, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55862

By the inappropriate processing of the software for the image-
processing device (HDR-08A), one-shot images are saved as black
images in the hard disk, and they are displayed as black images on
the system monitor, even though these images are displayed
normally on the live monitor.

Affected products:
A. DIGITAL FLUOROGRAPHY SYSTEM
Lot or serial number:
More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: HDR-08A

Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation
              1385 Shimoishigami
              OTAWARA-SHI
              324-8550
              JAPAN

B. ULTIMAX-I
Lot or serial number:
More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: DREX-U180_/K1
                         DREX-UI80_/K2

Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation
              1385 Shimoishigami
              OTAWARA-SHI
              324-8550
              JAPAN

C. REMOTE CONTRL R/F SYSTEM ZEXIRA - MAIN UNIT
Lot or serial number:
More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: DREX-ZX80_/K4

Manufacturer: Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation
              1385 Shimoishigami
              OTAWARA-SHI
              324-8550
              JAPAN


TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 6274
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015521TC
ID number: 2015521
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R11 / SRC R12

On certain vehicles equipped with Pre-Collision System (PCS), the
system could unexpectedly activate while operating the vehicle.
Under certain situations, the system may interpret a steel joint
or plate in the roadway as an obstacle, and the system may apply
the service brake automatically. If the PCS applies unexpected
braking force during normal vehicle operation when no impending
collision object is present, it could increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
disable the Pre-Collision System (PCS) as an interim measure, and
when parts become available, will replace the PCS components with
improved parts.

  Make       Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----        ----------------------
  TOYOTA     AVALON       2013, 2014, 2015
  LEXUS      ES 350       2013, 2014, 2013, 2014, 2015


TRITON CPTL: Faces "Pebble" Suit in California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pebble Paving Company, a California corporation, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Triton Cptl, Inc., a
California corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02341-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
October 16, 2015) arises from alleged unsolicited telephone sales.

Based in San Diego, California, Triton Cptl, Inc., provides
commercial equipment financing and working capital options for
small and medium sized businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq.
          LOZEAU DRURY, LLP
          410 12th Street, Suite 250
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 836-4200
          Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
          E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Broadbent" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson Broadbent, and all others similarly-situated v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen of
America, Inc., Audi of America, Inc. and Audi AG and Porsche Cars
North America, Inc. and Porsche AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-01493-LO-MSN
(E.D. Va., November 10, 2015), seeks injunctive relief and to
recover damages caused by alleged violations of Section 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, common law of fraud
and unjust enrichment and the statutory laws of California and
Virginia.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by the car companies -- called a defeat device --
that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated
testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering
it non-compliant to emission standards set by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources
Board.

Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing
under German law with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany and is the parent company of Audi AG. It
manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi brand.

Porsche AG is an automotive company under the Volkswagen Group
organized and existing under German law, with its principal place
of business in Stuttgart, Germany. It manufactures luxury sports
cars under the Porsche brand.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi
Vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Porsche AG that sells Porsche vehicles in the United States and is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard J. DiMuro, Esq.
      Harvey B. Cohen, Esq.
      DMUROGINSBERG, P.C.
      1101 King Street, Suite 610
      Alexandria, VA 23314
      Tel: (703) 684-4333
      Fax: (703) 548-3181
      Email: bdimuro@dimuro.com
             hcohen@dimuro.com

         - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      Jill M. Manning, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 421-3400
      Fax: (415) 421-2234
      Email: astever@steverlaw.com
             smacrae@steverlaw.com
             imanning@steverlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Cornell" Suit to District of Vermont
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Cornell, et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 340-9-15 Bncv, was removed from
the Vermont Superior Court, Bennington Unit, Civil Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00222-gwc to
the proceeding.

VWGoA is incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey
and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
Herndon, Virginia.  The Company distributed, sold, leased and
warranted the "Subject Vehicles" under the Volkswagen and Audi
brand names.

The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class of all present
and former owners or lessees in Vermont of Volkswagen and Audi
"2.0 Liter Vehicles" and "3.0 Liter Vehicles."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
          WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON & CAMPBELL & BERNAL, P.C.
          4900 Main Street
          P.O. Box 2748
          Telephone: (802) 362-2560
          Facsimile: (802) 362-7109
          E-mail: pjb@wittenetal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David A. Barry, Esq.
          Andrew R. Levin, Esq.
          SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK & COHEN,P.C.
          101 Merrimac Street
          Boston, MA 02114-4 73 7
          Telephone: (617) 227-3030
          Facsimile: (617) 523-4001
          E-mail: barry@srbc.com
                  levin@srbc.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Removes "Glowacki" Suit to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Glowacki, et al. v. Volkswagen
Group of America Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CP-10-5245, was
removed from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
04257-RMG to the proceeding.

The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class of all present
and former owners or lessees in South Carolina of Volkswagen and
Audi vehicles with 2.0 liter "clean diesel" engines.  The
Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs would not have purchased or
leased their vehicles but for the alleged misrepresentations of
VWGoA concerning "clean diesel" technology and emissions and
performance characteristics.

VWGoA is incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey
and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in
Herndon, Virginia.  The Company distributed, sold, leased and
warranted the "Subject Vehicles" under the Volkswagen and Audi
brand names.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Badge Humphries, Esq.
          LEWIS BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, LLP
          2113 Middle Street, South Carolina 29482
          PO Box 768
          Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
          Telephone: (843) 883-7444
          Facsimile: (843) 883-7462
          E-mail: bh@lbglegal.com

               - and -

          Arthur Camden Lewis, Esq.
          LEWIS BABCOCK & GRIFFIN, LLP
          1513 Hampton Street
          PO Box 11208 (29211)
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 771-8000
          Facsimile: (803) 733-3534
          E-mail: acl@lbglegal.com

               - and -

          Scott P. Shaw, Esq.
          CALL & JENSEN
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717-3100
          E-mail: sshaw@calljensen.com

               - and -

          Frederick J. Jekel, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          JEKEL DOOLITTLE
          PO Box 2579
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 654-7700
          Facsimile: (843) 567-1129
          E-mail: fritz@j-dlaw.com
                  paul@j-dlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Henry Buist Smythe, Jr., Esq.
          Charles J. Baker, III, Esq.
          Dana Lang, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP
          Five Exchange Street
          PO Box 999
          Charleston, SC 29402-0999
          Telephone: (843) 722-3400
          Facsimile: (843) 723-7398
          E-mail: hsmythe@wcsr.com
                  cbaker@wcsr.com
                  dlang@wcsr.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "De Britz" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anela Kelani De Britz, and all others similarly-situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case 2:15-cv-08815-DMG-E (C.D. Cal., November 12,
2015), seeks to obtain damages, both actual and punitive,
restitution and to enjoin Volkswagen from continuing to deceive
consumers pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the 2.0L Turbocharged Direct Injection diesel engine vehicles made
by the car companies -- called a defeat device -- that allegedly
turns on the emission controls during mandated testing but turns
it off during regular operations thus rendering it non-compliant
to emission standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Volkswagen of America, Inc. is a corporation which is incorporated
in the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business
located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia and is
an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing
under German law with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany and is the parent company of Audi AG. It
manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
      K.L. Myles, Esq.
      KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
      Suite 1500, 550 North Brand Boulevard,
      Glendale, CA 91203-1922
      Tel: (818) 547-5000
      Fax: (818) 547-5329
      E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
              klm@kpclegal.com

         - and -

      Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
      Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
      Suite 1500, 550 North Brand Boulevard
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 547-5200
      Fax: (818) 500-9307
      E-mail: mike.@falveylaw.com
              thomaswfalvey@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hoekstra" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Hoekstra, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No: 1:15-cv-10274
Document#1 (N.D. Ill., November 12, 2015), seek redress for fraud
and deception pursuant to Class Action Fairness Act and in
violation of the Mangson-Moss Warranty Act as a result of selling
allegedly defective vehicles.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the 2013 Volkswagen Jetta Sedan Turbocharged Direct Injection
diesel engine vehicle made by the car companies -- called a defeat
device -- that allegedly turns on the emission controls during
mandated testing but turns it off during regular operations thus
rendering it non-compliant to emission standards set by the
Environmental Protection Agency and as enforced by the Clean Air
Act and the Code of Federal Regulations.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Volkswagen AG is an automotive company organized and existing
under German law with its principal place of business in
Wolfsburg, Germany and manufactures vehicles under the Volkswagen
brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd A. Smith, Esq.
      Brian LaCien, Esq.
      Carolyn Daley Scott, Esq.
      POWER ROGERS & SMITH P.C.
      70 W Madison Suite 5500
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 236-9381
      Fax: (312) 236-0920
      Email: tsmith@prslaw.com
             blacien@prslaw.com
             cdaley@prslaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Labbate" Suit Alleges Emission Test Cheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Labbate, and all others similarly-situated v. Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen of America, Inc., Audi of America, Inc. and Audi AG
North America, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-00309 (E.D. Tenn., November 10,
2015), seeks to recover economic damages in the diminution of
their vehicles with Type EA 189 diesel engines and the diminution
of vehicle resale value caused by alleged violations of Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The class action complaint arises out of an installed component in
the Turbocharged Direct Injection variants of the light passenger
vehicles made by the car companies -- called a defeat device --
that allegedly turns on the emission controls during mandated
testing but turns it off during regular operations thus rendering
it non-compliant to emission standards set by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources
Board.

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft is an automotive company organized
and existing under German law with its principal place of business
in Wolfsburg, Germany and manufactures vehicles under the
Volkswagen brand.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under New Jersey law with headquarters in Hemdon,
Virginia and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG. Their
operations in the United States include research and development,
parts and vehicle processing, parts distribution, sales, marketing
and service offices, financial service centers and manufacturing.

Volkswagen of America, Inc., is a corporation which is
incorporated in the state of New Jersey, with its principal place
of business located at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon,
Virginia, and is an operating unit of Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.

Audi AG is an automotive company organized and existing under
German law, with its principal place of business in Ingolstadt,
Germany and is a 99.55% owned subsidiary of the Volkswagen Group
and manufactures luxury vehicle under the Audi brand.

Audi of America, LLC is a subsidiary of Audi AG that sells Audi
Vehicles in the United States and is based in Hemdon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
      James G. Stranch, Esq.
      Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
      Anthony A. Orlandi, Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      J. Gerard Stranch, IV
      223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Fax: (615) 250-3937

         - and -

      Simon B. Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-8282
      Fax: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com
              ckocher@smbb.com


WESTERN UNION: Shareholder Action in Colo. in Preliminary Stage
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a shareholder
action filed in Colorado is in a preliminary stage.

On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer
and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule
10b-5 against all defendants.

On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management
S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On
October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the
original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants.
The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant
another former executive officer of the Company. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class period,
February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material
facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the
competitive advantage the Company derived from its compliance
program; (2) the Company's ability to increase market share, make
limited price adjustments and withstand competitive pressures; (3)
the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border
Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico; and (4) the
Company's progress in implementing an anti-money laundering
program for the Southwest Border Area.

On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. The Court referred the motion to a
Magistrate Judge, who, on April 14, 2015, issued a report and
recommendation, which recommended that the defendants' motion to
dismiss be granted and that the consolidated amended complaint be
dismissed in full.

On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the report and
recommendation. On September 29, 2015, the Court (a) overruled in
part and sustained in part plaintiffs' objections to the report
and recommendation; (b) adopted in part the recommendation; (c)
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint; and (d) dismissed the claims
against one of the individual defendants and denied the motion as
to the remaining defendants.  In particular, the Court denied the
motion to dismiss as to certain statements made by the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer and a former executive
officer during an investor conference call on July 24, 2012,
related to category (3) above concerning the effect of compliance
measures under the Southwest Border Agreement on agent retention
and business in Mexico. As this action is in a preliminary stage,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome, or reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, which could
be associated with this action. The Company and the remaining
named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in this
matter.


WESTERN UNION: Settlement in Douglas Class Action Awaits Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the settlement
agreement reached in the Jason Douglas class action is subject to
the Court's approval.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier
and the plaintiff reached an agreement to create an $8.5 million
settlement fund that will be used to pay all class member claims,
class counsel's fees and the costs of administering the
settlement. The agreement has been signed by the parties and is
subject to the Court's approval.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows could be adversely impacted. As the
parties have reached an agreement in this matter, the Company
believes that the potential for additional loss in excess of
amounts already accrued is remote.


WESTERN UNION: Speedpay Fails in Bid to Dismiss Florida Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
entered an order denying Speedpay Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class
action and Speedpay has filed an answer to the amended complaint.

On February 10, 2015, Caryn Pincus filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the District Court against Speedpay, a subsidiary of
the Company, asserting claims based on allegations that Speedpay
imposed an unlawful surcharge on credit card transactions and that
Speedpay engages in money transmission without a license. The
complaint requests certification of a class and two subclasses
generally comprised of consumers in Florida who made a payment
through Speedpay's bill payment services using a credit card and
were charged a surcharge for such payment during the four-year and
five-year periods prior to the filing of the complaint through the
date of class certification.

On April 6, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On April 23, 2015, in response to the motion to
dismiss, Pincus filed an amended complaint that adds claims (1)
under the Florida Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, which
authorizes civil remedies for certain criminal conduct; and (2)
for violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. On May 15, 2015, Speedpay filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On October 6, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Speedpay's
motion to dismiss. On October 20, 2015, Speedpay filed an answer
to the amended complaint.

As this action is in a preliminary stage, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. Speedpay intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholders File Class Actions Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
stockholders of the Company have filed class actions related to
the merger into the Energy Transfer family of companies.

"Purported stockholders of us have filed various putative class
actions in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware," the
Company said. Some cases name as defendants all of the individual
members of our Board of Directors, Energy Transfer, and us, among
others. One other case only names as defendants all of the
individual members of our Board of Directors and Energy Transfer,
among others.

"The actions allege, among other things, that the Directors
breached their fiduciary duties by approving the merger into the
Energy Transfer family of companies, claiming it to be the product
of a flawed process that undervalues us and deprives the
stockholders of the ability to participate in our long-term
prospects. The actions further allege that we and/or Energy
Transfer aided and abetted the Directors in their alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties. The actions seek to enjoin the merger or, in
the alternative, to rescind the merger. We cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential loss at this time."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Stockholder Class Suit Filed Over WPZ Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
purported stockholder of the Company filed in July 2015 a putative
class and derivative action on behalf of the Company in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The Company said, "The action names as defendants certain members
of our Board of Directors (Individual Defendants), as well as WPZ,
and names us as a nominal defendant.  Among other things, the
action seeks to enjoin the Acquisition of WPZ Public Units and
seeks monetary damages, including the repayment of the termination
fee that became payable by us due to the termination of the merger
agreement for the Acquisition of WPZ Public Units.  The action
alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to us and our stockholders by
failing to adequately evaluate an unsolicited proposal to acquire
us in an all-equity transaction and by putting their personal
interests ahead of the interests of us and our stockholders in
connection with that unsolicited proposal. The action further
alleges that WPZ aided and abetted the alleged breaches.  We
cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this
time."


WORLD WRESTLING: Defending Lawsuits Related to Brain Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is defending various lawsuits related to traumatic brain
injuries.

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the District of Oregon, entitled William Albert Haynes
III, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. This complaint was amended on
January 30, 2015 and alleges that the Company ignored, downplayed,
and/or failed to disclose the risks associated with traumatic
brain injuries suffered by WWE's performers. On March 31, 2015,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss the first amended class
action complaint in its entirety or, if not dismissed, to transfer
the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

Without addressing the merits of the Company's motion to dismiss,
the Court transferred the case to Connecticut on June 25, 2015.
The plaintiffs filed an objection to such transfer, which was
denied on July 27, 2015.

On January 16, 2015 a second lawsuit was filed in the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, entitled
Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc., alleging many of the same allegations as Haynes.

On February 27, 2015, the Company moved to transfer venue to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut due to forum-
selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the plaintiffs
and that motion was granted on March 23, 2015. The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on May 22, 2015 and, following a
scheduling conference in which the court ordered the plaintiffs to
cure various pleading deficiencies, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on June 15, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, WWE moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint in its entirety.

On April 9, 2015, a third lawsuit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Central District of California, entitled Russ
McCullough, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough," Ryan Sakoda, and Matthew
R. Wiese a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.,
asserting similar allegations to Haynes.

The Company again moved to transfer the lawsuit to Connecticut due
to forum-selection clauses in the contracts between WWE and the
plaintiffs, which the California court granted on July 10, 2015.

On September 21, 2015, the plaintiffs amended this complaint.

Each of these suits seeks unspecified actual, compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive relief, including ordering medical
monitoring. The Haynes and McCullough cases purport to be class
actions.

On February 18, 2015, a lawsuit was filed in Tennessee state court
and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, entitled Cassandra Frazier,
individually and as next of kin to her deceased husband, Nelson
Lee Frazier, Jr., and as personal representative of the Estate of
Nelson Lee Frazier, Jr. Deceased, v. World Wrestling
Entertainment, Inc. A similar suit was filed in the U. S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas entitled Michelle James,
as mother and next friend of Matthew Osborne, minor child, and
Teagan Osborne, a minor child v. World Wrestling Entertainment,
Inc. These lawsuits contain many of the same allegations as the
other lawsuits alleging traumatic brain injuries and further
allege that the injuries contributed to these former talents'
deaths.

WWE moved to transfer the Frazier and Osborne lawsuits to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut based on forum-
selection clauses in the decedents' contracts with WWE, which
motions were granted by the respective courts. Lastly, on June 29,
2015, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action in the U. S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut entitled World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Robert Windham, Thomas
Billington, James Ware, Oreal Perras and various John and Jane
Does seeking a declaration against these former performers that
their threatened claims related to alleged traumatic brain
injuries and/or other tort claims are time-barred. On September
21, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this complaint.

The Company believes all claims and threatened claims against the
Company in these various lawsuits are being prompted by the same
plaintiffs' lawyer and are without merit. The Company intends to
continue to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.


WORLD WRESTLING: Filed Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the
class action alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On July 26, 2014, the Company received notice of a lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, entitled Warren Ganues and Dominic Varriale, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K. McMahon and George A.
Barrios, alleging violations of federal securities laws based on
certain statements relating to the negotiation of WWE's domestic
television license.  The complaint seeks certain unspecified
damages.

A nearly identical lawsuit was filed one month later entitled
Curtis Swanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Vincent K.
McMahon and George A. Barrios. Both lawsuits are purported
securities class actions subject to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").

On September 23-24, 2014, five putative plaintiffs filed motions
to be appointed lead plaintiff and to consolidate the two cases
pursuant to the PSLRA. Following a hearing on October 29, 2014,
the Court issued an order dated November 5, 2014 appointing Mohsin
Ansari as lead plaintiff and consolidating the two actions.

On January 5, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Among other things, the amended complaint adds Stephanie McMahon
Levesque and Michelle D. Wilson as named defendants.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety. The Company believes the claims are without merit
and intends to defend itself against these lawsuits vigorously.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Stockholder Class Action Filed in Del. Ch.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Partners L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a purported
stockholder of Williams filed in July 2015, a putative class and
derivative action on behalf of Williams in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware. The action names as defendants certain
members of Williams' Board of Directors (Individual Defendants),
as well as us, and names Williams as a nominal defendant.

Among other things, the action seeks to enjoin the Public Unit
Exchange and seeks monetary damages, including the repayment of
the termination fee that became payable by Williams due to the
termination of the merger agreement for the Public Unit Exchange.
The action alleges, among other things, that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Williams and
its stockholders by failing to adequately evaluate an unsolicited
proposal to acquire Williams in an all-equity transaction and by
putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of
Williams and its stockholders in connection with that unsolicited
proposal.

"The action further alleges that we aided and abetted the alleged
breaches," the Company said.  "We cannot reasonably estimate a
range of potential loss at this time."


                            *********

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  * * *