CAR_Public/151211.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, December 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 247


                            Headlines


A-C LIABILITY TRUST: Defendant's Summary Judgment Bid Denied
AMAZON: Slapped With Class Action Wage Theft Suit
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit
APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Company's 'Bag Checks'
APPLE INC: Faces "Cottrell" Consumer Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist

ARKANSAS: Ct. Blocks Dept. of Veteran Affairs Employees Class Suit
ATMEL CORPORATION: Defending Stockholder Suit Over Dialog Deal
ATMEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Dismissal
BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Class Suit Over Deposit Accounts
BROWN SHOE: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal

CAPSTONE TURBINE: "Kinney" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Truck Driver Misclassification
CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in CDS Case Has Initial Approval
CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Treasury Auction Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: Transfer of NYPL v. JPMorgan to S.D.N.Y. Sought

CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Beland v. RBoC Litigation
CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Negrete" Action in S.D.N.Y.
CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fees Case Settlement Under Appeal
CLIFFS NATURAL: Court Denies Request for Oral Argument
COLORADO: Court Directs Inmate to File Amended Complaint

CRICKET WIRELESS: Trial in Suit Over 4G/LTE Services on Dec. 15
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in "Weinstat" Action Pending
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Moved to January
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action by Sirona Stockholders
DONNYBROOK ENERGY: C$5.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit OK'd

DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
EDAP TMS: No Appeals Filed from Dismissal of Securities Suit
EVERCORE PARTNERS: "Coburn" Class Action in D.C. Remains Pending
EXPERIAN: Targeted by Class Suits Over T-Mobile Breach
FLAGLER MEDICAL: Faces "Leon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Cincinnati Alleges Price Fixing of Alum Product
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles CDO Class Action
GNC HOLDINGS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
GNC HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
GNC HOLDINGS: Targeted in $5MM Suit Over Unapproved Supplements

HANOVER INSURANCE: CA Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Durand"
INDEPENDENCE, LA: Fire Chief Wants to Expand Case to Class Action
ISRAELI RAILWAYS: Court Approves Class Action Over Late Trains
JANSSEN PHARMA: Suit Filed in Canada to Address Kidney Injuries
KBR INC: Class Action Discovery Expected to Continue Into 2016

KRIS KOBACH: Lawyers Asks for Class Action Status
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Fully Briefed
LABORATORY CORP: Trial Court Stays "Jansky" Case Pending Appeal
LABORATORY CORP: Appeal by Sandusky Wellness Pending
LABORATORY CORP: Notice of "Bohlander" Settlement Circulated

LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Varsam" Case
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Legg" Case
LABORATORY CORP: Facing "Davis" Class Action in Florida
LIBERTY MAINTENANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Pikos" Suit
LIQUID HOLDING: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action

LOS ANGELES, CA: Judgment in "Drum" Case Upheld
MAYO CLINIC: Final Judgment in "Ahearn" Affirmed in Part
METLIFE SECURITIES: "Creighton" Suit Moved From Illinois to N.Y.
MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOC: CA Remands Suit to Calif. Superior Court
MITSUI & CO: Court Dismisses Korean Residents' Claims

MOBILEIRON INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Panjwani" Case
MOBILEIRON INC: Stockholder Class Actions Filed in Calif.
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Litigation Pending in Del.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Denies Attorneys' Fees Bid in "Keller"
NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE: CA Denies Writ of Mandamus

NFL INC: Faces "Dassa" Suit Over Alleged Anticompetitive Practice
NOVA HARDBANDING: Faces "Foster" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
PAYPAL INC: Amended Deal in "Zepeda" Has Preliminary Approval
QLOGIC CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Leak of Personal Info
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Motion to Remand in "Ruano"
SENTRY INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Payback Program
SERVICE EXPERTS: Court Trims Class Suit in "Frederick" Case
SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: "Dell" Suit Remanded to State Court

SMARTHEAT INC: Has Deal to Resolve Securities Class Action
SOUTH DAKOTA: Inmates Must Pay Filing Fee Individually
TCP INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
TD BANK: Court Grants Final Approval to "Gevaerts" Settlement
TECO ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit Over Emera Takeover

TOWN SPORTS: Offers Settlement in "Labbe" Class Action
TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Defendants Have Until Jan. 15 to Respond
TWITTER INC: Proposed Settlement of Class Suit Inked
UIL HOLDINGS: Shareholder Litigation Pending in Connecticut
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Dismissal

VICAL INCORPORATED: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: "Youngers" Action Sent to S.D.N.Y. Court
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Action Attorneys Wary of GC Offers
ZINC ELECTROLYTIQUE: Suit Suspended Due to Vexatious Conduct

* Chicago Clearing, InvestCloud Partners in Class Suit Management


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Liman" Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in NY PI Suits Consolidated
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trecora Unit Defends Asbestos Exposure Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: London Insurers' Suit v. McDermott Dismissed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Face Potential Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Subject to PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 90 PI Cases at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 484 Fibro Cases at Oct. 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Oct. 2

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vertex Unit Faces Asbestos Abatement Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIM Continues to Face Potential Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT III Faces Potential Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT IV Faces Potential Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 2,971 New Fibro Claims at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 90 Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Realty Faces Potential PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syska Fails in Bid to Junk All Craft's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies GM's Appeal in "Bryant"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Montello Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jan. 7 Testimony Deadline in "Covey-Hinzo"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher Wins Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit


                            *********


A-C LIABILITY TRUST: Defendant's Summary Judgment Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, WILLARD E.
BARTEL, et al., (Administrators for Estate of Darryl J. Bertrand,
Sr. Plaintiffs, v. A-C PRODUCT LIABILITY TRUST, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. MDL 875 E.D. PA CIVIL ACTION No. 2:11-30147-
ER (E.D. Pa.).

In 1998, Mr. Bertrand brought claims for non-malignant asbestos-
related disease (now pursued by Plaintiffs after the death of Mr.
Bertrand) against various defendants, including shipowners
represented by Thompson Hine LLP. The case was transferred in
January 2011 from the United State District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where it became part of the
consolidated asbestos products liability multidistrict litigation
(MDL 875). Willard E. Bartel and David E. Peebles, Administrators
of the Estate of Darryl J. Bertrand, Sr., allege that Mr. Bertrand
was exposed to asbestos while working aboard various ships.
Plaintiffs assert that Decedent developed an asbestos-related
illness as a result of his exposure to asbestos aboard those
ships.

In the motion, Thompson Hine Shipowners have moved for summary
judgment, arguing that (1) Plaintiffs' non-malignancy claims are
barred by way of judicial estoppel because Mr. Bertrand failed to
disclose the asbestos action as an asset in his bankruptcy filing,
and (2) Plaintiffs cannot pursue any of the asbestos claims in the
asbestos action (neither the initial non-malignancy claims nor his
post-petition malignancy claims) because the entire asbestos
action is now owned by the bankruptcy estate.

In his Memorandum dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/UvsoYTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robreno found that the
failure to disclose the non-malignancy asbestos claims was not in
bad faith, nor an attempt to play "fast and loose" with the
Bankruptcy Court and that Plaintiff is not the real party in
interest and that only the trustee in bankruptcy, as sole
representative of Plaintiff's estate, has standing to pursue the
instant lawsuit. As to the malignancy claims, the Court held that
it is not sufficiently rooted in his pre-bankruptcy past to
constitute property of the bankruptcy estate so that it is not
property of the bankruptcy trustee.

Plaintiffs are represented by Donald A. Krispin, Esq. --
dkrispin@jaquesadmiralty.com -- Duane C. Marsden, Esq. --
dmarsden@jaquesadmiralty.com -- JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW FIRM, P.C.,
John E. Herrick, Esq. -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- John David
Hurst, Esq. -- jhurst@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC

Defendants are represented by Harold W. Henderson, Esq. --
Hal.Henderson@ThompsonHine.com -- Richard C. Binzley, Esq. --
Dick.Binzley@ThompsonHine.com -- Susan K. Dirks, Esq. --
Susan.Dirks@ThompsonHine.com -- THOMPSON HINE LLP


AMAZON: Slapped With Class Action Wage Theft Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Nicole Knight Shine, writingor for RH reality Check, reported that
Amazon is the latest company to face allegations of wage theft, as
workers nationwide have increasingly demanded fair compensation in
courthouses and demonstrations.

The online shopping giant faces claims that it cheated workers of
wages, overtime, and employment protections. A class action
lawsuit filed October 27 in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses the
online retailer of misclassifying workers as independent
contractors, among other violations.

Drivers for Amazon claim in the court filing that they wear Amazon
Prime Now uniforms and report to Amazon's warehouse, but are
denied the benefits and protections of California employment law.

California affords workers some of the strongest wage protections
in the country, and a law signed by the governor in October adds
teeth to those measures by permitting the state labor commissioner
to place a lien on the property of an employer cited for wage
theft and by subjecting violators to imprisonment and fines.

The Amazon suit was brought by Oakland-based Leonard Carder LLP on
behalf of four drivers employed by an Amazon subcontractor,
Scoobeez, for the online retailer's newly launched instant
delivery service, Amazon Prime Now.

The drivers claim in the filing they must cover gas and other
expenses out of pocket and use their own vehicles as they deliver
packages within Amazon's one- and two-hour delivery window. They
are paid $11 per hour, but these un-reimbursed expenses, they
allege, mean their net earnings fall short of the minimum wage.
And although the Amazon Prime Now app suggests a default tip of
$5, drivers claim they have not received these tips.

In a statement October 30, Amazon said it requires its
subcontractors "to abide by applicable law, follow our supplier
code of conduct and disburse tips given by customers to their
drivers. We audit and investigate claims that any provider isn't
complying with these obligations."

The suit seeks an unspecified amount of back wages, restitution,
and compensation for attorney fees, among other damages.

This latest court action comes on the heels of a landmark class
action settlement this summer in favor of FedEx delivery drivers
with similar complaints. The settlement ordered the delivery
company to pay $228 million to more than 2,300 California delivery
drivers, as the San Francisco Business Times reported, making it
one of the largest settlements of its kind.

The attorney who won that settlement is now taking Amazon to
court.

"The facts in this case are much stronger than in the FedEx case,
and we won," Beth Ross, the attorney representing the drivers,
told the Business Times. "These are low-wage workers who have no
other options, otherwise they wouldn't be doing this."

Research suggests that workers in the low-paying service industry
are often subject to wage theft. Cases centering on these workers
have drawn the attention of labor unions and lawmakers across the
country of late.

RH Reality Check reported in February that a New York judge
ordered a Papa John's pizza franchise to pay its workers nearly
$800,000 in unpaid wages after New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman filed suit against the franchise operator.

A class action suit filed in federal court in San Francisco on
behalf of drivers for the ride-hailing app Uber argues they are
misclassified as independent contractors and thus denied
employment protections, as Reuters reported.

A study of 2008 data released by the National Employment Law
Project, the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment,
and the Center on Urban Economic Development found that of workers
in low-wage industries in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City,
26 percent were paid less than the legally required minimum wage,
and three out of four employees who worked more than 40 hours a
week were not legally compensated for their overtime hours. Six in
ten of low-wage industry workers were underpaid by more than $1
per hour.


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP, on October 8, 2015, filed a class action lawsuit
against Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FOLD) and certain of
its officers, in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased Amicus
common stock on the open market or pursuant to a Registration
Statement, during the period March 19, 2015 through October 1,
2015, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, please be reminded that you may
file a motion no later than December 7, 2015 to be appointed a
lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Investors who purchased Amicus common stock during the Class
Period and suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to
discuss their rights.

The Complaint charges that defendants misrepresented that Amicus
had an "approval pathway" for its lead product candidate Galafold,
by which it would submit a new drug application ("NDA") to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration for "accelerated approval" of
the drug "in the second half of 2015."

On October 2, 2015, Amicus revealed that it would not "submit the
NDA for migalastat in the United States by the end of this year"
as the FDA has requested "additional data on migalastat's effect
on gastrointestinal symptoms in Fabry disease" and "further
integration of existing clinical data across studies."  On this
news, Amicus shares declined $7.36 or 53.5% on October 2, 2015.

Based on our ongoing investigation, Amicus disclosed on November
3, 2015 that there is no particular timeframe for the NDA as it
"will be based on the completion of the required data integration
as well as the determination of the optimal regulatory pathway."

Wolf Popper has successfully recovered billions of dollars for
defrauded investors.  The firm's reputation and expertise have
been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the
firm to major positions in securities litigation. See
www.wolfpopper.com

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel.: 877.370.7703
Fax: 877.370.7704
Email:   irrep@wolfpopper.com
website: www.wolfpopper.com


APPLE INC: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Company's 'Bag Checks'
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
California federal judge has dismissed a wage-and-hour class
action lawsuit filed against Apple over the company's anti-theft
measures -- in particular, its employee "package and bag searches"
policy.

The ruling means the technology giant won't have to compensate
more than 12,000 former and current Apple store employees for the
time they spent having their bags and devices checked at meal
breaks and after their shifts.

In his 19-page order, Judge William Alsup for the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California said the workers
could have avoided the searches altogether by not bringing any
bags with them.

"Plaintiffs could all freely choose not to bring bags to work,
thereby avoiding Apple's restrictions during exit searches," the
judge wrote in his Nov. 7 order. "That free choice is fatal to
their claims."

The plaintiff class sought compensation for the time spent
undergoing exit searches pursuant to Apple's bag-search and
technology-card search policies and for time spent waiting for the
searches to occur.

The searches were done when employees left the premises with a
bag, purse, backpack or briefcase, or with an Apple product, such
as an iPhone.

The company searched them to see if Apple goods were being
pilfered.

Employees had to clock out prior to undergoing a search, and their
recorded hours worked did not account for the time waiting for a
search to be completed. Accordingly, employees received no
compensation for the time involved in the searches.

At issue was whether the time spent waiting for the exit searches
to be completed deserved any compensation under California law.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in July 2013. In April 2014,
Apple moved for summary judgment against all individually-named
plaintiffs for all claims. Summary judgment as to plaintiffs'
California state-law claims was denied in light of varying fact
patterns regarding the duration of wait times and individualized
reasons for bringing a bag to work.

The non-California claims were stayed and ultimately dismissed
following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Integrity Staffing
Solutions Inc. v. Busk last year.

The nation's high court, in an unanimous decision, held that time
spent by workers waiting to undergo anti-employee theft security
screenings is not "integral and indispensable" to their work, and
thus not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Because the other state law claims all mirrored the FLSA, only
plaintiffs' California claims remained. The Northern District of
California then retained supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims.

In July, Alsup certified the class, ruling that a handful of ex-
employees could proceed on behalf of the class. The order also
gave both sides a second opportunity to move for summary judgment.

Alsup pointed out in his ruling that the class pursued
compensation based on a scenario in which personal effects were
taken to work willfully and for their own convenience.

Also, he noted, although the order certifying the class and the
class notice invited class members to intervene to assert claims
based on "special needs scenarios," no one intervened.

"Plaintiffs contend the freedom to bring a bag to work is not an
affirmative benefit, but rather a standard freedom of the job,"
Alsup wrote. "On the other hand, Apple was concerned that its
employees could pilfer merchandise in their bags or claim that
they already owned any Apple products they carried out of the
store.

"Apple could have alleviated that concern by prohibiting its
employees from bringing personal bags or personal Apple devices
into the store. Instead, Apple took the lesser step of giving its
employees the optional benefit of bringing such items to work,
which comes with the condition that they must undergo searches in
a manner dictated by Apple before they exit the store."

Lee S. Shalov, partner at New York law firm McLaughlin & Stern,
served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

"Plaintiffs are disappointed with the court's ruling and are
considering their options, including an appeal," he said in an
emailed statement.

Apple declined to comment on the judge's order.


APPLE INC: Faces "Cottrell" Consumer Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist
--------------------------------------------------------------
William B. Cottrell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. Apple, Inc., a California Corporation, Case
No. 5:15-cv-05205-PSG (N.D.Cal., November 13, 2015), arises from
Defendant's alleged failure to adequately and timely disclose to
consumers that the automatic switch to cellular data caused by an
activated Wi-Fi Assist at its smartphones can result in exceeding
the data capacity allowed under consumers' phone plans, with
consequent economic harm.

Apple Inc. designs, manufactures and markets mobile communication
and media devices, personal computers, and portable digital music
players, and a variety of related software, services, peripherals,
networking solutions, and third-party digital content and
applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
     Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     600 West Broadway
     Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 230-0800
     Fax: (619) 230-1874
     E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
             sward@barrack.com

            - and -

     John G. Emerson, Esq.
     EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
     830 Apollo Lane
     Houston, TX 77058
     Phone: (281) 488-8854
     Fax: (281) 488-8867


ARKANSAS: Ct. Blocks Dept. of Veteran Affairs Employees Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Arkansas' highest court says a
lawsuit by a group of Arkansas Department of Veterans Affairs
employees who claim they weren't paid for meal breaks they were
required to work shouldn't be a class-action case.

Justices reversed a Pulaski County judge's decision to grant
class-action status to the hourly, non-nursing employees suing the
state agency. The workers claim that the department automatically
deducted 30 minutes per day from their paycheck for meal breaks,
even though they were regularly required to work during that time.

In the 4-3 ruling, the court said the employees' claims were too
individualized to be a class-action case. The court in June upheld
class-action status for a similar lawsuit filed by a group of
nurses against the department.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Defending Stockholder Suit Over Dialog Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending the Dialog Deal Stockholder Litigation.

On September 20, 2015, the Company announced that it had entered
into a definitive merger agreement with Dialog Semiconductor plc
("Dialog") under which Dialog, subject to customary conditions,
would acquire all of the outstanding shares of the Company (the
"Transaction"). Following that announcement, three putative class
actions were filed in courts in Delaware and California against
the Company and/or its Directors, Dialog and Avengers Acquisition
Corporation ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Dialog.
The complaints purport to be brought on behalf of all similarly
situated Company stockholders and generally allege that the
members of the Company's Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by approving the Transaction for
inadequate consideration, entering into a merger agreement
containing preclusive deal protection devices, and failing to take
steps to maximize the value to be paid to stockholders. The
complaints also assert claims against Dialog, Merger Sub and/or
the Company for allegedly aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaints seek preliminary and
permanent injunctions against the completion of the Transaction or
rescission in the event the Transaction has already been
completed, or, alternatively, damages in favor of the plaintiffs
and the class. The Company and its Directors believe the claims
are without merit, and intend to contest them vigorously.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Plaintiffs are
appealing the dismissal of the Southern District of New York
Action by LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees.

On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "District Court") against the Company, the Company's French
subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset") and LFoundry
GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to
Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility
in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency more
than three years later. The Company and Atmel Rousset moved to
dismiss the case on numerous grounds - a motion the District Court
granted on July 21, 2015. As a result, the District Court
dismissed the case on August 21, 2015. Plaintiffs are appealing
the dismissal.


BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Class Suit Over Deposit Accounts
---------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Bank and
the Company were named on March 3, 2015, as defendants in a
putative class action alleging that the manner in which the Bank
posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from
September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the
Bank and BOK Financial settled a class action respecting a similar
claim. Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank and
the Company have meritorious defenses to the action. A reasonable
estimate of losses, if any, cannot be made at this time.

On April 8, 2015, the Bank was named as a defendant in a putative
class action alleging that the Extended Overdraft Fee charged
customers who failed to pay overdrafts after five days constituted
interest and exceeded permissible interest rates set by state and
federal law. This action was dismissed on the merits by the Court.


BROWN SHOE: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement
and granted part Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs,
expenses and class representative incentive awards in the case
captioned, JEROME DAVIS and PRISCILLA HUMPHREY, etc., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BROWN SHOE COMPANY, INC., etc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:13-CV-01211-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

On June 4, 2013, Plaintiffs initiated the wage and hour class
action against Defendant Brown Group Retail, Inc. d/b/a Famous
Footwear and Defendant Mike West in Merced County Superior Court.
On August 20, 2014, Plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal of
Defendant Mike West from the action, which the Court granted on
October 6, 2014.

On October 6, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification. Subsequently, the parties requested and received
continuations of all dates associated with the pending motion for
class certification because they had a reached a preliminary
agreement on a proposed settlement following participation in
mediation. On May 12, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the
class action settlement.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek final approval of the class action
settlement including approval of:

     (1) the settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable, and
         in the best interests of the settlement class;

     (2) the class representatives as suitable;

     (3) the settlement of civil penalties in the amount of
         $5,000, with payment of $3,750 to the California Labor
         and Workforce Development Agency and allocation of
         $1,250 to participating class members;

     (4) claims administration expenses in the amount of $46,000
         to Simpluris, Inc.;

     (5) payment to class members pursuant to the procedures in
         the Settlement Agreement;

     (6) incentive awards for each class representative ($7,000
         each to Jerome Davis and Priscilla Humphrey; and $2,500
         each to Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell);

     (7) attorneys' fees and costs ($450,000 in fees and $32,680
         in costs); and

     (8) entry of judgment.

In her Findings and Recommendations dated November 3, 2015
available at http://is.gd/SWoqvufrom Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe
found that the procedures employed were adequate to satisfy Due
Process and that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and recommends final approval.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Jerome Davis, Priscilla Humphrey,
Jennifer Carrow, and Sabrina Rowell as class settlement and
Capstone Law APC as class counsel and awards $5,000 as settlement
of civil penalties under PAGA, $46,000 as claims administration
expenses to Simpluris, Inc., $443,142 as attorneys' fees, $32,680
as payment to class counsel, $7,000 as incentive awards to Jerome
Davis and Priscilla Humphrey, $2,500 each as incentive awards to
Jennifer Carrow and Sabrina Rowell.

Plaintiffs are represented by Raul Perez, Esq. --
Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Melissa Grant, Esq. --
Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC

Brown Group Retail is represented by Christopher Hart Doyle, Esq.
-- CDoyle@jmbm.com -- Michael John Hassen, Esq. --
MHassen@jmbm.com -- JEFFER MANGELS BUTLER & MITCHELL LLP


CAPSTONE TURBINE: "Kinney" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Kinney, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Capstone Turbine Corp., Darren R. Jamison, Edward I.
Reich, and Jayme Brooks, Case No. 2:15-cv-08914 (C.D.Cal.,
November 16, 2015), was filed on behalf of purchasers of Capstone
securities between November 7, 2013 and November 5, 2015,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act.

Capstone develops, manufactures, markets and services microturbine
technology solutions for use in stationary distributed power
generation applications, including cogeneration (combined heat and
power, integrated combined heat and power, and combined cooling,
heat and power), renewable energy, natural resources and critical
power supply.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesly F. Port,  Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160

         - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Fax: (215) 638-4867


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Truck Driver Misclassification
---------------------------------------------------------
On October 20, 2015, the Sacramento employment law lawyers at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit
against Central Freight Lines, Inc. on behalf of the company's
Truck Drivers alleging that the transportation company devised an
illegal scheme of classifying truck driver as independent
contractors in order to avoid paying their share of payroll taxes,
overtime wages, and other business related expenses. The class
action lawsuit is currently pending in the Sacramento Superior
Court as Case No. 34-2015-00185756.

The class action lawsuit filed by the Sacramento labor attorneys
alleges that Central Freight Lines, Inc. hires workers to drive
trucks to provide transportation services but claims that the
company devised an unlawful scheme of classifying the employees as
independent contractors in order to avoid paying for regular and
overtime hours worked. In particular, the class action complaint
alleges that the company had the authority to exercise complete
control over the work performed and the manner and means in which
the work was performed. In essence, the complaint claims that the
company controlled every critical aspect of Central Freight Lines,
Inc. daily transportation operations in that the company allegedly
provided the customer, the haul, the route, and instructions to
its Truck Driver as to where to deliver the haul and deadlines for
delivery.

Additionally, the pending class action lawsuit alleges that the
company misclassified their Truck Drivers as independent
contractors and furthermore claims that the Truck Driver were
charged fees, and had deductions from their wages for various
purposes, including but allegedly not limited to, for goods,
materials, services, government licenses, repairs, equipment
maintenance, and/or fines arising from the Truck Drivers'
employment with Central Freight Services, Inc.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, and Bhowmik is no stranger to representing
many California employees in lawsuits involving various California
Labor Code violations. Their employment attorneys understand the
uphill battle employees face in order to fight back against big
companies that engage in illegal workplace conduct.

The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, &
Bhowmik represent many employees in California wage violation
lawsuits who have been forced to work uncompensated hours. With
labor law offices located in Riverside, San Diego, Los Angeles,
Sacramento, and San Francisco, the labor law attorneys at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik are dedicated to helping
employees throughout California protect and enforce their rights
against some of the world's largest corporations.

If you feel you have been misclassified as an independent
contractor and want to collect your unpaid overtime wages, call an
experienced Sacramento employment lawyer at (800) 568 - 8020 to
speak with one of our experienced employment law attorneys today.


CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in CDS Case Has Initial Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the defendants in
the litigation over credit default swaps, including Citigroup and
related parties, entered on September 30, 2015, settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs to settle all claims of the
putative class, and on October 29, 2015, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlements. Additional information relating to this action is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 MD
2476 (S.D.N.Y.) (Cote, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Treasury Auction Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that beginning in July
2015, CGMI, along with numerous other U.S. Treasury primary dealer
banks, have been named as defendants in a number of substantially
similar putative class actions involving allegations that they
colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets.  The
actions are based upon the defendants' roles as registered primary
dealers of U.S. Treasury securities and assert claims of alleged
collusion under the antitrust laws and manipulation under the
Commodity Exchange Act.  These actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
Northern District of Illinois and the District of the Virgin
Islands.

On September 24, 2015, certain of the plaintiffs filed a motion
with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all of
the actions transferred to Judge Paul G. Gardephe in the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  Judge Gardephe is currently presiding over the
first-filed action and is actively coordinating actions in the
Southern District of New York.  Most of the actions filed in the
Southern District of New York have been consolidated under docket
number 15 Civ. 5794 (S.D.N.Y.).  Additional information relating
to certain of the other actions is publicly available in court
filings under the following docket numbers: 15 Civ. 7631
(S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 8149 (S.D.N.Y.); 15 Civ. 0055 (D.V.I.); 15
Civ. 8417 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8634 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8859
(N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 8890 (N.D. Ill.); 15 Civ. 9173 (N.D. Ill.).


CITIGROUP INC: Transfer of NYPL v. JPMorgan to S.D.N.Y. Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants filed
on September 9, 2015, a motion to transfer the action captioned
NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. ET AL. from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California to the
Southern District of New York for possible consolidation with IN
RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 3:15-cv-02290
(N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Beland v. RBoC Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that putative class
actions captioned BELAND v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and
STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. were filed in September
2015 in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup and
Related Parties, as well as numerous other foreign exchange (FX)
dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the
prices and supply of currency purchased in the FX market, and that
this manipulation caused investors to pay inflated rates for
currency and/or to receive deflated rates for currency.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the Canadian Competition Act and
the Quebec Civil Code and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of putative classes of all persons in
Quebec or in Canada who entered into an FX instrument or
participated in a fund or investment vehicle that entered into an
FX instrument between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189-
152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Negrete" Action in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on September 16,
2015, an action captioned NEGRETE v. CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  Plaintiffs allege that Citibank, N.A. engaged in conduct in
connection with plaintiffs' FX trading that caused them losses.
Plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, breach of contract, and
negligence, and seek compensatory and punitive damages.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 1:15-cv-7250
(S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Interchange Fees Case Settlement Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that various objectors
appealed from the final class settlement approval order in the
Interchange Fees Litigation with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument
regarding the appeals on September 28, 2015.  Additional
information concerning these consolidated actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720
(E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.) and 12-4671 (2d Cir.).


CLIFFS NATURAL: Court Denies Request for Oral Argument
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Defendants' request
for oral argument in the case captioned, THE DEP'T OF THE TREASURY
OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND ITS DIVISION OF INVESTMENT, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLIFFS
NATURAL RESOURCES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14 CV 1031
(N.D. Ohio).

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of publicly traded stock of Defendant Cliffs Natural
Resources, Inc. between March 14, 2012 and March 26, 2013.
Specifically, the claims are alleged against Cliffs and certain of
its former and current executives and arise under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint that complied with the Court's page limitation, included
the suggested attachment, and reduced the number of confidential
witnesses from 29 to 19.

In the motion, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint; motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(F) to strike
certain allegations from the second amended complaint; and
defendants' motion to schedule oral argument on motion to dismiss
and motion to strike.

In Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Zkl6FJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Polster held that the
benefit of oral argument is unwarranted because the briefs were
thorough and well-written and the baseless allegations of
fraudulent behavior by Defendants should also be stricken because
they are scandalous under Rule 12(f).

The Court directed counsel to confer and file on November 16, 2015
a proposed agreed discovery schedule.

Department of Treasury of the State of New Jersey is represented
by Adam D. Hollander, Esq. -- adam.hollander@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMAN, Brandon M. Fierro, Esq.
-- bfierro@lowenstein.com -- Jamie R. Gottlieb, Esq. --
jgottlieb@lowenstein.com -- Joseph A. Fischetti, Esq. --
jfischetti@lowenstein.com -- Michael B. Himmel, Esq. --
mhimmel@lowenstein.com -- Michael T.G. Long, Esq. --
mlong@lowenstein.com -- LOWENSTEIN SANDLER & Scott D. Simpkins,
Esq. -- sdsimp@climacolaw.com -- CLIMACO, WILCOX, PECA, TARANTINO
& GAROFOLI

Defendants are represented by Adrienne F. Mueller, Esq. --
afmueller@jonesday.com -- Brett W. Bell, Esq. --
bbell@jonesday.com -- Geoffrey J. Ritts, Esq. --
grits@jonesday.com -- John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. --
jnewman@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


COLORADO: Court Directs Inmate to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado denied a Motion to Take
Judicial Notice, Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Motion for
Mediation and Motion for Summary Judgment as premature and
directed Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned, ZACHARY A. CHESSER, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-01647-RDP (D.
Colo.).

Plaintiff is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP), currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary
Florence ADMAX facility in Florence, Colorado.

The Amended Complaint alleges four claims: (1) BOP Program
statement 5360.09's ban on religious gatherings violates The
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); (2) BOP Program
statement 5360.09's ban on religious gatherings violates the
Establishment Clause; (3) the Director's policy of housing Muslims
with ties to terrorism in long term solitary confinement solely
because of these ties violates the RFRA; and (4) Mr. Chesser's
conditions of confinement at ADX Florence substantially burden his
sincere religious exercise in violation of the RFRA.

Mr. Chesser purports to bring claims one, two, and three on behalf
of "all Sunni Muslim prisoners confined within the Bureau of
Prisons." Mr. Chesser requests declaratory and injunctive relief.

On September 10, 2015, the Magistrate ordered Mr. Chesser to cure
certain designated deficiencies in his complaint.

On October 7, 2015, Mr. Chesser filed an amended Prisoner
Complaint. Mr. Chesser has also filed a Motion to Take Judicial
Notice, a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, a Motion for
Mediation, a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and
Preliminary Injunction ("TRO Motion"), and a Motion for Summary
Judgment.

In his Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Wjd4qSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gallagher concluded
that Plaintiff fails to set forth a short and plain statement of
his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. The Amended
Prisoner Complaint contains a substantial amount of factual
allegations and details that are irrelevant to his claims or are
based on other inmates' experiences, and at numerous times, the
amended complaint is repetitive and unnecessarily verbose.

The Court directed Mr. Chesser to file an amended complaint.


CRICKET WIRELESS: Trial in Suit Over 4G/LTE Services on Dec. 15
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Defendants' motion
to enforce arbitration clauses in their agreements with plaintiffs
in the case captioned, FLOR BARRAZA and NIKOLE HENSON,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CRICKET WIRELESS LLC and LEAP WIRELESS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. C 15-02471 WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Flor Barraza and Nikole Henson each purchased wireless
service with accompanying phones at Cricket-owned stores in 2013.
Barraza and Henson respectively purchased a Samsung Galaxy S4 and
a Samsung Galaxy S3. The full terms and conditions for Cricket's
service were included in a 3x4 inch booklet, which was titled
"Quick Start Guide" which includes an arbitration clause as "Use
of phone requires purchase of Cricket(R) service, which must be
purchased separately. By activating Cricket(R) service, you agree
to the enclosed terms and conditions of the service."

Barraza commenced the action in state court in California in May
2015, claiming that Cricket "marketed UNLIMITED 4G/LTE services
throughout the United States" but did not actually have the
capability to provide unlimited 4G/LTE services, in violation of
various state false advertising laws. Defendants removed the
action to federal court here in San Francisco under the Class
Action Fairness Act. After removal, Barraza amended the complaint
to include Henson as a plaintiff. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of Cricket's services from 2012 to
2014, but the facts regarding anyone other than Barraza and Henson
are irrelevant at the stage of the case.

In the motion, Defendants contend that when plaintiffs began using
Cricket's wireless service, they accepted the terms and conditions
set forth in the Quick Start Guide, including the arbitration
provisions and that they lacked notice of the terms and conditions
in the Quick Start Guide, so they never agreed to that contract.
They also argue that even if they did agree to the terms and
conditions, Cricket should be estopped from enforcing a contract
between the parties because it advertised that it offered "No
Contract" service.

In his Amended Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/uudhkxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held that the
issue cannot be resolved as a matter of law and a summary jury
trial is necessary to determine whether plaintiffs agreed to the
terms and conditions contained in the Quick Start Guide enclosed
with their wireless phones. The Court scheduled the pretrial on
December 9 at 2:00 P.M. and the trial on December 15 at 7:30 A.M.

Plaintiffs are represented by Keith Allyn Robinson, Esq. --
keith.robinson@karlawgroup.com -- KEITH A. ROBINSON, ATTORNEY AT
LAW, Rex Sharp, Esq.- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Barbara Frankland,
Esq. -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- GUNDERSON SHARP, LLP

Defendants are represented by Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq. --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in "Weinstat" Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is defending against an appeal in the class action filed
by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that
"Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all
types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September
2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court
issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is
defending against this appeal.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Bid Hearing Moved to January
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a Court
has rescheduled a hearing to January 2016 on plaintiffs' class
certification motion in the class action filed by filed by Carole
Hildebrand.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.

Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists").

The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action,
to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court
subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed
plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims,
leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to
which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The
Court has rescheduled a hearing to January 2016 on plaintiffs'
class certification motion.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action by Sirona Stockholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Dawkins Merger Sub Inc.
("Merger Sub") were served on October 2, 2015 and October 5, 2015,
with two separate putative class action complaints filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported
stockholders of Sirona Dental Systems, Inc. ("Sirona") against the
members of Sirona's Board of Directors, the Company, and Merger
Sub. The complaints allege that the Company and Merger Sub aided
and abetted and/or assisted Sirona's Board members in breaching
their fiduciary duties to Sirona's stockholders in connection with
the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into between the Company
and Sirona on September 15, 2015. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this litigation.


DONNYBROOK ENERGY: C$5.5MM Settlement in Securities Suit OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP and Siskinds LLP announced
the Notice of Settlement Approval in Donnybrook and Donnycreek
Securities Class Action.

This notice is directed to the following "Class Members": all
persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled,
who held shares of Donnybrook Energy Inc. (now known as Stonehaven
Exploration Ltd.) ("Donnybrook") at the time of a plan of
arrangement completed by Donnybrook on November 4, 2011 (the
"Arrangement") and received shares of Donnycreek Energy Inc. (now
known as Kicking Horse Energy Inc.) ("Donnycreek") through the
Arrangement, other than (i) Excluded Persons (certain persons
associated with the Defendants and persons who purchased
Donnycreek shares in the Private Placement, and (ii) persons who
have previously opted out of the class action.

READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. YOU
MAY NEED TO TAKE PROMPT ACTION.

Please note: This is a summary notice, produced for publication
purposes, announcing Court approval of the settlement reached in
this litigation. A long form notice containing additional detail
is available on the Administrator's website:
www.donnybrookclassaction.com; or Class Counsel's website:
www.jssbarristers.ca/pages/class-actions/class-actions.cfm or
http://www.siskinds.com/donnybrook-energy-and-donnycreek-energy/.

Court Approval of the Class Action Settlement

In August 2013, the Plaintiff Wayne Philpott commenced a class
action against Donnybrook, Donnycreek, Malcolm Todd, Robert Todd,
Murray Scalf, David Patterson, Randy Kwasnicia, Ken Stephenson and
Colin Watt (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta (the "Court"). The class action claims
arise out of the Arrangement whereby various assets of Donnybrook
were transferred to Donnycreek, as well as a concurrent private
placement by Donnycreek pursuant to which shares were issued to
various persons (including the individual Defendants) at $0.37 per
share (the "Private Placement").

On January 22, 2015, the Court certified this proceeding as a
class action on consent. Certification by the Court is not a
decision on the merits of the class action.

On October 9, 2015, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement
between the parties dated July 10, 2015 (the "Settlement
Agreement"). The settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and
is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part
of any of the Defendants, all of whom have denied, and continue to
deny, the allegations against them.

The Settlement Agreement provides for the payment of
CDN$5,500,000.00 (the "Settlement Amount") in consideration for
full and final settlement of the claims of Class Members,
including legal fees, disbursements, taxes and administration
expenses, in return for releases and a dismissal of the class
action. Persons who are not Class Members are not permitted to
participate in the settlement.

Administration of the Settlement Agreement

The Court has appointed RicePoint Administration Inc. as the
Administrator of this settlement. The Administrator will oversee
the claims process and will manage and distribute the balance of
the Settlement Amount after payment of fees, expenses and taxes
(the "Net Settlement Amount").

Those Class Members who wish to receive compensation from the Net
Settlement Amount must mail or otherwise submit a completed Claim
Form and any supporting documents to the Administrator, by no
later than February 11, 2016, to the following address:

RicePoint Administration Inc.
P.O. Box 3355
London, ON N6A 4K3

The Class Members who file a valid claim will be paid a pro rata
share of the Net Settlement Amount. The long form notice of
settlement approval contains the complete details of the process
for filing a Claim Form and how the Net Settlement Amount will be
distributed.

All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the settlement,
regardless of whether they submit a claim for compensation or
receive payment from the Settlement Amount. Class Members will not
be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal proceeding
against the Defendants or any other person released by the
settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class action.

For further information regarding the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, the Plan of Allocation and/or filing a claim, or to
obtain a Claim Form, visit the Administrator's website at
www.donnybrookclassaction.com or contact the Administrator by
calling 1-866-432-5534.

The law firms of Siskinds LLP and Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid
Hawkes LLP (together, "Class Counsel") are counsel to the Class
Members, and can be reached by telephone, toll free, at 1-877-672-
2121 x 2380, by email at nicole.young@siskinds.com, or on the
internet at www.siskinds.com or www.jssbarristers.ca.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT WITH INQUIRIES ABOUT THE CLASS
ACTION OR THE SETTLEMENT. All inquiries should be directed to the
Administrator or Class Counsel.

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT OF
QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

Contact:
Siskinds LLP
Nicole Young, 1-877-672-2121 x 2380
nicole.young@siskinds.com


DXP ENTERPRISES: "Bouchard" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bouchard v. DXP Enterprises, Inc.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-01089, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).  The Southern
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-03118 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by improperly failing to pay Safety Technicians and
other workers overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

DXP is a corporation organized under the laws of Texas.  DXP
provides well-site and safety services to oil companies.  DXP
employs individuals, including the Plaintiff, as Safety
Technicians, who check site visitors' credentials, record hydrogen
sulfide readings, and monitor other chemical readings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          115 E. Travis, Suite 1530
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 225-0811
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Carter Crow, Esq.
          FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI, LLP
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5218
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Romero, Esq.
          Mario Alberto Barrera, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          300 Convent St., Suite 2100
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 270-7128
          Facsimile: (210) 270-7205
          E-mail: stephen.romero@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  mario.barrera@nortonrosefulbright.com


EDAP TMS: No Appeals Filed from Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The global leader in therapeutic ultrasound, announced that,
further to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York dismissal of the securities class action lawsuit filed
against the Company, the appeals period has concluded with no
notice of appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the suit.

Marc Oczachowski, Chief Executive Officer of EDAP said, "We are
pleased with the Court's decision and believe the ruling supported
our position that the suit was without merit, a belief that was
reinforced by the lack of an appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs.
We look forward to putting this matter behind us and focusing on
the growth of the Company following the recent receipt of FDA
clearance of our Ablatherm(R) Robotic HIFU."

                        About EDAP TMS SA

EDAP TMS SA markets today Ablatherm(R) for high-intensity focused
ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate tissue ablation in the U.S. and for
treatment of localized prostate cancer in the rest of the world.
HIFU treatment is shown to be a minimally invasive and effective
option for prostatic tissue ablation with a low occurrence of side
effects. Ablatherm-HIFU is generally recommended for patients with
localized prostate cancer (stages T1-T2) who are not candidates
for surgery or who prefer an alternative option, or for patients
who failed radiotherapy treatment. Ablatherm-HIFU is approved for
commercial distribution in Europe and some other countries
including Mexico and Canada, and has received 510(k) clearance by
the U.S. FDA. The Company also markets an innovative robot-
assisted HIFU device, the Focal One(R), dedicated to focal therapy
of prostate cancer. Focal One(R) is CE marked but is not FDA
approved. The Company also develops its HIFU technology for the
potential treatment of certain other types of tumors. EDAP TMS SA
also produces and distributes medical equipment (the Sonolith(R)
lithotripters' range) for the treatment of urinary tract stones
using extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in most
countries including Canada and the U.S. For more information on
the Company, please visit http://www.edap-tms.com,and
http://www.hifu-planet.com.

CONTACT: Blandine Confort
         Investor Relations / Legal Affairs
         EDAP TMS SA
         +33 4 72 15 31 72
         bconfort@edap-tms.com

         Investors:
         Lee Roth
         The Ruth Group
         646-536-7012
         lroth@theruthgroup.com


EVERCORE PARTNERS: "Coburn" Class Action in D.C. Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a class action by
Donna Marie Coburn is now pending either scheduling of an oral
argument, which has been requested, or a ruling on the motion.

In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action
complaint against Evercore Trust Company, N.A. ("ETC") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she purports
to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney
Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at
any time between May 15, 2012 and the present.  The complaint
alleges that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in
J.C. Penney stock during that period and claims the Plan suffered
losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in J.C.
Penney stock.  The plaintiff seeks the recovery of alleged Plan
losses, attorneys' fees, other costs, and other injunctive and
equitable relief.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. ETC is
indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for
reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would
be refunded should ETC not prevail.

On April 13, 2015, ETC filed an answer along with a motion to
dismiss. On June 13, 2015 Plaintiffs filed an opposition to ETC's
motion to dismiss and on July 13, 2015, ETC filed its reply to
Plaintiffs' opposition. The case is now pending either scheduling
of an oral argument, which has been requested, or a ruling on the
motion.


EXPERIAN: Targeted by Class Suits Over T-Mobile Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reported that
Experian is facing an undisclosed number of class-action lawsuits
as a result of the security breach that allowed hackers to
compromise the personal information of 15 million T-Mobile
applicants, the credit firm said.

In its six-month financial report released by Experian, the
company said it's received "a number of class actions in respect
of the data breach and is currently working with regulators and
government bodies as part of their investigations."

"It is currently not possible to predict the scope and effect on
the Group of these various regulatory and government
investigations and legal actions, including their timing and
scale," the company said.

Experian in contracted by T-Mobile to processes credit checks for
the telecom, but a security breach had let hackers access the
personal records of roughly 15 million applicants, including their
Social Security numbers and other sensitive data.

"Experian has files on more than 220 million people. Protection of
this information is of the utmost importance, especially because
the scope of the information is vast and virtually no consumer can
apply for credit without entering your system," Sen. Sherrod
Brown, Ohio Democrat, wrote in a letter to Experian CEO Brian
Cassin.

Although Experian's report does not specifically state how many
class-action suits it faces, Bloomberg reported that no fewer than
six claims had been filed in court within one week of the breach
being revealed on Oct. 1.

"What makes the most recent breach so ironic is that Experian
holds itself out as an expert in the field of data protection,
touting its revenues in this area in the amount of $4 billion
annually," Bloomberg quoted from one of the complaints.

Experian said the one-off costs incurred by responding to the
breach has amounted to roughly $20 million.


FLAGLER MEDICAL: Faces "Leon" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Miriam L. Leon, and other similarly situated individuals, v. Susan
Fox, D.O., P.A.; Flagler Medical Management, Inc. f/k/a Pavilion
for Women's Care LLC; and Susan Fox, individually, Case No. 1:15-
cv-24256-FAM (S.D.Fla., November 16, 2015), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Flagler Medical Management, Inc. is a staffing agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Cincinnati Alleges Price Fixing of Alum Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The City Of Cincinnati, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical
Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek,
Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case 2:15-cv-08065-SRC-CLW (D.N.J.,
November 13, 2015), alleges that defendants conspired, combined
and contracted to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices at
which Alum would be sold.  The purported group of plaintiffs
consists of all persons and entities in the United States, who
purchased liquid aluminum sulfate directly from defendants at any
time from January 1, 1997 through at least July 31, 2010.

Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of Alum used
primarily by municipalities in potable water and wastewater
treatment and by pulp and paper manufacturers as part of their
manufacturing processes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
     William G. Caldes, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
     SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215)496 0300
     Fax: (215)496 6611
     E-mail: jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
             jkodroff@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

     Steven P. Goodin, Esq.
     GRAYDON HEAD & RITCHEY LLP
     Fifth Third Center
     1900 Walnut Street
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513)621 6464
     E-mail: sgoodin@graydon.com

         - and -

     David H. Fink, Esq.
     Darryl Bressack, Esq.
     FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
     100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 111
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Phone: (248)971 2500
     E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
             dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles CDO Class Action
---------------------------------------
Darren S. Teshima, Esq. -- dteshima@orrick.com -- and Jennifer C.
Lee, Esq. -- jclee@orrick.com -- at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, in an article for Lexology.com, wrote that on November 3,
2015, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. agreed to settle a lawsuit brought
by a class of investors over Goldman's sale of two collateralized
debt obligations.  The settlement agreement comes on the heels of
a September 8, 2015 summary judgment decision for Goldman that we
recently covered, which found that Plaintiffs had failed to show
evidence that Goldman Sachs knew about the risks associated with
the CDOs.  The settlement amount was not disclosed.


GNC HOLDINGS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
GNC Holdings, Inc. ("GNC" or the "Company") between May 2, 2013
and October 22, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of GNC
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than December 28, 2015. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any
recovery in the action will not be affected by your decision of
whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain
Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

GNC investors who wish to learn more about the action and how to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee of
Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the GNC Securities Class Litigation

The action charges GNC and certain of its senior executives with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. GNC operates
as a specialty retailer of health and wellness products.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) GNC unlawfully sold thousands of units of
products in Oregon containing picamilon and BMPEA; (2) GNC
unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon that
contained BMPEA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On October 22, 2015, the Oregon Attorney General announced a
lawsuit against GNC arising from the Company's sale of nutritional
and dietary supplements containing the illegal ingredients
picamilon and BMPEA. On this news, the price of GNC shares fell
$5.73 per share, or 14.24%, from a previous closing price of
$40.23 on October 21, 2015, to close at $34.50 per share on
October 22, 2015, on extremely heavy trading volume.

                  About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for twelve years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News
have named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" for each
year the publications have given this award to law firms,
including in 2015.


GNC HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of GNC Holdings,
Inc. Class A common stock during the period between November 28,
2011 and October 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 29, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com  If you are a
member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as
filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/gnc/. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges GNC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
GNC is a global specialty retailer of health and wellness
products, including vitamins, minerals and herbal supplement
products, sports nutrition products and diet products.  The
Company is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse information regarding GNC's business and
prospects, including, but not limited to: (i) that the Company had
been selling certain products as lawful dietary supplements when,
in fact, they contain potentially dangerous, unapproved drugs that
may not be lawfully sold as dietary supplements in the United
States; (ii) that the Company filed documents with the SEC that
contained materially false and misleading representations about
GNC's product quality standards and quality controls, risk
factors, financial statements and disclosure controls; and (iii)
that the Company was experiencing declining supplement sales.
Based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company, its 2015 financial
outlook, business prospects and future operating performance.

On October 22, 2015, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum filed
a lawsuit against GNC alleging that the Company sold nutritional
and dietary supplements containing the illegal ingredients
picamilon and BMPEA, both of which are synthetic ingredients that
are not lawful dietary ingredients in the United States.  When
Reuters and CNBC made public the allegations in the Oregon
Attorney General's lawsuit, the price of the Company's shares fell
more than 14%.  Then on October 29, 2015, GNC issued a press
release announcing its financial results for the quarter ended
September 30, 2015.  For the quarter, GNC reported a 29% drop in
profit, in part due to a 2.7% decline in revenue and a $28.3
million asset impairment charge associated with its Discount
Supplements line of business.  In response to these revelations,
the price of GNC common shares fell an additional 26.9%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
GNC Class A common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


GNC HOLDINGS: Targeted in $5MM Suit Over Unapproved Supplements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Stroud, writing for BizJournal.com, reported that three weeks
after Pittsburgh-based GNC was targeted by the Oregon Attorney
General for allegedly selling products containing unapproved
drugs, the first class action lawsuit connected to those products
has been filed against the company.

Late Tuesday, Iowa resident Chris Lynch sued GNC Holdings Inc.
(NYSE: GNC) over the sale of products containing two drugs that
are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as
dietary supplements: Picamilon and BMPEA.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western
District of Pennsylvania, alleged that Lynch consumed Picamilon
and BMPEA when he purchased and used Redline Ultra Hardcore, made
by Weston, Fla.-based VPX, a sports nutritional supplement
company. The product description on GNC's site said the product is
infused with "Black Microtabs" that "deliver powerful fat
incinerating ingredients for three hours. When all other fat
burners fail Redline Ultra Hardcore Blue Microtabs release into
the system from 3 hours up to 7 hours!"

Redline Ultra Hardcore is listed on GNC's website, but a
salesperson at a a Pittsburgh-based location said the product was
not available anywhere within a 50-mile radius of the city.

The FDA issued warning letters in April to five companies selling
products containing BMPEA. In 2013, the FDA ruled that BMPEA does
not qualify as a vitamin, mineral, herb or other botanical, amino
acid, dietary substance, concentrate metabolite -- categories of
ingredients that are allowed to be contained in and marketed as
dietary supplements. On Sept. 28, Cara Welch, acting deputy
director, Division of Dietary Supplement Programs with the FDA,
issued a declaration that Picamilon also fits none of these
categories. Welch's declaration was the first exhibit attached to
the Oregon lawsuit.

The Oregon lawsuit specifically targeted GNC for "repeatedly"
violating the state's unlawful trade practices act "by
misrepresenting that various products that GNC sold in Oregon were
lawful dietary supplements when in fact these products were
adulterated and unlawful."

GNC spokeswoman Laura Brophy declined to comment. "As a matter of
corporate policy," she wrote in an email, "GNC does not comment on
pending litigation."

Calls to VPX, Lynch, and Lynch's attorney were not immediately
returned.

Filed as a class action, Lynch's lawsuit purports to include
"thousands of members geographically disbursed throughout the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States," it read. "The
aggregated claims of the individual class members exceed $5
million."

GNC "repeatedly misrepresented that various products GNC sold in
numerous stores throughout the United States were lawful dietary
supplements when the products were actually adulterated and
unlawful because they contained either Picamilon or BMPEA,
potentially dangerous ingredients that do not meet the legal
definition of a dietary ingredient and may not be lawfully used in
dietary supplements," the class action read.

According to the lawsuit, Picamilon was developed by researchers
in the former Soviet Union. It's used in Russia "to treat a
variety of neurological conditions," the lawsuit read, but "it has
never been approved as a prescription or over-the-counter drug in
the United States."

BMPEA is marketed as a stimulant to increase stamina and energy
during workouts, but the FDA's warning said it is "a substance
that does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary
ingredient."

"If [Lynch] had known that these products were unsafe and
unlawful, he would not have purchased the products or would have
spent materially less to purchase them," the lawsuit read.
"Further, neither GNC nor its representatives ever advised [Lynch]
of any health or safety risks associated with the unlawful and
unsafe GNC products sold to him containing Picamilon and/or
BMPEA."


HANOVER INSURANCE: CA Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Durand"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court in the
case captioned, JENNIFER DURAND, Plaintiff, WALTER J. WHARTON;
MICHAEL A. TEDESCO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE HANOVER
INSURANCE GROUP, INC.; THE ALLMERICA FINANCIAL CASH BALANCE
PENSION PLAN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-5648 (6th Cir.).

On March 3, 2007, lead Plaintiff Jennifer Durand filed the
complaint initiating this ERISA class action against her former
employer, The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and the pension plan
it sponsors, Allmerica Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan. The
complaint challenged the projection rate used by the Plan to
calculate the lump-sum payment Durand elected to receive after
ending her employment at the Company in 2003. Durand alleged that
Defendants impermissibly used the 30-year Treasury bond rate
instead of the projected rate of return on her investment
selections in the "whipsaw" calculation required under pre-2006
law, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sections 1053(e) and 1055(g) (ERISA
Sections 203(e) and 205(g)).

The district court dismissed Durand's complaint on November 9,
2007 based on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies
reversed by another panel of the Court, holding that the
exhaustion requirement should be excused as futile.

On May 31, 2011, the magistrate judge dismissed the cutback claim
asserted by Wharton and Tedesco and the breach of fiduciary duty
claims as untimely. On Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the
magistrate judge reinstated the breach of fiduciary claims solely
as they related to the whipsaw calculation. Separately, the
parties litigated the merits of Wharton's whipsaw claim by means
of Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge
held that the 2004 Amendment validly governed lump-sum
distributions occurring after 2003, and that Wharton was not
entitled to a higher interest crediting rate for any portion of
his accrued benefits in the whipsaw calculation.

On appeal, Plaintiffs Walter Wharton and Michael Tedesco appeal
the dismissal of their claims filed under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001-1461 (ERISA).

In her Opinion dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BoxWrRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Clay held that
Plaintiffs' first theory of breach plainly does not relate to Plan
participants' awareness of their cutback claims and Plaintiffs'
second theory fails for similar reasons, as they do not explain
how Defendants' disclosure of the alleged purpose of the 2004
Amendment to prevent whipsaw liability would have alerted
continuing plan participants to the existence of a cutback claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by Alan S. Gilbert, Esq. --
alan.gilbert@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP

     - and -

Eli Gottesdiener, Esq.
GOTTESDIENER LAW FIRM, PLLC
498 7th St
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Tel: (718)788-1500


INDEPENDENCE, LA: Fire Chief Wants to Expand Case to Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Rester, writing for The Daily Star, reported that a former
Independence fire chief who is suing the town and the district
that oversees rural fire departments wants to make his case a
class action lawsuit on behalf of firefighters and town employees.

According to Thomas Hogan, attorney for David Maurer, the
amendments were filed last week to ask for relief for all town of
Independence employees who did not receive retirement benefits and
to ask that all firefighters in the Tangipahoa Parish Rural Fire
Protection District No. 2 be considered classified employees.

That would mean the firefighters would get benefits and the
district would get a civil service board to review terminations.

The plaintiff wants to amend the complaint against Independence on
behalf of town employees once he learned the Legislative Auditor
found the town failed to enroll 45 eligible employees into
retirement systems, Hogan said.

The report says the town failed to enroll eligible employees in
the Municipal Employees Retirement System and the Municipal Police
Employees Retirement System and from January 2013 to December
2014, 45 people were supposed to be enrolled.

Hogan said the finding reflected Maurer's claim that he was
inadequately paid during his employment with the town.

Maurer is suing for wrongful termination when he was fired in July
2013 after he was made chief in January. He alleges the
termination was done without due process under the Firefighter
Bill of Rights.

He also alleges that the town of Independence owes him overtime
pay when he was a firefighter before Independence decided to end
its fire department in 2012. The town's firefighters transferred
to the Independence Volunteer Fire Department, which is under the
rural fire district. Maurer was made the fire chief of IVFD and
was later fired.

According to Glen Galbraith, attorney representing the fire
district, the defendant objects to the amendment request, saying
it is too late in the lawsuit to amend the complaint against the
district for a third time.

"We just think that's excessive," he said.

The district's board maintains there is only one employee of the
district, Fire Administrator Dennis Crocker, and he is not a
firefighter, which means he should not be classified, Galbraith
said.

Asking for class action will not change the defendant's stance
that Maurer's complaint will not hold up in court, Galbraith said.

"It still won't have any merit," Galbraith said.

Hogan said the proposed amendment includes testimony from Robert
Lawrence, state examiner for Fire and Police Civil Service, who
has said the fire district should be under a civil service system.
If Maurer's amendment is accepted, the fire district would have to
pay into the Firefighters' Retirement System and credit class
members for retirement contributions, as well as pay for damages
and attorney fees to Maurer. He is also asking to be reinstated as
fire chief of IVFD or be compensated monetarily.

He is asking the judge consider class action for Independence
employees so they are paid retirement contributions. He also wants
the town to pay him for overtime pay, as well as damages, attorney
fees and penalties.

The hearing to decide if the amended complaints can be heard is
scheduled for Dec. 2. The jury trial is set for July 11.


ISRAELI RAILWAYS: Court Approves Class Action Over Late Trains
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chen Ma'anit, writing for Globe.co.il, reported that judge Michal
Agmon-Gonen accepts petition demanding better compensation from
Israel Railways for delays over 30 minutes.

The Tel Aviv District Court approved a class action suit against
Israel Railways for delays longer than 30 minutes. Judge Michal
Agmon-Gonen's decision paves the way for rail passengers to
receive compensation for their time.

The plaintiff, advocate Avner Gabay, had purchased for years the
"monthly pass" for the train, in order to ride the line from Hod
Hasharon to Tel Aviv.

In his petition, he claimed that the line was plagued by delays;
when he formally complained about the matter, he was informed that
delays yield compensation in the form of one free ticket voucher.

However, he claimed the free ticket is not much compensation when
his "monthly pass" entitles him to unlimited rides. He also added
that the rail company does not inform its passengers of their
rights, leaving many to not take advantage of even the limited
compensation.

The suit demands financial compensation for customers that
purchased a "monthly pass" and for all passengers who were
purposefully not informed of their rights.

Israel Railways responded: "The ruling does not address the
current reality but two individual cases in the distant past. As
it said in the ruling, the issue of compensation for delay to
those holding a term-ticket was fixed years ago -- and that is the
focus of the ruling. A monthly pass has not existed in years; it
was replaced by a flexible 30-day ticket. Furthermore, the
compensation procedure discussed by the court was ended on
November 1, 2013; the new procedure does not differentiate between
a term-ticket holder and another passenger."


JANSSEN PHARMA: Suit Filed in Canada to Address Kidney Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Goldhirsch, writing for The Legal Examiner, reported that
on September 10, 2015, plaintiffs filed a new class action lawsuit
against the manufacturers of diabetes drug Invokana: Janssen
Pharmaceuticals and parent company Johnson & Johnson.
Representative plaintiff Rosalba Joudry, a resident of Ontario,
filed the case on behalf of all persons in Canada who took
Invokana and then suffered serious kidney problems.

In the U.S. the FDA warned in May 2015 that Invokana had been
linked to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a dangerous and potentially
life-threatening condition. They issued the warning after
receiving 20 reports of DKA between 2013 and 2014 of patients with
type 2 diabetes who were taking Invokana and were hospitalized for
DKA.

Invokana has also been linked to kidney problems, which is the
subject of this potential Canadian class-action lawsuit.

Plaintiff Taking Invokana Suffers Kidney Failure

According to the complaint, Joudry started taking Invokana in
October 2014 to manage her high blood glucose levels associated
with her type 2 diabetes. The FDA approved Invokana for this use
in March 2013.

Around June 2015, Joudry states she saw an advertisement on a U.S.
television commercial warning Invokana users about the risk for
DKA and kidney failure. She immediately contacted her doctor and
made an appointment. Tests conducted by her doctor showed that she
was experiencing kidney failure.

Joudry was shocked by the diagnosis. She states that her doctor
didn't alert her to the risk, and that the warnings on the
Invokana label were inadequate and downplayed the seriousness of
the drug's potential side effects. Had she known about the
potential for kidney failure, she states that she would never have
taken the drug.

Invokana Linked with Kidney Stones and Kidney Failure

Invokana was approved for sale in Canada after it was approved in
the U.S.--in May 2014. The drug belongs to a class of medications
called SGLT2 inhibitors that blocks the kidneys from reabsorbing
glucose, allowing that glucose to be flushed out of the body via
the urine.

In the initial trials used to gain FDA approval of the drug, there
was some evidence of bone health issues, cardiovascular problems,
and liver abnormalities, but the FDA allowed the approval to go
through with the stipulation that the manufacturer conduct
additional studies to further determine Invokana's safety. The
administration did express concern about the long-term use of the
drug, stating that the changes in kidney function seen in the
studies could potentially put patients at risk of kidney injury.

Within just a year of being on the U.S. market, Invokana was
associated with 457 reports of adverse events, as reported by the
Institute for Safe Medications Practices (ISMP) in their
QuarterWatch publication. Among the problems reported were urinary
tract infections, kidney stones, and kidney impairment or failure.

Plaintiff Seeks in Excess of $1 Billion in Damages for Injured
Class

Joudry asserts in her complaint that Janssen failed to provide
clear, complete, and current warnings on the Invokana label, and
that they have ignored information connecting the drug with kidney
and other problems. Instead of properly warning of these problems,
the manufacturer has continued to promote the product as safe.

On behalf of all potential class members, Joudry seeks general
damages in excess of $500 million and special damages in excess of
$500 million, for a total of $1 billion, as well as punitive
damages. The class action has not yet been certified, which is
required under Canadian law before it can proceed. Certification
is expected within the next six months.


KBR INC: Class Action Discovery Expected to Continue Into 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that discovery has begun and is
expected to continue into 2016 in In re KBR, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action
status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our
current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief
accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013
annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The
case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Master File No. 14-cv-01287. We filed
a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to
plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of
scienter on the part of the individual defendants and the motion
was denied on September 3, 2015."

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.
Discovery in the case has begun and is expected to continue into
2016. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter," the Company
said.


KRIS KOBACH: Lawyers Asks for Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------
Edward M. Eveld, writing for The Kansas City Star, reported that
a court challenge by two Douglas County residents against Kansas
Secretary of State Kris Kobach could become a class-action suit
that represents many of the 36,000 people slated to have their
incomplete voter registrations canceled.

Lawyers for Cody Keener and Alder Cromwell filed an amendment to
make the change.

Kobach has asked the federal court to dismiss the case because
Keener and Cromwell are now registered to vote. His office
registered them by obtaining proof-of-citizenship documents on
their behalf, which is allowed by the registration statute.
Will Lawrence, attorney for Cromwell and Keener, said their case
remains valid despite Kobach's subsequent action to register them.

"But we also realize this case involves tens of thousands of
Kansans who have ended up on the suspended voter list and are
ultimately to be denied the right to vote," Lawrence said.
Craig McCullah, Kobach's spokesman, said the office was reviewing
the class-action request and had no comment yet.

Kobach implemented an administrative rule in October to cancel
incomplete voter registrations after 90 days. Most such
registrations were missing proof-of-citizenship documents, such as
a birth certificate or passport. The law that requires proof of
citizenship for voter registration took effect in 2013.
The suit, brought by the law firm of Paul Davis, the Lawrence
lawyer who ran against Gov. Sam Brownback in the 2014 election,
argues that the 90-day rule violates the National Voter
Registration Act and due process rights.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Suit Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2015, that the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended and restated complaint in a class
action lawsuit has been fully briefed.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the
Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.
The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

On April 24, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended and
restated complaint. The motion has been fully briefed.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range
of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this
matter because the proceedings are in their early stages.


LABORATORY CORP: Trial Court Stays "Jansky" Case Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court has stayed the case, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, et al., pending resolution of an appeal,
Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that
the Defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices,
and violated various other state laws by changing screening codes
to diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting
in customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages,
as well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.

In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for class certification was
denied. Plaintiff has appealed the denial of class certification,
and the trial court has stayed the case pending resolution of the
appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: Appeal by Sandusky Wellness Pending
----------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the case, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v.
MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., remains pending, Laboratory
Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express permission or invitation. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

In September 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for class certification was
denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted. Plaintiff
has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will vigorously defend
the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: Notice of "Bohlander" Settlement Circulated
------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of the settlement in the Bohlander lawsuit and Andres
lawsuit has been sent to putative class members, Laboratory
Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit and
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. In the consolidated lawsuit, the
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists
and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to
provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of
the California Labor Code.

On May 28, 2015, the District Court issued a preliminary approval
of the class action settlement and notice of the settlement has
been sent to putative class members.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Varsam" Case
----------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of
America DBA LabCorp, have reached a settlement in principle, but
the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the settlement
is not finalized, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The Company was a defendant in two additional putative class
action lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres
consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit of Rachel Rabanes v. California
Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and
the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA
LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. As a result of the Andres
settlement, the Plaintiff in the Rabanes case dismissed her case.

The Plaintiff in the Varsam case alleges on behalf of similarly
situated employees that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed
to provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of
the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks monetary damages,
civil penalties, costs, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees.
The parties in the Varsam case have reached a settlement in
principle, but the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if
the settlement is not finalized.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement Reached in "Legg" Case
--------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, have reached a settlement in principle,
but the Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit if the
settlement is not finalized, Laboratory Corporation Of America
Holdings said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that
the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration
date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt.
The lawsuit seeks damages of not less than $0.0001 but not more
than $0.01 per violation, and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees. The parties have reached a settlement in
principle that is subject to court approval, but the Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit if the settlement is not finalized.


LABORATORY CORP: Facing "Davis" Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015, that the Company was served on August 31, 2015, with a
putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the
Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The
complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting
benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well
as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company
will vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LIBERTY MAINTENANCE: Court Narrows Claims in "Pikos" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William F. Kuntz, II of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, EMMANOUIL
PIKOS, HARRY GIALAMAS, PAVLOS KARAGEOGIOU, PRAHALAD LALL, and
DANIEL ROJAS for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY MAINTENANCE, INC., LIBERTY
MAINTENANCE/CORCON JOINT VENTURE, LLC and ELITE CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 09-CV-4031 (WFK)(RER) (E.D.N.Y.).

On June 4, 2009, Plaintiffs Emmanouil Pikos and Harry Gialamas
filed an action in the Supreme Court of New York, Kings County, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against
Defendant Liberty Maintenance, Inc. and five John Doe Bonding
Companies. In the Original Complaint, Plaintiffs Pikos and
Gialamas alleged they and similarly situated laborers and
mechanics provided labor to Liberty Maintenance between 2003 and
2009 for various publicly financed construction projects in the
State of New York, including construction projects related to the
Triborough Bridge, the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, and the Robert
Moses Causeway.

On September 18, 2009, Defendants removed the action to the
federal district court on the basis of complete diversity of the
parties.  The First Amended Complaint, filed August 14, 2014,
added Pavlos Karageogiou, Prahalad Lall, and Daniel Rojas as named
Plaintiffs. The First Amended Complaint also added Liberty
Maintenance/Corcon Joint Venture, LLC and Elite Contractors, Inc.
as Defendants.  The First Amended Complaint states three causes of
action: breach of the Public Works Contracts, willful failure to
pay prevailing wages and supplemental benefits under NYLL Sections
191 and 198-c, and willful failure to pay overtime wages under
NYLL Sec. 663.

In the motion, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint as time-barred and as not relating back to the
Original Complaint or, in the alternative, for failure to plead
sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In his Decision and Order dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ItkHVefrom Leagle.com, Judge Kuntz, II granted as to
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims against
Liberty/Corcon and Elite as time-barred and denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss the claims of the newly added Plaintiffs against
Liberty because the newly added Plaintiffs' claims against
original defendant Liberty for failure to pay wages between 2003
and 2009 involve the same "evidence, memories, and witnesses" as
those of the original Plaintiffs and are substantially similar.

Plaintiffs are represented by LaDonna Marie Lusher, Esq. --
llusher@vandallp.com -- Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. --
lambinder@vandallp.com -- VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP

Defendants are represented by Alan M. Pollack, Esq. --
amp@robinsonbrog.com -- Felicia S. Ennis, Esq. --
fse@robinsonbrog.com -- ROBINSON BROG LEINWAND GREENE G&G P.C


LIQUID HOLDING: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Liquid Holdings Group, Inc. ("Liquid Holdings" or the
"Company") concerning possible violations of federal securities
laws between July 25, 2013 and December 23, 2014. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period
were advised to contact the Firm in advance of the November 20,
2015, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To join this class action lawsuit, please contact Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or via e-mail at
brian@lundinlawpc.com

According to the complaint, the Company made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that, according to outside counsel, the
Company's prior financial statements for the nine months ended
September 30, 2014, can no longer be relied upon, "due to certain
accounting errors."

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.
Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Judgment in "Drum" Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------
Joel Drum lives in a neighborhood that receives street cleaning
services wherein the City of Los Angeles, California, adopted
parking restrictions that prohibit cars from parking on the street
during a specific two hour time period each week when street
cleaning is scheduled to take place.  He received a citation for
parking on the street during the posted street cleaning time
period. He filed a class action complaint against the City,
claiming the street sweeping program and its related parking
restrictions violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Drum alleged that, by
imposing its street sweeping program in only some Los Angeles
neighborhoods, the City subjected residents that live in the areas
receiving street cleaning services to an increased risk of
receiving a parking citation, while other residents would "never"
be in jeopardy of receiving a citation.

Drum filed his complaint on behalf of "all persons who reside in
the City of Los Angeles in a location that has parking
restrictions in front of, or near to, their residence for weekly
street cleaning and who, as has plaintiff, have received a
citation for parking in violation of the restrictions within three
years of the date the original [complaint] was filed."

The City moved to strike the class action allegations on the
ground that "a plaintiff in pro per cannot be an adequate class
representative as required by CCP Sec. 382 which was granted by
the court. Drum subsequently amended his complaint twice and each
time restated the class action allegations. After Drum filed his
second amended complaint, the City filed another motion to strike
the class action allegations and a demurrer. The court sustained
the demurrer without leave to amend and entered a judgment of
dismissal. The court did not rule on the City's pending motion to
strike, finding the motion moot in light of the demurrer ruling.

On appeal, Drum argues parking restrictions imposed by the City on
the street where he lives, which prohibit street parking for two
hours each week in order to accommodate street cleaning, violate
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Drum also contends the court erred by
finding, as a matter of law, that a plaintiff in propria persona
cannot be the class representative in a class action lawsuit.

In a Disposition dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kOaphhfrom Leagle.com, Associate Justice Louis A.
Lavin of the Court of Appeals of California held that Drum's
second amended complaint fails to state a claim. The City's street
sweeping program and related parking restrictions are rationally
related to the City's goal of maintaining city streets in a safe,
healthy and environmentally sound manner.

Justice Lavin affirmed the judgment of dismissal.

The case before the appeals court is, JOEL DRUM, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. B256217 (Cal. App.).

City of Los Angeles is represented by Michael N. Feuer, Esq., CITY
ATTORNEY; Ronald Whitaker, Esq., ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY; and
Gabriel S. Dermer, Esq., DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY


MAYO CLINIC: Final Judgment in "Ahearn" Affirmed in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SHAWN AHEARN, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. MAYO CLINIC, A FLORIDA
CORPORATION; MAYO CLINIC JACKSONVILLE, A FLORIDA CORPORATION,
Appellees, Case No. 1D14-4256 (Fla. Ct. App.), Judge Ross L.
Bilbrey of the Court of Appeals of Florida affirmed a final
judgment as to the breach in the case of contract count, the
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing count,
the actual damages portion of the FDUTPA count, and the
declaratory judgment count under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes and
reversed the final summary judgment as to FDUTPA count to the
extent it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for Shawn Ahearn
individually and as a putative class representative as an
allegedly aggrieved person.

On September 14, 2013, Ahearn received emergency medical treatment
at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville. Because he was not covered by
health insurance or any governmental healthcare program, Ahearn
was personally billed $5,953.26 for the treatment he received. On
December 23, 2013, Ahearn, through counsel, filed a complaint
raising four causes of action premised in the allegations that
Mayo Clinic charged him and other uncovered patients rates in
excess of the reasonable value of the services provided and
substantially higher than rates Mayo Clinic charges those patients
covered by insurance or a governmental healthcare program.

On March 14, 2014, Mayo Clinic, while continuing to deny fault,
informed Ahearn that it was waiving the $5,623.26 which Ahearn
still owed for the treatment following his payment of $330.00.
Mayo Clinic then moved for summary judgment and agreed to pay
Ahearn's attorney's fees and costs, or allow the trial judge to
assess them if an agreement could not be reached. At no time
before the final summary judgment issued did Ahearn attempt to
certify the class pursuant to Rule 1.220(d), Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure.

On appeal, Ahearn, individually and as a putative class
representative, appeals the final summary judgment issued by the
trial court which found that all of the causes of action asserted
in Ahearn's complaint were moot as to him individually, and as
such, he lacked standing to assert claims for a similarly situated
class.

In the Opinion dated November 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/tpRz4gfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bilbrey found that
given the lack of an actual controversy, any declaration under
Chapter 86 would be an advisory opinion, which the Court has
repeatedly stated is inappropriate and that a material issue of
fact remains as to whether Ahearn was "aggrieved" under section
501.211(1).

Shawn Ahearn is represented by Bryan S. Gowdy, Esq. --
bgowdy@appellate-firm.com -- CREEDY AND GOWDY, P.A.

Mayo Clinic is represented by John A. Tucker, Esq. --
jtucker@foley.com -- James A. McKee, Esq. -- jmckee@foley.com --
Benjamin J. Grossman, Esq. -- bgrossman@foley.com -- FOLEY &
LARDNER, LLP


METLIFE SECURITIES: "Creighton" Suit Moved From Illinois to N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Creighton v. MetLife Securities,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00959, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square).  The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-08321-WHP to the proceeding.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is incorporated in New York
and its principal place of business is in New York.  MLIC conducts
business in all 50 states.  Since February 2012, the Plaintiff
served as executive vice president of MetLife Premier Client
Group, a division of MLIC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George S. Robot, Esq.
          Patricia A. Bronte, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          Linda Debra Friedman, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          Facsimile: (312) 431-0228
          E-mail: grobot@sfltd.com
                  pbronte@sfltd.com
                  sbish@sfltd.com
                  lfriedman@sfltd.com

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by:

          Steven J. Pearlman, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          70 West Madison, Suite 3800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 962-3545
          Facsimile: (312) 963-3551
          E-mail: spearlman@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Katharine Huth Parker, Esq.
          Keisha-Ann G. Gray, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: kparker@proskauer.com
                  kgray@proskauer.com


MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOC: CA Remands Suit to Calif. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Judge Madeleine Flier of the Court of Appeals of
California reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the
trial court in the case captioned, HIREEM ELIJAHJUAN et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MIKE CAMPBELL & ASSOCIATES, LTD. et
al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. B255533 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiffs sued Campbell, alleging they were misclassified as
independent contractors when they should have been classified as
employees.  Plaintiffs sought to bring the lawsuit as a class
action of all persons who signed agreements to operate as drivers
for Campbell in the State of California.  Plaintiffs allege that
the class would exceed 1,000 persons.  They alleged causes of
action for failure to reimburse business expenses (Lab. Code;
unlawful deduction from wages; unlawful coerced purchases; failure
to keep accurate payroll records and itemized wage statements;
failure to authorize meal periods and rest breaks; failure to pay
wages as earned upon termination or resignation; and negligent
misrepresentation. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004, alleged a violation Business and
Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and asserted a claim for
declaratory relief. All of the causes of action were contingent on
plaintiffs demonstrating they are employees.

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Campbell. The
court concluded that if plaintiffs were employees, Logistics would
need to hire additional drivers, would need to reimburse operating
expenses and purchase trucks at a cost of more than $90 million.
The trial court also found that Campbell would have to obtain its
own motor carrier authorization from the United States Department
of Transportation. The court concluded these necessary changes
would affect prices, routes, and services as defined by the
Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994
(49 U.S.C. Sec. 14501 et seq.)

On appeal, Plaintiff argues applying Pac Anchor that the FAAAA did
not preempt the state law claims based on the alleged
misclassification of plaintiffs as independent contractors.

In the Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hMI3Nqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Flier concluded that
the statute at issue did not necessarily increase the motor
carrier's operating expenses and that Campbell failed to establish
a sufficient relationship to price, route, and service to prompt
preemption.

The Court remanded the cause to the Superior Court for further
proceedings.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Wilmer J. Harris, Esq.
Isabel M. Daniels, Esq.
SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN, LLP
723 Ocean Front Walk #100
Venice, CA 90291
Tel: (310)396-0731

Defendants are represented by Raymond F. Lynch, Esq. --
rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Michael B. McNaughton, Esq. --
mmcnaughton@hansonbridgett.com -- Gilbert J. Tsai, Esq. --
gtsai@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP


MITSUI & CO: Court Dismisses Korean Residents' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Mitsui & Co.'s
motion to dismiss all claims in the case captioned, HE NAM YOU and
KYUNG SOON KIM, for themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAPAN; HIROHITO; AKIHITO;
NOBUSKE KISHI; SHINZO ABE; NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA); NIPPON YUSEN
KABUSHIKI KAISHA; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.;
HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO
METAL U.S.A., INC.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORPORATION;
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (AMERICA); MITSUBISHI GROUP; MITSUI & CO.
(U.S.A.), INC.; MITSUI & CO. LTD.; OKAMOTO INDUSTRIES, INC.;
SANKEI SHIMBUN, CO., LTD.; and DOES 1-1000, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. C 15-03257 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs He Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim are residents and
citizens of the Republic of Korea. Plaintiffs allege that they
were abducted by the Japanese government during the Second World
War, forced into servitude, and exploited as sex slaves for the
benefit of Japanese soldiers at "comfort stations" in Japan.

Plaintiffs assert the following claims against Mitsui & Co.
(U.S.A.): (1) crimes against humanity in violation of the Alien
Torts Statute, (2) cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in
violation of the Alien Torts Statute, (3) conspiracy to commit
crimes against humanity in violation of the Alien Torts Statute,
(4) aiding and abetting torture, in violation of the Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1991, (5) intentional infliction of
emotional distress, (6) battery, and (7) violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Mitsui & Co. argues that plaintiffs' amended complaint suffers
from numerous fatal deficiencies. Specifically, it contends that
the allegations that give rise to plaintiffs' claims against
Mitsui & Co. all occurred overseas more than seventy years ago and
that plaintiffs' claims are subject to a waiver in the 1965 Treaty
between Japan and the Republic of Korea.

In his Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TFzfq0from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup held the gravity
of the injuries that plaintiffs allegedly suffered cannot rescue
their claims, inasmuch as they present a non-justiciable question
and are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations.
Plaintiffs may seek leave to amend their complaint and shall have
twenty-one calendar days from the date of the order to file a
motion, noticed on the normal 35-day calendar, for leave to amend
the complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by Hyungjin Kim, Esq. --
hkim@kimchang.com -- JEONG SE LAW FIRM

     - and -

Hume Joseph Jung, Esq.
JOSEPH JUNG & ASSOCIATES
8393 Capwell Dr #210,
Oakland, CA 94621
Tel: (510)562-7700

Defendants are represented by Joseph Anthony Meckes, Esq. --
joseph.meckes@squiresanders.com -- Nathan Lane, III, Esq. --
nathan.lane@squiresanders.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP


MOBILEIRON INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Panjwani" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed in the case, Panjwani v.
MobileIron, Inc., MobileIron said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On May 1, 2015, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers, captioned Panjwani v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The
action is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 13, 2015 and April 22, 2015. It
asserts claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees and costs on
behalf of the putative class.  An amended complaint was filed on
September 28, 2015.


MOBILEIRON INC: Stockholder Class Actions Filed in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that on August 5, 2015,
August 21, 2015 and August 24, 2015, purported stockholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California,
Santa Clara County against the Company, certain of its officers,
directors, underwriters and investors, captioned Schneider v.
MobileIron, Inc., et al., Kerley v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. and
Steinberg v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. The actions are purportedly
brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased
the Company's securities issued pursuant or traceable to the
Company's registration statement and the June 12, 2014 initial
public offering. The lawsuits assert claims for violations of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
complaint seeks among other things, compensatory damages and
attorney's fees and costs on behalf of the putative class. The
Company intends to defend the litigations vigorously.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Securities Litigation Pending in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MoneyGram International, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against
a class action securities litigation in Delaware, Moneygram said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of
New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of
its executive officers, THL, Goldman Sachs and the underwriters of
the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that
closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was
brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England
Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all
documents incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection
with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly
false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014
Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice
of removal to the federal district court of the District of
Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the case back to Delaware State Court. The Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Court Denies Attorneys' Fees Bid in "Keller"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Class Counsel's
five separate motions for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive
awards in the case captioned, SAMUEL KELLER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.;
and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants. EDWARD O'BANNON, et
al. Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION;
ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.; and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY,
Defendants, Case Nos. C 09-1967 CW, C 09-3329 CW (N.D. Cal.).

On August 19, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the class
action settlements wherein in its final approval orders, the Court
allocated thirty percent of the Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA)
settlement fund for attorneys' fees, reserving the division of
those funds among the attorneys. Class Counsel have filed five
separate motions for attorneys' fees and costs and incentive
awards. Among those motions are motions by current and former
counsel in Hart v. Electronic Arts, D.N.J. Case No. 09-5990.

Timothy McIlwain was counsel for Hart at various times leading up
to the settlement of the case. He has filed a motion for fees for
himself, various attorneys, law clerks and paralegals who he
claims to have supervised, as well as attorneys at the Lanier Law
Firm, who were associated as co-counsel for Hart from August
through September 2013. Mr. McIlwain attaches a spreadsheet he
"prepared detailing most but not nearly all of the time" he spent
on the case. As to the other individuals, the attachments to Mr.
McIlwain's declaration simply list the individual's name, the
hourly rate claimed and the total number of hours claimed.

Current counsel for Hart Plaintiffs, the McKenna Law Firm and Lum,
Drasco & Positan LLC have also filed a motion for fees. Like the
declarations filed in support of Mr. McIlwain's motion for fees,
the declarations filed in support of Hart Plaintiffs' current
counsel's fee motion simply state the total number of hours and
hourly rate claimed.

In her Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/i5JzKKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wilken forund that the
records submitted by the counsel are insufficient to support a
claim of fees.

The Court directed counsel to submit supplemental declarations
itemizing the hours claimed by each individual by the tasks
completed.

Plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq. --
abailey@hausfeld.com -- Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- HAUSFELD LLP

Defendants are represented by Robert B. Carey, Esq. --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP


NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE: CA Denies Writ of Mandamus
-----------------------------------------------------
Justice Nora L. Longoria of the Court of Appeals of Texas denied
the petition for writ of mandamus in the case captioned, IN RE
NATIONAL LLOYDS INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 13-15-00390-CV (Tex.
App.).

On July 8, 2015, a class action petition was filed against
National Lloyds Insurance Company, as relator, on grounds that
relator engaged in intentional, tortious interference with
existing attorney-client representation agreements. The real
parties, who are attorneys representing relator's policyholders,
allege that relator has been "enlisting its agents to approach its
policyholders who are represented by counsel and convince those
policyholders to fire their attorneys, all in hopes that relator
could drive down the settlement value of the policyholders'
claims."

On August 6, 2015, real parties filed an application for temporary
restraining order, request for temporary injunction, and a request
for permanent injunction against relator. The pleading also
requested that the trial court order relator to respond to two
discovery requests, attached as "Exhibit A" to the application,
within 10 days of entry of the initial temporary restraining order
and prior to a hearing for a temporary injunction.

On August 25, 2015, the trial court granted the real parties'
emergency motion to compel and required relator to respond to the
discovery requests within two days.

In the motion, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus
seeking to vacate the trial court's August 25, 2015 order
compelling it to respond to discovery propounded by the real
parties in interest, Arguello, Hope, and Associates, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/PKApUjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Longoria held that the
temporary restraining order meets the requirements of Rule 680
insofar as it defines the alleged irreparable injuries, losses,
and damages, and states why they would be irreparable and that
relator has not shown itself entitled to the relief sought.


NFL INC: Faces "Dassa" Suit Over Alleged Anticompetitive Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dassa, on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated, v. National Football League, Inc.; NFL
Enterprises LLC; Arizona Cardinals Holdings, Inc.; Atlanta Falcons
Football Club LLC; Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership; Buffalo
Bills, LLC; Panthers Football LLC; Chicago Bears Football Club,
Inc.; Cleveland Browns Football Company, LLC; Dallas Cowboys
Football Club, Ltd.; PDB Sports, Ltd. D/B/A Denver Broncos
Football Club; Detroit Lions, Inc.; Green Bay Packers, Inc.;
Houston NFL Holdings LP; Indianapolis Colts, Inc.; Jacksonville
Jaguars LLC; Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc.; Miami
Dolphins, Ltd.; Minnesota Vikings Football Club LLC; New England
Patriots, LP; New Orleans Louisiana Saints LLC; New York Football
Giants, Inc.; New York Jets LLC; Oakland Raiders LP; Philadelphia
Eagles Football Club, Inc.; Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.;
Chargers Football Co., LLC; San Francisco Forty Niners II, LLC;
Football Northwest LLC; The Rams Football Company LLC; Buccaneers
Limited Partnership; Tennessee Football, Inc.; Washington
Football, Inc.; CBS Corporation; Fox Broadcasting Company; NBC
Universal Media, LLC; ESPN INC.; Directv Holdings, LLC; And
Directv, LLC, Case 1:15-cv-08982-UA (S.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015),
seeks injunctive relief to put an end to alleged anticompetitive
scheme of Defendants, and damages to compensate the Class for
supracompetitive overcharges paid as a result of the Defendants'
restriction of supply, thereby raising prices in the multibillion-
dollar football broadcasting market.

Defendant National Football League, Inc. is an incorporated
association of the 32 football teams in the National Football
League with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
NFL Enterprises LLC is a limited liability company with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.   The 32 Teams
are owned and operated by the other Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc I. Lieberman, Esq.
     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Foor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-661-1100
     Fax: 212-661-8665
     E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
             jalieberman@pomlaw.con

         - and -

     Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1792 Bell Tower Lane
     Suite 203
     Weston, FL 33326
     Phone: (561) 270-0795
     Fax: (954) 315-3455
     E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com


NOVA HARDBANDING: Faces "Foster" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod B. Foster, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Nova Hardbanding, LLC and Ken Brombley, Case No.
2:15-cv-01047-CG-LAM (D.N.Mex., November 16, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and related penalties under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Nova Hardbanding, LLC provides oilfield services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Apodaca, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & DOHAN LP
      4801 Lang NE, Suite 110
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Phone: (800) 719-1617
           : (505) 369-3699
      Fax: (888) 272-8822
      E-Mail: aapodaca@goldbergdohan.com


PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Party City Holdco Inc. (NYSE:PRTY) securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with Party City's April 16, 2015 initial public
offering ("IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Party
City investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Party City class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-783.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

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

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose certain
risks in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, including the
impact on Party City due to: (1) soft consumer traffic trends; (2)
the extraordinary performance of the Disney Frozen franchise from
the prior year; and (3) the store reset initiative. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 19, 2016. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-783.htmlfor more
information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


PAYPAL INC: Amended Deal in "Zepeda" Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiffs' motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class
Action Settlement Agreement and conferred preliminary approval of
the Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned, MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR, RONYA OSMAN, BRIAN
PATTEE, CASEY CHING, DENAE ZAMORA, MICHAEL LAVANGA, and GARY
MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PAYPAL, INC., E-BAY INC., and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 10-2500 SBA, RELATED TO No. C
10-1668 SBA (N.D. Cal.).

The putative nationwide class action was brought by Plaintiffs
Moises Zepeda, Michael Spear, Ronya Osman, Brian Pattee, Casey
Ching, Denae Zamora, Michael Lavanga and Gary Miller against
PayPal, Inc. and its parent entity, eBay, Inc.  Plaintiffs allege
that PayPal improperly handled disputed transactions relating to
their user accounts by unilaterally placing holds and reserves
thereon.  PayPal also is alleged to have failed to provide annual
error-resolution notices and monthly account statements under the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

In the motion, Plaintiffs requested: (1) provisional certification
of the two proposed Settlement Classes; (2) the appointment of (a)
the Complex Litigation Group, (b) Lexington Law Group, (c) Farmer,
Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Leherman, P.L., and (d) Seeger
Weiss LLP, as Class Counsel; (3) approval of the proposed Class
Notice; and (4) and the scheduling of a final approval hearing.

In her Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/n7rDJLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Armstrong found that
Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing to warrant preliminary
approval of the Amended Settlement Agreement and that the content
of the proposed notice to be appropriate thus approving the
proposed notice, as to both form and content.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Moises Zepeda, Michael Spear, Ronya
Osman, Brian Pattee, Casey Ching, Denae Zamora, Michael Lavanga
and Gary Miller as class representatives, Jeffrey A. Leon of
Quantum Legal LLC and Mark N. Todzo and Howard Hirsch of Lexington
Law Group as class counsel and Epiq Systems as Settlement
Administrator.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brian Stephen Kabateck, Esq. --
bsk@kbklawyers.com -- Richard Kellner, Esq. -- rlk@kbklawyers.com
-- KABATECK KELLNER LLP

     - and -

Howard Judd Hirsch, Esq.
Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP
360 N Cutler Dr,
North Salt Lake, UT 84054
Tel: (801)994-6572

Paypal, Inc. is represented by Benjamin Taylor Potter, Esq. --
bpotter@stroock.com -- David Wesley Moon, Esq. --
dmoon@stroock.com -- Julia B. Strickland, Esq. --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Wesley Michael Griffith, Esq. --
wgriffith@stroock.com -- STROOCK AND STROOCK AND LAVAN LLP


QLOGIC CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors that a class
action complaint has been filed on behalf of a class of investors
of QLogic Corporation ("QLogic" or the "Company") who purchased
shares between April 30, 2015 and July 30, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). QLogic investors have until November 27, 2015 to
file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors with losses of over
$50,000 are encouraged to contact GPM to discuss their legal
rights.

QLogic designs and supplies server and storage networking
infrastructure products that provide, enhance, and manage computer
data communication. These products facilitate the transfer of data
and enable resource sharing between servers, networks, and
storage. The Company's products are used in enterprise, managed
service provider, consumer web, and cloud service provider data
centers. The Company's products are based primarily on Fibre
Channel and Ethernet technologies and are used in connection with
storage networks, local area networks, and converged networks.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company was being adversely impacted by lower than
expected demand due to weakness in its enterprise server and
storage markets; (2) that the Company was being negatively
impacted by operational issues including an inventory build-up at
a major OEM customer; (3) that, as such, the Company's financial
results were being negatively impacted; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis. Upon
disclosure of these issues the Company's securities declined
sharply in value, thereby damaging investors.


If you purchased QLogic securities during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than November 27, 2015 to request
appointment as lead plaintiff. If you have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

About the Firm: GPM has represented investors, consumers and
employees for 25 years. Based in Los Angeles with offices in New
York City and Berkeley, the Firm has successfully prosecuted class
action cases and complex litigation in federal and state courts
throughout the country. As Lead Counsel or as a member of
Plaintiffs' Counsel Executive Committees, the Firm has recovered
billions of dollars for parties wronged by corporate fraud and
malfeasance.

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Lesley Portnoy, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Leak of Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., Counseling Services of New
York, LLC, and DR. Ferdinand B. Banez, Case 1:15-cv-08992
(S.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015), was filed on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals who, allegedly, at any time since
November 16, 2012, without authorization or consent, had their
protected personal and confidential medical information
transmitted to unauthorized third parties as a result of
Defendants' acts and/or omissions.

Defendant Quest Diagnostics Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in New Jersey that provides diagnostic medical
testing services for managed care organizations and independent
practice associations nationwide.

Defendant Counseling Services of New York LLC is a non-intensive,
OASAS 822 licensed outpatient chemical dependency and substance
abuse treatment program located in Bronx, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffery M. Norton, Esq.
     NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
     1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: 212-619-5400
     Fax: 212-619-3090
     E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Denies Motion to Remand in "Ruano"
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the United States District
for the Central District of California denied Plaintiff's motion
to remand in the case captioned, Edwin Ruano, v. Sears Roebuck &
Co., Case No. CV 15-6060 PSG (FFMX) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff purchased Sears' HVAC system. Plaintiff filed a class
action complaint on January 29, 2015 in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles on behalf of "all individuals in the State
of California who, from four years preceding the filing of this
Complaint, purchased an HVAC system, including installation, from
Sears." His complaint included four causes of action: (1)
violation of consumer legal remedies act; (2) unfair and
fraudulent business practices; (3) unlawful business practices;
and (4) breach of implied warranty.

Defendant removed the case more than six months after Plaintiff
filed his complaint in state court. Defendant contends that the
removal was timely because he removed within 30 days of learning
that minimal diversity existed.

In the motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's removal was
untimely because Defendant should have known that a putative class
that includes thousands of people who purchased HVAC systems in
California would include at least one California citizen.

In his Civil Minutes dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xn2x9hfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gutierrez held that
citizenship is established by domicile, not residency and that
Defendant has properly established the amount in controversy.

Plaintiff is represented by Wendy Hernandez, Esq., DEPUTY CLERK


SENTRY INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Payback Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford J. Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reported that
an Effingham lawyer has filed a class action suit against Sentry
Insurance Co., claiming the firm went back on a promise to repay
half of the premiums of its customers who went five years without
making an accident claim.

"As plaintiffs and many other insureds began qualifying for
refunds of the first year's premiums by staying claim-free for
five years or more, Sentry unilaterally non-renewed the policies
and failed to pay the safe drivers the additional Payback
premium," the suit claims.

The program was called the "Payback Program" and "Payback
Agreement." The suit claims the company broke its contracts in
violation of Illinois consumer protection laws. Under the
agreement, if the insured did not file a claim during the first
five years, he or she would be repaid half the first year's
premium he or she paid.

The Payback Agreement was added to the policy at a premium above
what an insured would normally pay.

A spokesman for Sentry could not be reached. The proposed class is
represented by Christopher A. Koester of Taylor Law Offices in
Effingham. The named plaintiffs are William A. Coleman and Mary A.
Coleman of Madison County. The suit must be certified as a class
action before it can proceed.

The class would be all citizens of Illinois who had a policy with
sentry with a "Payback Agreement" and were not renewed and who had
no claims or losses under the policy.

The suit also claims that Sentry continued to sell and renew
Payback Program policies, event after it had already decided it
would soon decline to renew the program and that it was selling
and renewing Payback policies on which Sentry would never pay, the
suit alleges.

As of 2003, Sentry had paid back more than $78 million in refunds
to insured motorists throughout the country. The company allegedly
made a decision in 2012 to cease writing and to not renew its
standard personal line policies, including its personal auto
insurance and Payback policies in 2014, the suit claims.

However the company allegedly failed to inform its customers that
it would not be renewing Payback policies in 2014.

The suit alleges customers were owed $500 or $650 each year
between 2013 and 2018. It claims the company continued to sell and
renew its Payback policies, even through it knew that the benefits
advertised for in the policies would actually never be available
because of the company decision in 2012 not to renew all policies
in 2014 and not pay all Payback premium refunds.

The suit alleges that between 2010 and 2014, Sentry made a
specific promises to its customers that it would continue to
receive payback checks.


SERVICE EXPERTS: Court Trims Class Suit in "Frederick" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. David Proctor of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss and dismissed Counts ten through twelve of the
Amended Complaint in the case captioned, BRANDI FREDERICK,
Plaintiff, v. SERVICE EXPERTS HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-01647-RDP (N.D. Ala.).

In March 2007, Plaintiff purchased from Defendant Service Experts
Heating and Air Conditioning, LLC, through its employee Becky
Collins, a new HVAC unit. In June 2011, Plaintiff's HVAC unit
began functioning poorly and she had it inspected.  Although the
inspector asserted that the warranty Plaintiff had purchased would
cover the repairs, on June 25, 2011, Defendant Scott Freeman, the
Manager of Operations and Service at Service Experts, informed
Plaintiff that she had not purchased an extended warranty.

Plaintiff filed the lawsuit alleging (on behalf of herself and,
with respect to some claims, for a class of similarly situated
individuals) that Service Experts, among other things, committed
fraudulent sales practices, breaches of contract, and
racketeering, with the assistance of other Defendants. Defendant
GE's role in the purported racketeering scheme to defraud
consumers was to send via mail and e-mail monthly statements and
invoices for installment payments on the HVAC unit and warranty,
and finance the scheme with the moneys paid on those bills.
Plaintiff specifically avers that, by its actions, GE is liable
under the civil RICO statute on the basis of predicate acts of
mail and wire fraud committed by it while acting as Service
Expert's financing agent. Counts ten through twelve of the Amended
Complaint allege, respectively, violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections
1692(a), 1692(c), and 1692(d), by GE, Service Experts, and
Equiguard.

In the motion, GE seeks dismissal of Counts ten through twelve as
to itself only. It asserts that Plaintiff, on the one hand, made
conclusory legal allegations concerning GE's ostensibly culpable
participation in the purported scheme, and on the other hand, that
she failed to allege facts supporting the RICO claims as to GE.
Plaintiff counters and asserts that it pleads fraud with the
requisite particularity, and facts sufficient to give notice of a
claim, thus satisfying the federal pleading standards.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6A7SiUfrom Leagle.com, Judge Proctor concluded that
Plaintiff has not plausibly plead GE's connection with the
purported scheme to defraud and that although Plaintiff has
pleaded predicate acts of mail and wire fraud against GE with
particularity, she has not plausibly plead those allegations.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey E. Holmes, Esq. --
jholmes@gilpingivhan.com -- Spencer A. Kinderman, Esq. --
skinderman@gilpingivhan.com -- GILPIN GIVHAN PC

Defendants are represented by Grace L. Kipp, Esq. --
Gkipp@spotswoodllc.com -- Michael Sansbury, Esq. --
Msansabury@spotswoodllc.com -- Robert K. Spotswood, Esq. --
Rspotswood@spotswoodllc.com -- SPOTSWOOD SANSOM & SANSBURY LLC


SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL: "Dell" Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned, DANIEL DELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff, v. SERVICEMASTER GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C 15-3326 SBA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff filed the wage and hour class action in Alameda County
Superior Court against his former employer. On behalf of himself
and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff alleges claims for,
inter alia, violations of the California Labor Code, as well as a
claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Labor Code Sec. 2698. According to
Plaintiff, Defendants failed to pay him and other Inspectors the
specified commissions for their work and that Defendant failed to
pay them on time or maintain accurate records of their commission
sales.

Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action for: (1) breach of
contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) failure to pay for all hours
worked in violation of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202,
204, 221-223; (5) failure to keep accurate records in violation of
Labor Code Sections 1174 & 1174.5; (6) failure to furnish accurate
wage statements in violation of Labor Code Sec. 226; (7) waiting
time penalties under Labor Code Sections 201-203; (8) unfair
competition and unlawful business practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200; and (9)
statutory penalties under PAGA.  As relief, Plaintiff seeks
recovery of unpaid compensation, damages, statutory penalties,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 17, 2015, Defendant removed the action to the federal
district court. Defendant alleges that there is complete diversity
between Plaintiff and Defendant, and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and that federal jurisdiction is
present under CAFA in that the class contains more than 100
members and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

In the motion, Plaintiff argued that Defendant has failed to carry
its burden of proving that the amount in controversy necessary for
removal has been satisfied.

In her Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/wwUEnPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Armstrong concluded
that jurisdiction under CAFA has not been established because
Defendant has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating by a
preponderance of the evidence that at least $5 million is in
controversy.

Daniel Dell is represented by Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq. --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Nathan Piller, Esq. --
npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- Todd Michael Schneider, Esq. --
pschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP, Dylan Hughes, Esq. -- dsh@classlawgroup.com -
- GIBBLS LAW GROUP LLP & Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP

ServiceMaster Global Holdings, Inc. is represented by Tara Lynn
Presnell, Esq. -- tpresnell@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


SMARTHEAT INC: Has Deal to Resolve Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Smartheat Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has entered
into an agreement to settle all claims in a US securities class
action lawsuit.

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et al., which purported to allege federal
securities law claims against the Company and certain of its
former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.

A lead plaintiff was appointed and an amended complaint was filed
on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint
included Oliver Bialowons, our President, and Michael Wilhelm, the
Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the
proceeding though they were not officers of the Company during the
alleged class period.

A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the
caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang ,
SmartHeat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both asserting violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales.

On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint which was denied. On March 17, 2014 the court,
denied, the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification,
without prejudice. On August 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff once
again filed a motion for class certification.

On September 19, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the lead
plaintiff's motion for class certification, to which plaintiff
filed a response on October 20, 2014.

By Opinion and Order dated January 21, 2015, the Court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion, finding that it failed to
satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23 for typicality,
adequacy and predominance.  Specifically, the Court found that
plaintiffs' theory of liability required a trade-by-trade inquiry
as to whether the sale of the locked-up shares resulted in price
inflation of the company's stock, and that, as a result, the
injury to all class members could not be established by common
proof.  In addition to finding a lack of predominance of common
issues, the Court expressed substantial concerns about the
adequacy of the class representative, and that his claims were
typical of other class members.  The Court also expressed doubts
as to how plaintiffs would establish damages.

The Court's denial of class certification was without prejudice,
and the Court gave plaintiffs until February 17, 2015 to file a
"far more rigorous, and a far more convincing submission. . . ".
The pleadings and court orders are publicly available.

The Company entered into an agreement to settle all claims in a US
securities class action lawsuit. No findings of any wrongdoings
were ever made against SmartHeat, any current or former officer or
director of SmartHeat or any of the defendants, and the Company
and all other defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing.  The
default judgment previously entered against James Jun Wang was
vacated and was dismissed with prejudice.

The Company entered into the settlement in order to avoid further
cost of defending any of the purported actions. According to the
settlement, the Company paid the plaintiffs $120,000. In return,
the plaintiffs dismissed all claims against the Company and all of
the individual defendants with prejudice.  As a result of the
settlement, the case will not be allowed to be re-filed.

The settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of
fault by the Company or any of the individual defendants.  The
Company has and continues to assert that the allegations made in
the consolidated lawsuits lack merit and no evidence was ever
asserted supporting the allegations made in the consolidated
lawsuits. The Company has nevertheless agreed to the settlement in
order to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of
further litigation. The Company believes that putting this matter
behind it is in the best interest of its customers, employees and
shareholders so that it can remain focused on growing and
strengthening its business.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Inmates Must Pay Filing Fee Individually
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roberto A. Lange of the United States District
Court for the District of South Dakota denied Plaintiffs' appeal
to an order requiring each plaintiff to pay the full $350.00
filing fee individually in a lawsuit against officers of the South
Dakota Department of Corrections.

The case is captioned, JAMES IRVING DALE, BRIAN MICHAEL HOLZER,
MICHAEL EUGENE KOCH, DEMETRIUS PETRO COLAITES, TREVOR JOHN
ERICKSON, GUY ALLEN BLESI, KEVIN CHRISTOPHER CRANK, JAMES EDWARD
HAYES, EDWARD EUGENE DARITY, JOSIA JEREMIAH FUERST, ROBERT EUGENE
BLACKWELL, JEFFERY JACOB-DANIEL KLINGHAGEN, DENNIS LOUIS
STANISHII, UNKNOWN MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON INMATES, Plaintiffs,
v. DENNIS KAEMINGK, SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN AT MDSP
AND THE DIRECTOR OF PRISON OPERATIONS FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC; IN
HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOSHUA KLIMEK, UNIT MANAGER
AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TAMMY DEJONG,
UNIT COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
SUSAN JACOBS, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; REBECCA SCHIEFFER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JENNIFER STANWICK, DEPUTY WARDEN AT MDSP; IN
HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL DOYLEL CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER, WITH THE RANK MAJOR, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JEREMY LARSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK SERGEANT, AND THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT MDSP; IN
HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; COREY TYLER, CORRECTIONAL
OFFICER, WITH THE RANK SERGEANT, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL MEYER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MDSP; IN
HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY TJEERDSMA,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK CORPORAL, AT MDSP; IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; LORI DROTZMAN, GENERAL EDUCATION
DIPLOMA TEACHER, WHO ALSO IS IN CHARGE OF THE LAW LIBRARY AT MDSP;
IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL JOE HANVEY,
PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ANDRA GATES, NURSING SUPERVISOR
AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; KELLY SWANSON, HEALTH SERVICES SUPERVISOR AT MDSP; IN
THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STEPHANIE HAMILTON, NURSE
AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MARY CARPENTER,
EMPLOYEE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ASSISTS WITH
INMATE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; IN
HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BARRY SCHROETER, SUPERVISOR
FOR CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JENNIFER BENBOON, DIETITIAN EMPLOYED BY CBM
CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT
COMPANY CONTRACTED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE MEALS TO
INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; DELMAR SONNY WALTERS, ATTORNEY AT
LAW CONTRACTED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES
TO INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES,
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC WHO WORK AT
MDSP; UNKNOWN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HEALTH SERVICES STAFF,
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC
TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE FOR INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; AND
UNKNOWN CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES OF CBM
CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES ATMDSP; Defendants, Case No. C 10-2500
SBA, RELATED TO No. 4:15-CV-04103-RAL (D.S.D.).

Multiple inmates incarcerated at the Mike Durfree State Prison in
Springfield, South Dakota, filed a joint pro se lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  Plaintiff James Irving Dale sent a letter to
the Court representing that the case is a class action and that he
is the lead plaintiff.  Dale also moved to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) and requested that he be allowed to pay a single
$350.00 filing fee for the entire group of plaintiffs.

Magistrate Judge Veronica L. Duffy ruled that the Prison
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321
(Apr. 26, 1996), allows joint prisoner litigation but requires
that each prisoner pay the full $350.00 filing fee.

In the motion, Dale seeks reconsideration of Judge Duffy's order
that the plaintiffs must pay the filing fee individually.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/SVxidcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lange agreed with Judge
Duffy's order requiring each plaintiff to pay the full $350.00
filing fee individually pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(b)(1) and
PLRA which was to deter "frivolous prisoner litigation by
instituting economic costs for prisoners wishing to file civil
claims.


TCP INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against TCP International Holdings Ltd. ("TCPI" or the "Company")
(NYSE:TCPI) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 15-cv-08889, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased TCPI securities between
May 8, 2015 and November 5, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased TCPI securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 11, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

TCPI, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets lamps, fixtures, and Internet-based
lighting control solutions to the retail, commercial, and
industrial customers worldwide. The Company offers various light
emitting diode and compact fluorescent lamps and fixtures, as well
as linear fluorescent lighting products and halogen lighting
systems. The Company sells its products through retail outlets,
including home centers and mass merchants; club, grocery, drug,
and hardware stores under private label; and electrical
distributors, catalog houses, and specialty lighting distributors.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
TCPI's Chairman, defendant Ellis Yan ("Yan"), had made improper
payments with his personal funds relating to TCPI's business; (ii)
improper relationships existed between Yan and the Company's Vice-
Chairman, Zhaoling Yan, and certain vendors; and (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about TCPI's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On November 5, 2015, post-market, TCPI announced that it would
delay the release of the Company's third-quarter financial results
due to a pending investigation by the Audit Committee of TCPI's
Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee") concerning the scope
and propriety of payments made by its Chairman with his personal
funds relating to TCPI's business, and whether relationships exist
between Yan and Zhaoling Yan and certain vendors.  TCPI also
announced that it did not anticipate filing its third-quarter Form
10-Q by the extended due date of November 23, 2015.  TCPI further
announced that the Audit Committee has retained independent legal
and accounting advisors in connection with its investigation.
On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.02, or more than 54%, to
close at $1.20 on November 6, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.

CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


TD BANK: Court Grants Final Approval to "Gevaerts" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District
for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval to the
settlement, certified the settlement class, and awarded the fees
and costs requested by class counsel as well as the requested
service awards for the Gevaerts Plaintiffs and the Shaffels
Plaintiffs in the case captioned, FRANCOIS ROBERT GEVAERTS, PAUL
CHRISTIAN HOLSTEIN GEVAERTS, ALEXANDER CASPER HOLSTEIN GEVAERTS,
PIETER SCHAFFELS, AND SCHAFFELS BEHEER B.V., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK,
N.A., DEBORAH C. PECK, DENNIS MOENS, SIMON FRANCISCUS WILHELMUS
LAAN, WATERSHED LLC, ZILWOOD S.A., CRYSTAL LIFE CAPITAL, S.A.,
RUNNING2 LIMITED, BEST INVEST EUROPE, LTD, JENNIFER J. HUME,
JENNIFER J. HUME, C.P.A., P.A., Defendants, Case No. 11:14-CV-
20744-RLR (S.D. Fla.).

In 2014, Plaintiffs sued on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated for losses that stemmed from the sale to
investors of fractional shares in life settlements. The Plaintiffs
alleged, the funds held at TD Bank were misappropriated,
commingled, and overdrawn, despite the fact that TD Bank had,
years before and regularly thereafter, voluntarily entered into an
agreement with the New Jersey Bar to monitor and report such
misconduct. The Plaintiffs claimed that as a result of the illegal
conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs lost approximately $200
million.

The parties actively litigated the lawsuit for nearly two years.
The parties engaged in extensive discovery which involved the
production and review of millions of pages of documents and data
from multiple continents and in foreign languages. On October 9,
2015, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel filed their Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement, and Application for Service Awards,
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law,
which sought Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and
Release with TD Bank, N.A. In support, Plaintiffs filed a
declaration from John Scarola, Esq., an expert in class action law
and attorneys' fees, as well as from the Claims Administrator
supplementing the factual record to enable the Court to evaluate
the fairness and adequacy of this Settlement.

In his Order dated November 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pQBc6Yfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenberg concluded
that the Settlement provides a fair, reasonable and adequate
recovery for the Settlement Class Members based on the creation of
a $20,000,000 common fund. The Settlement constituted an excellent
result for the Settlement Class under the circumstances and
challenges presented by the lawsuit. The Court specifically found
that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and a
satisfactory compromise of the Settlement Class Members' claims
and that the Settlement fully complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

The Court awarded $10,000 to the Gevaerts Plaintiffs and $10,000
to the Schaffels Plaintiffs as service awards, $6,000,000, equal
as class counsel attorneys' fees and $300,666.95 as reimbursement
of litigation costs and expenses.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq. --
bvb@grossmanroth.com -- Rachel Wagner Furst, Esq. --
rwf@grossmanroth.com -- Seth Eric Miles, Esq. --
sem@grossmanroth.com -- David Buckner, Esq. --
dbu@grossmanroth.com -- GROSSMAN ROTH, Ryan Dwight O'Quinn, Esq. -
- roquinn@osslaw.com -- Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Esq. --
rstumphauzer@osslaw.com -- O'QUINN STUMPHAUZER PL

TD Bank is represented by Audrey M. Pumariega, Esq. --
apumariega@mwe.com -- Marcos Daniel Jimenez, Esq. --
mjimenez@mwe.com -- MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, LLP, Mark W. Kinghorn,
Esq. -- mkinghorn@mcguirewoods.com -- Peter J. Covington, Esq. --
pcovington@mcguirewoods.com -- William O. L. Hutchinson, Esq. --
whutchinson@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIRE WOODS, LLP


TECO ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Files Suit Over Emera Takeover
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC today announced that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of all shareholders of TECO
Energy, Inc ("TECO Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: TE) in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
relating to the proposed acquisition by Emera, Inc. ("Emera") (the
"Proposed Transaction").

If you are a TECO Energy shareholder and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from Nov.
19. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky &
Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90, by visiting http://brodsky-
smith.com/979-te-teco-energy-inc.html or via e-mail at
investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com There is no cost or obligation
to you. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

TECO Energy, a Florida corporation, is an energy-related holding
company with regulated electric and gas utilities in Florida and
New Mexico. The complaint alleges that TECO Energy and its Board
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed merger
which will result in grossly inadequate compensation for TECO
Energy's shareholders and Emera aided and abetted such violation,
in connection with their attempt to consummate the Proposed
Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price.

The Complaint also brings claims against the Defendants for their
violations of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder ("Rule 14a-9"). In addition, the complaint alleges that
TECO Energy and the Board disseminated a false and misleading
Schedule 14A preliminary Proxy filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on October 6, 2015 and a Definitive
Proxy on October 22, 2015 (together, the "Proxy") promulgated
thereunder in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

On September 4, 2015, TECO Energy and Emera entered into a
definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby Emera would
acquire all outstanding shares of TECO Energy. The complaint
alleges that the Proxy contains a number of false and misleading
statements that are material to shareholders who are expected to
rely upon the Proxy to determine whether to approve the Proposed
Transaction. The Proxy omits a number of material facts necessary
to make statements made therein not false and misleading,
including the events leading to the Merger Agreement, the analyses
conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and TECO Energy's
prospective financial information. In addition, the complaint
alleges that the Defendants, in breach of their fiduciary duties
to TECO Energy shareholders, agreed to preclusive deal protection
devices.

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


TOWN SPORTS: Offers Settlement in "Labbe" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, LLC has proposed a settlement offer in
a class action filed by James Labbe and the parties are working
towards a resolution of this matter, Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations.

The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery. The deadline
for the completion of pre-class certification document discovery
was December 31, 2014. On June 12, 2015, the plaintiff made a
motion for class certification.

On July 24, 2015, the court indefinitely adjourned the plaintiff's
motion for class certification to allow the court to first decide
a motion for sanctions by TSI, LLC against Labbe.  TSI, LLC made
that motion for sanctions on June 30, 2015.  The motion seeks
dismissal of Labbe's complaint, and reimbursement of certain of
TSI, LLC's legal fees, on the ground that Labbe has not complied
with his discovery obligations and the court's discovery orders.
TSI, LLC's motion for sanctions remains pending.

TSI, LLC has proposed a settlement offer and the parties are
working towards a resolution of this matter. If the parties are
unsuccessful in these settlement negotiations, TSI, LLC intends to
continue to contest this case vigorously.


TRAVELPORT WORLDWIDE: Defendants Have Until Jan. 15 to Respond
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consumer antitrust class action in New York have
until January 15, 2016 to respond to an amended complaint,
Travelport Worldwide Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

"On July 14, 2015 and July 17, 2015, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed against us, Amadeus and Sabre in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Gordon et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus North America,
Inc., Amadeus Americas, Inc., Sabre Corporation f/k/a Sabre
Holdings Corporation, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc.,
Sabre Travel International Limited, Travelport Worldwide Limited,
and Travelport LP d/b/a Travelport and Kolman et al. v. Amadeus IT
Group, S.A., Amadeus North America, Inc., Amadeus Americas, Inc.,
Sabre Corporation f/k/a Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre Holdings
Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc., Sabre Travel International Limited,
Travelport Worldwide Limited, and Travelport LP d/b/a
Travelport)," the Company said.

On August 14, 2015, the Kolman case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice, leaving only the Gordon case in which an
amended complaint was filed on October 2, 2015 (the "Amended
Complaint").

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Sherman Act, state
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by defendants
beginning in 2006.

In particular, the plaintiffs claim there was a conspiracy among
us and the other defendants to maintain higher fees and restrict
competition for airfare bookings that prevents airline
discounting. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief under federal
antitrust law and damages in connection with their state law
claims.

Pursuant to the schedule set by the Court, defendants have until
January 15, 2016 to respond to the Amended Complaint.

"At this time, the outcome of the Gordon lawsuit cannot be
determined, but we believe the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit, and we intend to defend the claims vigorously; however, we
believe the plaintiffs will request damages that would be material
to us if there was an adverse ruling against us," the Company
said.


TWITTER INC: Proposed Settlement of Class Suit Inked
----------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco County, California Superior Court has directed
that this Notice be provided to inform you of a proposed class
action lawsuit settlement.  The settlement will resolve a lawsuit
against Twitter, Inc. ("Twitter") filed in San Francisco County
Superior Court, Case No. CGC-10-503630 (the "Lawsuit").  Your
rights and options -- and the strict deadlines to exercise them --
are explained in this Notice.

The "Representative Plaintiff" in the Lawsuit alleges that Twitter
violated the privacy rights of all persons in California (i.e.,
who reside in California as of October 27, 2015) who used the
service before November 18, 2009 (the "Class"). If you used
Twitter in California on or before November 18, 2009 and were a
California resident on October 27, 2015 you are part of the Class
and therefore part of the Lawsuit. If so, you can participate in
the settlement as a Class member and be subject to any orders or
judgment issued by the Court, favorable or unfavorable.  You can
also choose to "opt-out" of the Class and not participate in the
settlement and the Court will allow you to do so.  You can also
remain part of the Class and object to part or all of the
settlement and you can also appear in the Lawsuit with a lawyer,
at your expense.

The Lawsuit involves claims arising out of Version 1 of Twitter's
privacy policy and terms of service, which were in effect until
November 18, 2009. Twitter denies the allegations made by the
Representative Plaintiff and further denies causing damage to any
Twitter user.

If you want to opt-out of the settlement, you must do so by March
11, 2016.  If you want to remain part of the Class but object, you
must do so by March 11, 2016.  To opt-out or object, you must also
follow the specific procedures described at
www.CATwitterSettlement.com.  For more information about the
Lawsuit, the settlement, opting-out or objecting, please go to the
same web address/link, you may also write to Jane Doe v. Twitter
Settlement Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8060,
San Rafael, CA 94912-8060, call (877) 430-3697, or email
info@CATwitterSettlement.com.  The Clerk of the Court, San
Francisco Superior Court, located at 400 McAllister Street, San
Francisco, CA 94102, also maintains files containing documents
filed in the Lawsuit.  Copies of such documents are available for
inspection and copying during the Court's normal business hours or
on the court's website www.SFSuperiorCourt.org.  Please do not
contact the Court or Twitter about this Notice.


UIL HOLDINGS: Shareholder Litigation Pending in Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
UIL Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is
defending the UIL Holdings shareholder litigation related to the
proposed merger between UIL Holdings and Iberdrola USA.

Following the February 25, 2015 announcement that UIL Holdings had
entered into a definitive agreement to combine with a subsidiary
of Iberdrola USA, five shareholder putative class action lawsuits
were filed in Connecticut Superior Court, beginning on February
27, 2015, against UIL Holdings, its directors, Iberdrola USA and
merger sub and/or Morgan Stanley, alleging breach of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting in connection with the proposed
transaction.  The five actions have been consolidated and
transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket of the Connecticut
Superior Court in Stamford, Connecticut.

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that UIL
Holdings' directors conducted an allegedly inadequate sale
process, agreed to the merger at a price that allegedly
undervalues UIL Holdings, agreed to deal protection measures that
allegedly prevent another company from making a superior offer,
and retained Morgan Stanley as UIL Holdings' financial advisor
despite Morgan Stanley's alleged conflict of interest.  The
consolidated complaint also alleges that certain of UIL Holdings'
directors approved the merger to benefit themselves personally.

In addition, the consolidated complaint alleges that the proxy
statement/prospectus fails to provide shareowners with all
material information necessary for them to make an informed
decision on whether to vote in favor of the transaction.  The
consolidated amended complaint seeks various remedies, including
to enjoin or rescind the merger, to enjoin a shareowner vote on
the merger unless or until additional disclosures are made in UIL
Holdings' proxy statement, and unspecified damages, costs and
fees.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A plaintiff in a securities class action against Vertex
Pharmaceuticals Incorporated has taken an appeal from the
dismissal of that case, Vertex said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015,
the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its
motion to dismiss.  The court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. On
September 30, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.  On October 15, 2015, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the litigation. As of September 30, 2015, the
Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class
action.


VICAL INCORPORATED: Appeal in Securities Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vical Incorporated is litigating an appeal in a securities class
action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

In late October and early November 2013, following the Company's
announcement of the results of its Phase 3 trial of Allovectin(R)
and the subsequent decline of the price of its common stock, two
putative securities class action complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers.

On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated into one
action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed, or
Consolidation Order.  On May 12, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a
first amended consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business prospects and the prospects for
Allovectin(R), thereby artificially inflating the price of its
common stock.

On June 9, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
first amended complaint and a motion to strike certain allegations
in the amended complaint.

On March 9, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint and terminated as moot defendants'
motion to strike, or Order. The Lead plaintiff was granted leave
to amend his first amended complaint on or before March 25, 2015.
The lead plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint and instead
stipulated to an entry of judgment.

On April 28, 2015, the Court entered final judgment dismissing the
action, or Judgment. On May 28, 2015, the lead plaintiff appealed
the Order and Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. That same day, another group of the Company's
stockholders, that had previously moved for appointment as lead
plaintiff, or the Vical Investor Group, also appealed the Order
and Judgment, as well as the Consolidation Order, to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On August 3, 2015, the Vical Investor Group voluntarily dismissed
its appeal. On October 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed
an opening brief in support of his appeal. The Defendants'
answering brief was due on November 9, 2015.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Dismissal of Securities Litigation Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint has been filed in the
case, In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. Securities
Litigation; formerly styled as Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment
Partners Inc. et al.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the
Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original
plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. On June
9, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Arkansas Teachers
Retirement System lead plaintiff. On August 21, 2015, plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint") amending the originally filed complaint. The
Consolidated Complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock between January 25, 2013
and May 11, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements and concealed material adverse facts relating to
certain funds subadvised by F-Squared. The Consolidated Complaint
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff
seeks to recover unspecified damages.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously. A motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint was filed on behalf of the Company and the other
defendants on October 21, 2015. The Company believes that there is
not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable
related to this claim.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: "Youngers" Action Sent to S.D.N.Y. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California has entered an order transferring the action, Mark
Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al, to the
Southern District of New York.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former
shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised
by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The
complaint purports to allege claims against the Company, certain
of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other
parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on
behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010
and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and
concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the
original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.
No other motions to be appointed lead plaintiff were filed. On
July 27, 2015, the court granted the motion, appointing movants as
lead plaintiff. Also, on July 27, 2015, the court issued an order
to show cause requiring lead plaintiff to explain no later than
July 31, 2015, why his claims should not be transferred and
consolidated with the In re Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

On October 1, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint which, among other things, added a derivative claim for
breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of Virtus Opportunities Trust.
On October 19, 2015, The United States District Court for the
Central District of California entered an order transferring the
action to the Southern District of New York. The Company believes
the plaintiff's claims asserted in the complaint are frivolous and
intends to defend it vigorously. The Company believes that there
is not a material loss that is probable and reasonably estimable
related to this claim.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Class Action Attorneys Wary of GC Offers
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for USA Today, reported that cClass-action
attorneys are raising questions about whether Volkswagen diesel
car owners could endanger their legal rights if they accept VW's
offer of two $500 gift cards as a gesture of goodwill.

In fact, Vermont attorneys leading class-action lawsuits against
the German automaker are handling the offer with a level of
caution usually reserved for a stick of dynamite.

That's because in order to receive the gift cards -- one for $500
redeemable at any VW dealership and the other for $500 to be spent
on anything -- customers have to sign an agreement that includes a
waiver to the right to a trial by jury.

The fine print on the gift card agreement reads, "In the event of
any dispute or claim relating in any way to to this agreement,
customer agrees that such dispute shall be resolved by binding
arbitration with the American Arbitration Association, utilizing
the rules and procedure of such arbitration service, further, any
such arbitration shall take place in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and
the laws of the State of South Dakota shall apply."

The question, said attorney Patrick Bernal in Manchester Center,
Vt., is whether his clients in a class-action lawsuit against VW
would be signing away their rights to a jury trial in the lawsuit
by accepting the gift cards.

"The gift cards could be one of the issues in the class-action
lawsuit, and they could leverage it to put the class action
lawsuit in South Dakota," Bernal said Wednesday. "I'm not the only
person who has that concern. A lot of other plaintiff's attorneys
across the country have the same concern."

Calls to Volkswagen of America and to an attorney representing
Volkswagen were not returned Wednesday.

An estimated 350 lawsuits have been filed against Volkswagen in
the United States, including two in Vermont. In September,
Volkswagen admitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the California Air Resources Board that the automaker had
employed a sophisticated device to cheat U.S. emissions standards
in diesel cars with 2.0 liter engines, including the Audi A3,
Beetle, Golf, Jetta and Passat.

Then, on Nov. 2, the EPA issued a second notice of violation of
the Clean Air Act to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG and Volkswagen Group
of America, in addition to Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North
America. This notice alleges Volkswagen developed and installed a
defeat device in VW, Audi and Porsche diesel vehicles equipped
with 3-liter engines for model years 2014 through 2016.

The latest notice covered the diesel versions of the 2014 VW
Touareg, the 2015 Porsche Cayenne, and the 2016 Audi A6 Quattro,
A7 Quattro, A8, A8L and Q5, and alleges nitrogen oxide emissions
up to nine times EPA's standard.


ZINC ELECTROLYTIQUE: Suit Suspended Due to Vexatious Conduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Ariane Bisaillon, Esq. -- ariane.bisaillon@blakes.com -- Marc-
Andre Landry, Esq. -- marcandre.landry@blakes.com -- and Claude
Marseille, Esq. -- claude.marseille@blakes.com -- at Blake,
Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, wrote that in
September 2015, the Superior Court of Quebec released a landmark
decision rendered by Justice C. Masse in Deraspe v. Zinc
electrolytique du Canada ltee, in which -- for the first time in
the area of class actions -- the Court granted a motion for
declaration of improper use of procedure, incapacity and
quarrelsome conduct against a representative and his counsel.

CONTEXT

The class action was filed on March 19, 2012, in response to a
sulfuric anhydride leak that occurred on August 9, 2004, at the
zinc refinery plant operated by Zinc Electrolytique du Canada Ltee
(EZC) in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield (Action). The applicant,
Fran‡ois Deraspe, alleged that the leak had caused a range of
symptoms to exposed individuals.

During the hearing of the motion, the plaintiff's counsel
maintained, among other things, that Justice Masse had been
ordered to grant the motion, which led EZC's counsel to file a
motion for declaration of improper use of procedure, incapacity
and quarrelsome conduct against Mr. Deraspe and his counsel.
According to the Court, Mr. Deraspe and his counsel, Ms. Chantal
Desjardins, exhibited improper and vexatious conduct throughout
the proceedings. Among other things, the plaintiff and his counsel
engaged in a series of vexatious proceedings and correspondence,
"riddled with insults, and unsubstantiated attacks" [translation].
In countless interventions with the Chief Justice of the Court,
the plaintiff's counsel used an "inappropriate, sometimes even
menacing, and constantly disrespectful tone" [translation]. The
plaintiff's counsel even tried to turn the judge assigned to
managing the case into a party to the dispute. In addition, the
plaintiff claimed C$1-million from each of EZC's and defendants'
law firms for exemplary and reputational damage, alleging that the
firms "had defrauded the administration of justice" [translation].

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Court granted the motion, stripped Mr. Deraspe of
representative status and ordered his counsel to transfer the case
to the Office of the Syndic of the Quebec Bar Association. The
plaintiff and his counsel were both declared vexatious litigants
in connection with the Action and were solitarily condemned to pay
the costs. Out of concern for the interests of the class members,
the Court suspended the case for a period not exceeding six months
to allow it to be resumed by a new representative and counsel,
rather than dismissing it on the merits.

Application of CCP Article 54.1 to Class Actions

Taking the lead from the Court's comments in Marcotte v. Longueuil
(City), the Court applied Articles 4.1, 4.2 and 54.1 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (CCP), which allow the Court to impose
sanctions for improper use of procedure and conduct likely to
bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Court
further pointed out that, even if CCP Article 54.1 did not apply,
its inherent powers would allow it to impose sanctions for
improper and vexatious conduct as such sanctions were necessary to
allow it to fulfil its duties in a fair and reasonable fashion.

The Court also pointed out that had the defendants not filed the
motion for declaration of improper use of procedure, incapacity
and quarrelsome conduct, it would have been appropriate for the
Court to intervene with its own motion in order to impose
sanctions for the representative's and his counsel's conduct.

Since the Court was unable to determine whether counsel or the
representative was responsible for the improper use of procedure,
it ruled that both were liable for the quarrelsome conduct that
prevailed in this case and imposed sanctions on both of them.

Removing Status of Representative

The plaintiff submitted that the wording of CCP Articles 1023 and
1024 is restrictive and that he could lose his status of
representative only through the application of these provisions.
The Court did not accept this interpretation and held that these
provisions did not exclude the application of other provisions
that allow the Court to ensure a healthy administration of
justice. In addition, CCP Articles 1023 and 1024 and Article 54.1
are not incompatible. Since Ms. Desjardins's numerous proceedings
were supported by Mr. Deraspe's affidavits or had been authorized
by him, his conduct conflicted with the interests of the class
members and his responsibilities as a representative. The Court
therefore stripped him of his status as a representative.

Removing Counsel from a Case

Ms. Desjardins maintained that CCP Article 54.1 refers to a
"party" rather than its counsel, meaning that no sanctions could
be imposed upon her, pursuant to this provision. The Court,
however, ruled that this provision did not interfere with the
exercise of its inherent powers with respect to counsel. The Court
maintained that, in addition to her conduct, which brought the
administration of justice into disrepute, Ms. Desjardins
demonstrated that she no longer had the independence required of
counsel to advise a client when she personally filed an
application in the same case. The Court thus ordered Ms.
Desjardins to transfer the entire case to the Office of the Syndic
of the Quebec Bar Association and suspended the case for a period
of six months to allow it to be resumed by a new counsel.

CONCLUSION

This is the first class action in which the Court draws the line
in terms of improper and vexatious conduct by a representative and
his counsel. Even though this decision was rendered under
exceptional circumstances, it shows that improper use of procedure
by the representative and his counsel within the framework of a
class action can give rise to sanctions at the defendant's request
or even by the Court of its own motion. This decision is a clear
warning to the parties, including the representative, to refrain
from adopting conduct that brings the administration of justice
into disrepute within the framework of a class action.


* Chicago Clearing, InvestCloud Partners in Class Suit Management
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Firms unite to deliver world-class technology solutions to
financial institutions for managing the filing, notification,
tracking, and collection of class-action settlement claims in the
securities industry.

Financial advisors within the InvestCloud universe now have a
turnkey class-action portal solution that increases value to
clients by streamlining the settlement process and identifying
claims that traditionally may have been missed by busy financial
advisors.

Partnership will help Chicago Clearing Corp. deliver technologies
to Advisors for stream-lining class-action claims in securities
industry.

InvestCloud, Inc, a provider of cloud-based front, middle and back
office solutions focused on digitizing customer experiences and
internal operations for global investment advisors, announced a
partnership with Chicago Clearing Corp., (CCC), a class-action
claims recovery specialist. The partnership will deliver a
technology solution for financial institutions to manage, file,
and recover funds in securities class action settlements.
Financial advisors within the InvestCloud universe will now have a
turnkey solution that increases value to clients by streamlining
the settlement process from beginning to end.

Today, most financial advisors rely on mailings or hard-to-track
industry communications just to stay informed of existing
settlements. Claim filing itself requires a significant amount of
paperwork filing on behalf of the Advisor and/or client.

InvestCloud's customized Chicago Clearing Corp Applet will
dramatically simplify this notoriously difficult process.

"InvestCloud has built an easily deployable and scalable first-
class investment platform for every professional investment
manager or financial institution. By partnering with Chicago
Clearing Corp we are increasing our user experience and continuing
to support our ongoing effort to improve advisor efficiency," said
John Wise, chairman and CEO of InvestCloud, Inc. "The partnership
with Chicago Clearing Corp is yet another example of how we're
helping advisors to grow and achieve great results for their
clients, while equipping them to become leaders in the industry."

Chicago Clearing Corp's services free up advisors from the tedium
of claims-related paperwork and data mining. Chicago Clearing Corp
gathers the historical trade data and immediately applies custom
search criteria for all qualifying holdings relevant to a class
action settlement. Chicago Clearing Corp often has the ability to
manage the claims process for settlements that have passed the
claim filing deadline. Chicago Clearing Corp even provides fully
customizable allocations. In this way, advisors can focus their
energies on what matters most -- serving their clients.

"Securities Class Actions are here to stay. Chicago Clearing
Corporation is excited to partner with InvestCloud and help its
users seamlessly retrieve the class action funds owed to them,"
said Jim Tharin, CEO of Chicago Clearing Corporation. "We believe
this partnership is a major step forward for advisors, and
provides the platform they need to enhance their advisor-client
relationships."

With more than two decades in both the legal and the financial
industries, Chicago Clearing Corp is uniquely suited to securities
class action recovery. Chicago Clearing Corp has recovered over
$350 million for harmed class members since its inception in 1993,
and over $155 million since 2009 alone. The firm's recent work on
the Bank of America settlement case helped RIAs, hedge funds, and
family offices file 50,000 claims and recover over $25,000,000 in
settlements. Nearly 1,300 institutional investors turn to Chicago
Clearing Corp to ensure they keep up with securities settlements,
and that they can focus on the real work of investing.

InvestCloud has built a proprietary technology platform that
offers the investment community the ability to easily build and
customize an end-to-end client and advisor digital experience. The
global software and design firm serves 5 major client segments;
Asset Services, Investment Management, Asset Allocators, Banking
Institutions, and Platform Developers. InvestCloud has over 650
clients on the platform with 150,000 monthly users, and now
supports over $1.4 trillion in assets.

To learn more about InvestCloud please visit us at
www.investcloud.com

For media inquiries, please contact
InvestCloud@FiCommPartners.com.

                     About InvestCloud

InvestCloud, Inc is a California-based company, delivering the
securities industry with collaborative cloud-based solutions.
InvestCloud's one of a kind cloud-based platform supports $1.4
trillion in AUM, across 650 institutions and over 150,000 unique
logins per month. Equipped with its unparalleled and innovative
cloud delivery model, InvestCloud develops and deploys custom,
scalable solutions with pace setting efficiency for asset
managers, fund of funds, investment advisors, and the managers of
pensions and endowments. These high-impact business solutions
collaborate seamlessly with other technologies such as custodians
and line-of-business applications, processes, and even allow
businesses to leverage their existing infrastructure. For more
information, please visit us at www.investcloud.com and follow us
on Twitter @InvestCloud.

                About Chicago Clearing Corp.

CCC is the leading securities class action settlement recovery
service. Since 1993, CCC has recovered more than $350 million for
harmed class members. In the last five years, the firm recovered
$145 million for its clients. CCC's SOC 1 & 2 Level II (SSAE - 16)
certification means that we adhere to the highest privacy and
security standards as set by the American Institute of CPAs.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Jason Lahita
FiComm Partners
jason.lahita@ficommpartners.com
973-460-7837

Max Chambers
max.chambers@ficommpartners.com
917-636-4802


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Liman" Enlarged
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Dec. 1, 2015, enlarged the time to
perfect appeal to the April 2016 Term in the case captioned NEW
YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to LIMAN, v. AIR AND LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION for CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-4977 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/edMk1zfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in NY PI Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Dec. 3, 2015, consolidated the
appeal and cross appeals in the case captioned IN RE: NEW YORK
CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ASSENZIO, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS CO. -- CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC. -- ESTATE OF ASSENZIO;
BRUNCK, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO. -- BURNHAM LLC --
BURNHAM CORPORATION -- ESTATE OF BRUNCK; LEVY, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS, CO.; SERNA, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO.; WINANS,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, CO. -- ESTATE OF VINCENT, MOTION
NOS. M-4749, M-4750, M-4746, M-4722, M-4747 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Xptitb
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Exelon Corp. Units Continue to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation and two of its subsidiaries, Baltimore Gas and
Electric and Exelon Generation Company, LLC, continue to defend
themselves against two asbestos-related premises liability cases,
LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Exelon Generation
Company, LLC) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions
concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon the theory of
"premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and
exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard.  In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.
Approximately 468 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages.  Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions.  To date, most asbestos claims
which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without
any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a
small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that
were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket.  At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial.  Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:

    * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs
      allegedly worked as contractors;

    * the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

    * the dates on which and the places where the exposure
      allegedly occurred; and

    * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged
      exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses.  Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities.  ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois.  PECO's energy delivery business
in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trecora Unit Defends Asbestos Exposure Case
------------------------------------------------------------
South Hampton Resources, Inc., a subsidiary of Trecora Resources,
continues to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2015.

On September 14, 2010, SHR received notice of a lawsuit filed in
the 58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas which
was subsequently transferred to the 11th Judicial District Court
of Harris County, Texas.  The suit alleges that the plaintiff
became ill from exposure to asbestos.  There are approximately 44
defendants named in the suit.  SHR has placed its insurers on
notice of the claim and plans to vigorously defend the case. No
accrual has been recorded for this claim.

Headquartered in Sugar Land, Texas, Trecora Resources engages in
the manufacturing of various specialty hydrocarbons and synthetic
waxes and the provision of custom processing services.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: London Insurers' Suit v. McDermott Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., relates that on September 10, 2015,
the 23rd Judicial District Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana,
dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit filed by certain London
insurers asserting they have no obligation to indemnify the
company for asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "On or about August 23, 2004, a declaratory
judgment action entitled Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,
et al. v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al., was filed by certain
underwriters at Lloyd's, London and Threadneedle Insurance Company
Limited (the "London Insurers"), in the 23rd Judicial District
Court, Assumption Parish, Louisiana, against MII, J. Ray
McDermott, Inc. ("JRMI") and two insurer defendants, Travelers and
INA, seeking a declaration that the London Insurers have no
obligation to indemnify MII and JRMI for certain bodily injury
claims, including claims for asbestos and welding rod fume
personal injury which have been filed by claimants in various
state courts.  Additionally, Travelers filed a cross-claim
requesting a declaration of non-coverage in approximately 20
underlying matters.  This proceeding was stayed by the Court on
January 3, 2005.  On September 10, 2015, an Order was signed by
the court granting plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with
prejudice."

McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company focused on designing and
executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: McDermott Still Face Potential Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International, Inc., continues to face potential
asbestos-exposure claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "Due to the nature of our business, we and our
affiliates are, from time to time, involved in litigation or
subject to disputes or claims related to our business activities,
including, among other things:

   -- performance or warranty-related matters under our customer
      and supplier contracts and other business arrangements; and

   -- workers' compensation claims, Jones Act claims, occupational
      hazard claims, including asbestos-exposure claims, premises
      liability claims and other claims."

McDermott International, Inc., is an engineering, procurement,
construction and installation company focused on designing and
executing offshore oil and gas projects across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Overseas Shipholding Still Subject to PI Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. continues to face suits arising
principally from personal injuries, including without limitation
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company is a party, as plaintiff or defendant, to various
suits in the ordinary course of business for monetary relief
arising principally from personal injuries (including without
limitation exposure to asbestos and other toxic materials),
wrongful death, collision or other casualty and to claims arising
under charter parties.  A substantial majority of such personal
injury, wrongful death, collision or other casualty claims against
the Company are covered by insurance (subject to deductibles not
material in amount).  Each of the claims involves an amount which,
in the opinion of management, should not be material to the
Company's financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.

New York based- owns and operates a fleet of oceangoing vessels
engaged primarily in the transportation of crude oil and refined
petroleum products in the International Flag and U.S. Flag trades
through its wholly owned subsidiaries OSG International, Inc.
("OIN"), a Marshall Islands corporation, and OSG Bulk Ships, Inc.
("OBS"), a New York corporation, respectively.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Had 90 PI Cases at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. was a co-defendant in approximately 90
asbestos-related personal injury cases, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We were a co-defendant in approximately 90
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 230 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.
These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of
asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of
liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict
liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive
damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages.  In each of the six cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action.  In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million.  In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action.  In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for eight separate causes
of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million.  In
the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in
the amount of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and
$5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of $10.0 million for each cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of
our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's
injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. (Holdings) is a holding Company. The
Company operates primarily through the subsidiaries owned by its
direct subsidiary, Park-Ohio Industries, Inc. The Company operates
in three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and
Engineered Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 484 Fibro Cases at Oct. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation was a defendant in 484 asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 2, 2015.

The Company states: "We have been a defendant in asbestos
litigation for the past 27 years.  Our subsidiaries have been
named as defendants in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in
products manufactured by us.  As of October 2, 2015, we were a
defendant in approximately 484 cases brought in state and federal
courts throughout the United States.  In the nine months ended
October 2, 2015, 82 asbestos cases were brought against us. In the
calendar year 2014, 104 asbestos cases were brought against us.
In the last 27 years, we have had no cases proceed to verdict. In
many of the cases, we were dismissed as a defendant before trial
for lack of product identification.  As of October 2, 2015, 50,665
asbestos cases have been dismissed.  In the nine months ended
October 2, 2015, 2,778 asbestos cases were dismissed. As of
December 31, 2014, 47,887 cases were dismissed.  With regards to
the approximately 484 remaining pending cases, we are aggressively
defending these cases based upon either lack of product
identification as to whether we manufactured asbestos-containing
product and/or lack of exposure to asbestos dust from the use of
our product."

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems.  The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW).  The Company's product portfolio includes
more than 100,000 products.  The Company operated 56 manufacturing
facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in
which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with
regional distribution centers across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Cable Had 2,679 MARDOC Suits at Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation had 2,679 pending MARDOC asbestos-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended October 2, 2015.

The Company states: "Historically, a large number of suits were
brought on behalf of plaintiffs by a single admiralty law firm
("MARDOC").  Plaintiffs in the MARDOC cases generally alleged that
they formerly worked in the maritime industry and sustained
asbestos-related injuries from products that General Cable ceased
manufacturing in the mid-1970s.  The MARDOC cases are managed and
supervised by a federal judge in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("District Court") by
reason of a transfer by the judicial panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL").  In September 2014, upon receipt from the MDL
Court of a current statistical report listing numbers of
outstanding cases as well as a list identifying outstanding
Maritime/MARDOC cases by plaintiff name, General Cable recorded a
dismissal of 25,759 cases reducing its number of pending
Maritime/MARDOC cases to 2,679.  In June 2015, upon further review
of the outstanding cases, General Cable recorded a dismissal of
the remaining 2,679 Maritime/MARDOC cases.

"For cases outside the MDL as of October 2, 2015, plaintiffs have
asserted monetary damages in 207 cases.  In 82 of these cases,
plaintiffs allege only damages in excess of some dollar amount
(about $525 thousand per plaintiff); in these cases there are no
claims for specific dollar amounts requested as to any defendant.
In 124 other cases pending in state and federal district courts
(outside the MDL), plaintiffs seek approximately $493 million in
damages from as many as 50 defendants.  In one case, plaintiffs
have asserted damages related to General Cable in the amount of $4
million.  In addition, in relation to these 207 cases, there are
claims of $333 million in punitive damages from all of the
defendants. However, many of the plaintiffs in these cases allege
non-malignant injuries.  As of October 2, 2015 and December 31,
2014, we had accrued, on a gross basis, approximately $4.3 million
and $4.7 million, respectively, and as of October 2, 2015 and
December 31, 2014, had recovered approximately $0.4 million and
$0.5 million of insurance recoveries for these lawsuits,
respectively.  The net amount of $3.9 million and $4.2 million, as
of October 2, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively, represents
our best estimate in order to cover resolution of current and
future asbestos-related claims.

"The components of the asbestos litigation reserve are current and
future asbestos-related claims.  The significant assumptions are:
(1) the number of cases per state, (2) an estimate of the judgment
per case per state, (3) an estimate of the percentage of cases per
state that would make it to trial and (4) the estimated total
liability percentage, excluding insurance recoveries, per case
judgment.  Management's estimates are based on the Company's
historical experience with asbestos related claims.  The Company's
current history of asbestos claims does not provide sufficient and
reasonable information to estimate a range of loss for potential
future, unasserted asbestos claims because the number and the
value of the alleged damages of such claims have not been
consistent.  As such, the Company does not believe a reasonably
possible range can be estimated with respect to asbestos claims
that may be filed in the future.

"Settlement payments are made, and the asbestos accrual is
relieved, when we receive a fully executed settlement release from
the plaintiff's counsel.  As of October 2, 2015 and December 31,
2014, aggregate settlement costs were $9.7 million and $9.5
million, respectively.  For the nine months ended October 2, 2015
and September 26, 2014, settlement costs totaled $0.2 million and
$0.6 million, respectively.  As of October 2, 2015 and December
31, 2014, aggregate litigation costs were $25.8 million and $24.7
million, respectively.  For the nine months ended October 2, 2015
and September 26, 2014, litigation costs were $1.1 million and
$1.2 million, respectively.

"In January 1994, we entered into a settlement agreement with
certain principal primary insurers concerning liability for the
costs of defense, judgments and settlements, if any, in all of the
asbestos litigation.  Subject to the terms and conditions of the
settlement agreement, the insurers were responsible for a
substantial portion of the costs and expenses incurred in the
defense or resolution of this litigation.  However, one of the
insurers participating in the settlement that was responsible for
a significant portion of the contribution under the settlement
agreement entered into insurance liquidation proceedings and
another became insolvent.  As a result, the contribution of the
insurers has been reduced and we have had to bear substantially
most of the costs relating to these lawsuits."

General Cable Corporation is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products, such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems.  The Company
operates in three segments: America, Europe and Mediterranean, and
Rest of World (ROW).  The Company's product portfolio includes
more than 100,000 products.  The Company operated 56 manufacturing
facilities, which included four facilities owned by companies in
which the Company has an equity investment, in 25 countries with
regional distribution centers across the world.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vertex Unit Faces Asbestos Abatement Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Energy, Inc., discloses that E-Source Holdings, LLC, a
subsidiary of Vertex Energy Operating, LLC, faces suit relating to
asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed at Motiva
Enterprises, LLC's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County,
Texas, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "E-Source, the wholly-owned subsidiary of
Vertex Operating, was named as a defendant (along with Motiva
Enterprises, LLC, ("Motiva")) in a lawsuit filed in the Sixtieth
(60th) Judicial District, Jefferson County, Texas, on April 22,
2015.  Pursuant to the lawsuit, Whole Environmental, Inc., made
certain allegations against E-Source, and Motiva.  The claims
include Breach of Contract and Quantum Meruit actions relating to
asbestos abatement and remediation operations performed for
defendants' at Motiva's facility in Port Arthur, Jefferson County,
Texas.  The plaintiff alleges it is due monies earned.  Defendants
have denied any amounts due plaintiff.  The suit seeks damages of
approximately $864,000, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, the fair value of certain property alleged to be
converted by defendants and reimbursement of legal fees.  We
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations made
in the complaint.  The Company has no basis of determining whether
there is any likelihood of material loss associated with the
claims and/or the potential and/or the outcome of the litigation."

Vertex Energy, Inc., is an environmental services company that
recycles industrial waste streams and off-specification commercial
chemical products.  The Company is based in Houston with offices
in California, Chicago, Georgia, Nevada and Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CIM Continues to Face Potential Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CIM Commercial Trust Corporation continues to face potential
liability for costs and damages related to environmental matters,
including asbestos-containing materials, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "In connection with the ownership and
operation of real estate properties, we may be potentially liable
for costs and damages related to environmental matters, including
asbestos-containing materials.  We have not been notified by any
governmental authority of any noncompliance, liability, or other
claim in connection with any of the properties, and we are not
aware of any other environmental condition with respect to any of
the properties that management believes will have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

Based in Dallas, Texas, CIM Commercial Trust Corporation, together
with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, primarily acquires, owns, and
operates Class A and creative office properties in vibrant and
improving urban communities throughout the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT III Faces Potential Asbestos Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund III Ltd. continues to face
potential asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "In connection with the ownership and
operation of real estate, we may be potentially liable for costs
and damages related to environmental matters.  In particular, we
are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they
apply to real estate pertaining to chemicals used by the dry
cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping
centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks.  We have not
been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance,
liability or other claim."

AmREIT is a Texas limited partnership formed on April 19, 2005 to
acquire, develop and operate, directly or indirectly through joint
venture arrangements, a portfolio of commercial real estate
consisting primarily of multi-tenant shopping centers and mixed-
use developments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AmREIT IV Faces Potential Asbestos Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
AmREIT Monthly Income & Growth Fund IV LP continues to face
potential asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "In connection with the ownership and
operation of real estate, we may be potentially liable for costs
and damages related to environmental matters.  In particular, we
are subject to numerous environmental laws and regulations as they
apply to real estate pertaining to chemicals used by the dry
cleaning industry, the existence of asbestos in older shopping
centers, and underground petroleum storage tanks.  We have not
been notified by any governmental authority of any non-compliance,
liability or other claim."

AmREIT is a Texas limited partnership formed on April 19, 2005 to
acquire, develop and operate, directly or indirectly through joint
venture arrangements, a portfolio of commercial real estate
consisting primarily of multi-tenant shopping centers and mixed-
use developments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Regal Beloit Still Subject to Exposure Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Beloit Corporation is, from time to time, party to
litigation that arises in the normal course of its business
operations, including asbestos litigation matters, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015..

The Company's products are used in a variety of industrial,
commercial and residential applications that subject the Company
to claims that the use of its products is alleged to have resulted
in injury or other damage.

Headquartered in Beloit, Wis., Regal Beloit Corporation
manufactures electric motors and controls, electric generators and
controls, and mechanical motion control products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related lawsuits relating to its discontinued heat technologies
segment, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in
lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted
asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos
products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more
named defendants.  These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat
technologies segment which was sold in March 2005.  Due to the
non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not
know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the
Company.  Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company
that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have
been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide
defense and insurance coverage under those policies.  However, the
Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the
Company believes afford coverage for later years.  Some of these
other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance
coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the
Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied
coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation
of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate
further.  Because settlement payments are applied to all years a
litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company
believes that it will have funds available for defense and
insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.  However, unlike the older policies, the more
recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and
settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay;
accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will
increase in the future.  Further, many of the policies covering
later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions
for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide
insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits.  The Company
does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the
primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or
results of operations.  Management believes that the number of
insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the
significant number of policy years and policy limits under which
these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations.

IntriCon Corporation (IntriCon) is an international company
engaged in designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing
body-worn devices.  The Company serves the body-worn device market
by designing, developing, engineering and manufacturing micro-
miniature products, microelectronics, micro-mechanical assemblies
and complete assemblies, for bio-telemetry devices, hearing
instruments and professional audio communication devices.  The
Company operates in the body-worn device segment.  The Company's
core technologies are focused on three main markets: medical bio-
telemetry, value hearing health and professional audio
communications.  The Company has investments in the development of
four core technologies: Ultra-Low-Power (ULP) Digital Signal
Processing (DSP), Ultra-Low-Power Wireless, Microminiaturization,
and Miniature Transducers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Has 2,971 New Fibro Claims at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,971
new asbestos-related claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts.  These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages.  Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks.  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it
should not have legal liability in these cases.  The outcome of
most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution
strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking
resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling
individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate
circumstances.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship
with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute
or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired.  During the course of the litigation, certain trial
courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions.  There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future.  While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

As reported in the 2014 Annual Report, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company received approximately 4,636 asbestos-related claims in
2014.  During the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and 2014,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 2,971
and 3,641 new asbestos-related claims, respectively.  The number
of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any
liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and
the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are
uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year.

The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its
ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty,
and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and
subject to change.  The availability of reliable data is limited
and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can
affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims,
the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of
disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of
new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in
the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the
possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts
to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the
dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of
any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future.  In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary.  While the potential future charges could be
material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which
they are recorded, based on information currently known by
management, management does not believe any such charges are
likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial
position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims.  Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its
estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts
presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its
past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable
liability for asbestos claims already asserted against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but
not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims.  Significant
assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii)
the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and
annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including
studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature
regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States,
assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and
considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos
liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis.  These
variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending.  Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability
analysis for asbestos-related claims through September 30, 2015.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Industries Had 90 Exposure Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., was a co-defendant in 90 asbestos-
related cases asserting claims alleging personal injury, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

The Company states: "We are subject to various pending and
threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary damages are
asserted in the ordinary course of business.  While any litigation
involves an element of uncertainty, in the opinion of management,
liabilities, if any, arising from currently pending or threatened
litigation are not expected to have a material adverse effect on
our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations.

"We were a co-defendant in approximately 90 cases asserting claims
on behalf of approximately 230 plaintiffs alleging personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos.  These asbestos cases
generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing
products and allege various theories of liability, including
negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek
compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
$25,000 to $75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are only six asbestos cases, involving 24 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages.  In each of the six cases, the plaintiff
is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of
potentially alternative causes of action.  In three cases, the
plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in the amount of $3.0
million for four separate causes of action and $1.0 million for
another cause of action and punitive damages in the amount of
$10.0 million.  In the fourth case, the plaintiff has alleged
against each named defendant, compensatory and punitive damages,
each in the amount of $10.0 million, for seven separate causes of
action. In the fifth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory
damages in the amount of $20.0 million for eight separate causes
of action and punitive damages in the amount of $20.0 million.  In
the sixth case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory damages in
the amount of $10.0 million for five separate causes of action and
$5.0 million for another cause of action and punitive damages in
the amount of $10.0 million for each cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-
containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.
We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe
we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such
cases.  However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due
to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.
Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations
and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected
by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of
our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to
individual defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the
amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful
indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed
typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's
injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to
date and, based upon available information, our management does
not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have
a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity
or financial position."

Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Park-Ohio
Holdings Corp., which was incorporated as an Ohio corporation in
1984. Holdings, primarily through its subsidiaries owned by its
direct subsidiary, Industries, is an industrial supply chain
logistics and diversified manufacturing business operating in
three segments: Supply Technologies, Assembly Components and
Engineered Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Realty Faces Potential PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Investors, Inc. continues to face potential
asbestos-related personal injury claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The Company states: "Under various federal, state and local
environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be
potentially liable for removal or remediation costs, as well as
certain other potential costs relating to hazardous or toxic
substances (including governmental fines and injuries to persons
and property) where property-level managers have arranged for the
removal, disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances.
In addition, certain environmental laws impose liability for
release of asbestos-containing materials into the air, and third
parties may seek recovery for personal injury associated with such
materials.

"Management is not aware of any environmental liability relating
to the matters that would have a material adverse effect on our
business, assets or results of operations."

Based in Dallas, American Realty Investors, Inc., through its
subsidiaries, operates as a real estate investment company
primarily in the United States.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International plc continues to defend asbestos-related
personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended September 25, 2015.

The Company states: "We are party to asbestos-related product
litigation that could adversely affect our financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows.  We and certain of our
subsidiaries, including Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with
numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal
injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials.  Substantially all of the cases pending against
affiliates of the Company have been filed against Grinnell, and
have typically involved product liability claims based primarily
on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos
containing components.

"During the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company performed a
revised valuation of its asbestos-related liabilities and
corresponding insurance assets and recorded a net charge of $240
million.  Although the Company's methodology established a range
of estimates of reasonably possible outcomes, the Company recorded
its best estimate within such range based upon information known
at the time.  As of September 25, 2015, the Company's estimated
gross asbestos liability of $515 million was recorded within the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as a liability for pending
and future claims and related defense costs, and separately as an
asset for insurance recoveries of $487 million.  The amounts
recorded by the Company for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on the Company's strategies for
resolving its asbestos claims, currently available information,
and a number of estimates and assumptions.  Key variables and
assumptions include the number and type of new claims that are
filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the
identity of defendants, the resolution of coverage issues with
insurance carriers, amount of insurance, and the solvency risk
with respect to the Company's insurance carriers.  Many of these
factors are closely linked, such that a change in one variable or
assumption will impact one or more of the others, and no single
variable or assumption predominately influences the determination
of the Company's asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-
related assets.  Furthermore, predictions with respect to these
variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the later portion
of the projection period.  Other factors that may affect the
Company's liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters
include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of
state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of
insurance policies among subsidiaries.  As a result, actual
liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher
or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in the Company's
calculations vary significantly from actual results.  If actual
liabilities are significantly higher than those recorded, the cost
of resolving such liabilities claims could have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.

"We have received notification from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency and from other environmental
agencies that conditions at several sites where we and others
disposed of hazardous substances require cleanup and other
possible remedial action and may require that we reimburse the
government or otherwise pay for the cost of cleanup of those sites
and/or for natural resource damages.  We have projects underway at
several current and former manufacturing facilities to investigate
and remediate environmental contamination resulting from past
operations by us or by other businesses that previously owned or
used the properties. These projects relate to a variety of
activities, including:

   -- solvent, oil, metal and other hazardous substance
      contamination cleanup; and

   -- structure decontamination and demolition, including asbestos
      abatement.

These projects involve both remediation expenses and capital
improvements.  In addition, we remain responsible for certain
environmental issues at manufacturing locations previously sold by
us.

"Certain environmental laws assess liability on current or
previous owners or operators of real property for the cost of
removal or remediation of hazardous substances at their properties
or at properties at which they have disposed of hazardous
substances.  In addition to cleanup actions brought by
governmental authorities, private parties could bring personal
injury or other claims due to the presence of, or exposure to,
hazardous substances.

"The ultimate cost of cleanup at disposal sites and manufacturing
facilities is difficult to predict given uncertainties regarding
the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of
applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods.
Environmental laws are complex, change frequently and have tended
to become more stringent over time.  While we have budgeted for
future capital and operating expenditures to maintain compliance
with such laws, we cannot provide assurance that our costs of
complying with current or future environmental protection and
health and safety laws, or our liabilities arising from past or
future releases of, or exposures to, hazardous substances will not
exceed our estimates or materially adversely affect our financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.  We may also be
subject to material liabilities for additional environmental
claims for personal injury or cleanup in the future based on our
past, present or future business activities or for existing
environmental conditions of which we are not presently aware."

Based in Cork, Ireland, Tyco International plc is a global
provider of security products and services, fire detection and
suppression products and services and life safety products.  Its
broad portfolio of products and services, sold under well-known
brands such as Tyco, SimplexGrinnell, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul,
Simplex, Scott and ADT (other than the U.S., Canada and Korea)
serve security, fire detection and suppression and life safety
needs across commercial, industrial, retail, small business,
institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-U.S.
residential markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syska Fails in Bid to Junk All Craft's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
All Craft Fabricators, Inc. was hired by Skanska USA Buildings,
Inc., to do mill work for the refurbishment of the United Nations
Headquarters which included work on salvaged wood panels and doors
within the offices of the UNH.

All Craft shares offices with its affiliate, Donaldson Interiors,
Inc.  All Craft alleges that the doors and panels contained toxic
substances, specifically, asbestos, and that no notice of the
defective condition was given to them.  All Craft alleges that
during the refurbishment of the doors and panels, due to the
asbestos, they were forced to shut down their manufacturing
facilities resulting in property damage, business interruption,
loss of production, costs to remedy its facility, and costs to
dispose of the asbestos.

All Crafts commenced an action against Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
alleging that the Defendant was hired to perform design,
architectural, and engineering, consulting and other services as
part of the Project, and that Syska performed inspection,
surveying, remediation and abatement of asbestos at the Project.
The Defendant hired ATC Associates, Inc., to perform asbestos
related services.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant sent crates containing
salvaged wood panels and doors from the UNH to perform millwork.
The wood panels and doors contained asbestos.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint based on a
defense founded upon documentary evidence; that the action is
time-barred; and that the Complaint fails to state a cause of
action for negligence.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion
to dismiss the complaint, and directed the parties to appear for a
preliminary conference on Feb. 10, 2016.

The case is captioned ALL CRAFT FABRICATORS, INC. and DONALDSON
INTERIORS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, DOCKET NO. 155408/2015, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001, 2015 NY
Slip Op 32239(U).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 23, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/EM8jXbfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies GM's Appeal in "Bryant"
-----------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation's Powertrain Division appeals a jury
verdict finding that Loretta Bryant is entitled to participate in
the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund as a result of the
occupational exposure to asbestos sustained by her deceased
husband, Ivan Bryant, which contributed to his death from lung
cancer.

Loretta alleged that Ivan sustained an injurious exposure to
asbestos as a result of his job duties at GM and that his
asbestos-related lung cancer was the direct and proximate cause of
his death.  The complaint claimed that Ivan's employment with GM
created a risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases and
conditions in a greater degree and in a different manner than the
public generally.  GM denied that Ivan's lung cancer was asbestos-
related and denied that he contracted his lung cancer as a result
of his employment at GM's Defiance facility.  Further, GM
contended that Ivan's long-time habit of smoking one to two packs
of cigarettes a day was the sole cause of his lung cancer.

The jury entered its verdict in favor of Loretta's claim.  GM
filed this appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Defiance County,
finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to
allow the trier of the fact to resolve the factual dispute as to
the issue of Ivan's occupational asbestos exposure.

The case is LORETTA S. BRYANT, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF IVAN BRYANT,
DECEASED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Defendant-
Appellant, and MARSHA P. RYAN, ADMR., OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMP,
NO. 4-15-03 (Ohio App.).

A full text of the Decision dated November 30, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/0wABg4from Leagle.com.

General Motors Corp. is represented by:

         Marc S. Barnes, Esq.
         BUGBEE & CONKLE, LLP
         PNC Bank Building
         405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1900
         Toledo, OH 43604
         Tel: (419) 244-6788
         Fax: (419) 244-7145
         Email: mbarnes@bugbeelawyers.com

Loretta S. Bryant, Appellee, is represented by:

         Shawn M. Acton, Esq.
         KELLEY & FERRARO, LLP
         2200 Key Tower
         127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Tel: (216) 202-3450
         Toll Free: 800-398-1795
         Fax: (216) 575-0799


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Montello Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montello, Inc., appeals from a final judgment in favor of various
insurers including Canal Insurance Co., Continental Casualty Co.,
Houston General Insurance Co., and Scottsdale Insurance Co.   The
district court divided the case into phases and through a series
of rulings, rejected Montello's various claims.

On appeal, Montello challenges the district court's holdings that
Canal and Houston General have no obligation to drop down and
defend or indemnify Montello.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms
the district court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of
case or controversy.

The case is CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Counter Defendant-
Appellee, v. MONTELLO, INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff
Counterclaimant-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY;
HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC.; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants, NO. 14-5039 (10th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 27, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/6Oqfblfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jan. 7 Testimony Deadline in "Covey-Hinzo"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, ordered
that the deadline for designation of expert testimony and
disclosure of full expert reports as to any issue on which a party
has the burden of proof will be continued to January 7, 2016.

The case is PATRICIA J. COVEY-HINZO, individually and as successor
in interest to GILBERT E. HINZO, Deceased, ALEX HINZO, an
individual, and FELICIA WATSON, an individual, Plaintiffs, v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C 15-00241 WHA
(N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 30, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/1F0NVLfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant CRANE CO. is represented by Michele C. Barnes, Esq. --
michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Peter E. Soskin, Esq.
- peter.soskin@klgates.com  -- K&L GATES LLP

Defendant General Dynamics Corporation is represented by Lisa
Rickenbacher, Esq. -- lrickenbacher@hugoparker.com -- HUGO PARKER
LLP

Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and Crown Holdings, Inc.
are represented by William Armstrong, Esq. --
bill.armstrong@armstrongetal.com --ARMSTRONG & ASSOCIATES, LLP

Defendant Harsco Corporation is represented by Lauren Michals,
Esq. -- lmichals@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON & PEABODY LLP

Defendant IMO Industries, Inc. is represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- LEADER & BERKON LLP

Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company and Syd Carpenter, Marine
Contractor, Inc. are represented by Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq. --
ccrochet@prindlelaw.com --PRINDLE, AMARO, GOETZ, HILLYARD, BARNES
& REINHOLZ LLP

Defendant ITT Corporation is represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. --
jduffy@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Defendant Metalclad Insulation LLC is represented by Lisa Oberg,
Esq.
MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by
Lisa Marie Dowling, Esq. -- ldowling@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE AND
JOHNSON LLP

Defendant Viad Corporation is represented by Whitney Davis, Esq. -
-  THE DAVIS LAW FIRM

Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC is represented by James Cunningham,
Esq. -- james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Defendants CBS Corporation is represented by Frank Pond, Esq. --
fpond@pondnorth.com -- POND NORTH LLP

Plaintiffs are represented by Sara Morton, Esq. -- HEARD ROBINS
CLOUD LLP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher Wins Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaspar Hernandez-Vega, in an action, contends that he developed
mesothelioma during his career as a pipe fitter in Puerto Rico,
Massachusetts, Virginia and New York as he was exposed to asbestos
from Fisher Controls International LLC's valves during his career,
which spanned from approximately 1964 through 1978.

Fisher moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it.  If its
motion is not granted, Fisher seeks dismissal of the following
Counts in the plaintiff's complaint: Count II (Breach of
Warranty), Count V (Conspiracy/Collective Liability/Concert of
Action), Count X (Market Share Liability/Joint and Several
Liability), and Count XI (Punitive Damages).

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion
only to the extent that the court dismisses Count II (Breach of
Warranty) as unopposed, Count X to the extent of Market Share
Liability (but not Joint and Several Liability) and Count V
(Conspiracy/Collective Liability/Concert of Action;

The Supreme Court of New York denied the Defendant's motion with
leave to renew as to Count XI (Punitive Damages) as necessary;
otherwise the motion is denied.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP.,
et al., Defendants, 2015 NY Slip Op 32242(U), DOCKET NO.
190367/2014, SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.).

A full text of the Decision dated November 23, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/SPGhst from Leagle.com.


                            *********

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  * * *