CAR_Public/151214.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 248


                            Headlines


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Ariz. Complaint Pending
AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Recalls Skimmed Chocolate Milk Due to Egg
ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement in Mont. Class Action Has Final OK
ALLSTATE CORP: Sept. 2016 Trial in California Action
ALLSTATE CORP: Class Action in New York Remains Pending

ALLSTATE CORP: Illinois Case Stayed Pending Florida Appeals
ALPINE ELECTRONICS: Recalls Audio Amplifiers Due to Fire Hazard
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in ERISA Actions Approved
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Securities Action Stayed
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 22 Trial in Alabama Case

AMGEN INC: Petition for Certiorari Filed in ERISA Litigation
BAJA MINING: Has $11MM Settlement in Donohue Class Suit
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Suit Remanded to N.D. Florida
BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in M.D. Tennessee Case
BIOMERIEUX INC: Recalls Myla Software Products

BOEING: Agrees to Settle 401k Class Suit for $57 Million
BMW: Recalls Motorcycle C650GT Model Due to Crash Risk
BMW: Recalls Mini 2014 and 2015 Models
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Faces Suits by Landowners
COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Suit Over Vending Machines

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Move Derailment Suit to Federal Ct.
ECOLAB INC: Mulls Appeal of Judgment in "Ross" Case
ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "Cancilla" Lawsuit Remains Pending
ECOLAB INC: State Law Claims Remain Pending in "Charlot" Case
ECOLAB INC: "Schneider" Case Pending in N.D. Illinois

ECOLAB INC: "Martino" Case Removed to N.D. California
ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "LaValley" Action Has Been Paid
ECOLAB INC: Cases Against Nalco Consolidated in MDL 2179
EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Securities Class Suit
FMC CORPORATION: Dismissal of European Competition Action Sought

GALILEE MEMORIAL: Morgan & Morgan Lawsuit Gains Certification
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Guilty Plea Sparks 3 Class Suits
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sued Over Plan to Renege Healthcare Obligation
H-CAPITAL ADVANCE: Class Suit Filed by Asian-American Biz Owners
HANOVER INSURANCE: Ruling in Summary Judgment Motion in Mid-2016

HSBC FINANCE: To Pay $1.8MM in Lender-Placed Insurance Case
HSBC USA: CDS Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
HSBC USA: 2 Class Actions Filed in Ontario and Quebec
HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Commodity Exchange Suit Fully Briefed
HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Silver Fix Case Fully Briefed

HSBC USA: Consolidated Response Filed in Platinum Fix Case
HSBC USA: Decision in Checking Account Overdraft Case on Appeal
HSBC USA: Court Lifted Stay in Stephen and Leyla Hill Case
HSBC USA: Faces "Ahmed" Class Action in C.D. California
IBM: Former Workers Can Proceed with Age Discrimination Class Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: CDS Settlements Subject to Court Approval
JPMORGAN CHASE: Has Revised Settlement to Resolve FX Class Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: 2 Class Suits Filed in Canada Against FX Dealers
JPMORGAN CHASE: GM Term Loan Lenders Dismiss Class Actions
JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Reconsider in Madoff Case Still Pending

JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal Over Madoff Case Dismissal Remains Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of Madoff Action in N.Y. Sought
LSB INDUSTRIES: Marcus & Boxerman Files Securities Class Suit
MACMAHON HOLDINGS: To Face Shareholders' Class Suit
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Del. Suit

NEWFOUNDLAND, CA: Residential School Survivors Seek Justice
PERRIGO COMPANY: Class Action Related to Eltroxin Stayed
PERRIGO COMPANY: Defending Tysabri(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
PORSCHE: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Denied by Court Judge
RL VALLEE: Vermont Gas Wholesalers Try to Get Lawsuit Dismissed

SERVICE CORPORATION: Defendant in "Samborsky" Case in Calif.
SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Case to Continue Against Unit
SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Court Issues Interim Rulings in Class Suit
SPOKEO INC: Argument on Viability of 'No-Injury' Suits Heard
STARZ: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit

STARZ: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Expects to Make $42 Million Settlement Payment
TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Re-opened Discovery in "Maderazo" Case
VIMPELCOM LTD: Howard Law Files Securities Class Suit
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

* Law Firm Loathed by Tech Expands to Industry's Home Turf
* Westchester Country May Hire Firm for Online Booking Tax Suit





                            *********



ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Dismiss Ariz. Complaint Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, 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
defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint in Arizona is
pending before the Court.

On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling,
Rapp v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504.

"The complaint alleges that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making false or misleading statements about our ID/AST System,
formerly called the BACcel System," the Company said.  "Plaintiff
purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between March 7, 2014
and February 17, 2015."

"On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class.  On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and by
allegedly employing schemes to defraud.  Plaintiff seeks
certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order.  Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21, 2015, which is
pending before the Court.

"We believe the case is without merit and intend to defend it
vigorously.  However, an adverse result could have a material
adverse effect upon our financial condition or results of
operations."


AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Recalls Skimmed Chocolate Milk Due to Egg
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Agropur Cooperative
Distribution: Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10161

Agropur Cooperative is recalling 1% Partly Skimmed Chocolate Milk
from the marketplace because it may contain egg which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not
consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name    Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  ----------   -----------    ----    product       ---
                                      ----------
  Farmers      1% Partly      1 L     Best Before   0 67997-
               Skimmed                DE 02         02056 5
               Chocolate Milk

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SO2Cp2


ALLSTATE CORP: Settlement in Mont. Class Action Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 a Court has
entered its final approval to the settlement in a class action
lawsuit in Montana.

Allstate is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in Montana state
court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.

In January 2012, the court certified a class of Montana claimants
who were not represented by attorneys with respect to the
resolution of auto accident claims.  The court certified the class
to cover an indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990's.
The certified claims include claims for declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief and punitive damages in an unspecified amount.
Injunctive relief may include a claim process by which
unrepresented claimants could request that their claims be
readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of the
class.  The Company appealed the order certifying the class.

In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial.
The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied.

In January 2014, the Company timely filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Montana Supreme Court's decision.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

The case continued in Montana state court.  The state trial court
scheduled trial for November, 2016 and ordered the parties to
mediation by May 15, 2015. On June 15, 2015, the Montana District
Court preliminarily approved a settlement of this class action.
The Court entered its final approval to the settlement on
September 22, 2015. The costs associated with the settlement are
not expected to be material.


ALLSTATE CORP: Sept. 2016 Trial in California Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 a class action
case in California is scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016.

The Company is litigating two class action cases in California in
which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.
One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007.  In this case, one
class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in
the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments.  The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until
January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which
allegedly did not comply with California law.

The other case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2010.

In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, and Allstate
appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On September 3,
2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to
certify the class, and Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en
banc.

Allstate's motion for rehearing en banc was denied and on January
27, 2015, Allstate filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court denied
Allstate's petition for a writ of certiorari. The case is
scheduled for trial on September 27, 2016.

In addition to off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case
allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from
purported unpaid overtime.  The class in this case includes all
adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters,
from September 29, 2006 to final judgment.

Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.


ALLSTATE CORP: Class Action in New York Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 a case was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly
classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case was filed in April 2011, and
the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On September 16, 2014, the court certified a
class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused
to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault
adjusters. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.


ALLSTATE CORP: Illinois Case Stayed Pending Florida Appeals
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate 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 an Illinois
case has been stayed by the Illinois federal court pending the
outcome of several Florida state court appeals.

The Florida Personal Injury Protection ("PIP") statute permits
insurers to pay Florida PIP benefits for reasonable medical
expenses based on certain benefit reimbursement limitations which
are authorized by the PIP statute (generally referred to as "fee
schedules") resulting from automobile accidents.

The Company is litigating two class action cases in federal courts
in Florida and Illinois in which the plaintiffs allege that
Allstate's PIP policies failed to include sufficient language
providing notice of Allstate's election to apply the fee
schedules. These cases are brought on behalf of health care
providers and insureds who submitted claims for no-fault benefits
under PIP policies which were in effect from 2008 through 2012,
and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They seek a
declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply the
fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what
they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the
PIP coverage and the fee schedule amounts Allstate actually paid.
They also seek recovery of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
Florida statutes.

In the Florida case, the court granted summary judgment in favor
of Allstate on February 13, 2015, holding that Allstate's language
provided sufficient notice of an election to apply the fee
schedules. Plaintiff has appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Plaintiff's brief is due November 8, 2015.

The Illinois case has been stayed by the Illinois federal court
pending the outcome of several Florida state court appeals.


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

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

The following audio amplifiers are included in this recall:

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

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

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

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

Approximately 444 units were sold in Canada.

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

Manufactured in China.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in ERISA Actions Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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
court has issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the class
settlement and dismissed the action with prejudice in the ERISA
actions pending in the Southern District of New York.

On December 19, 2014, a third consolidated amended complaint,
resulting from the consolidation of purported class actions filed
between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, was filed against
AIG, certain directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's
Retirement Board and Investment Committee in In re American
International Group, Inc. ERISA Litigation II (the Consolidated
2008 ERISA Litigation), asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA),
purportedly on behalf of a class of all participants in or
beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG and its subsidiaries
that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had
accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the action for $40
million. On September 18, 2015, the Court issued an Order and
Final Judgment approving the class settlement and dismissed the
action with prejudice. The entirety of the $40 million settlement
will be paid by AIG's fiduciary liability insurance carriers.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Canadian Securities Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, 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 the
Canadian Securities Class Action - Ontario Superior Court of
Justice is now permanently stayed.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act.  The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.  The proposed statement
of claim further alleges general and special damages of $500
million and punitive damages of $50 million plus prejudgment
interest or such other sums as the Court finds appropriate.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens.  Thereafter, the Court stayed the action pending
further developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities
Litigation.

On June 29, 2015, counsel for AIG and AIGFP provided notice to
counsel for plaintiff in the action that a final order approving
the settlement in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation was
entered and can no longer be appealed. Plaintiff did not move to
lift the stay in the time allotted by the Ontario Superior Court's
stay order and, as a result, the action is now permanently stayed.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Feb. 22 Trial in Alabama Case
-----------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries
have been named defendants in two putative class actions in state
court in Alabama that arise out of the 1999 settlement of class
and derivative litigation involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark).
The plaintiffs in the second-filed action intervened in the first-
filed action, and the second-filed action was dismissed. An excess
policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999
litigation was expressly stated to be without limit of liability.

In the current actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving
the 1999 settlement was misled as to the extent of available
insurance coverage and would not have approved the settlement had
he known of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess
policy. They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and
Caremark are liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting
and/or concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was
denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits.
Trial is expected to commence on February 22, 2016.

"We have accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to this
litigation," AIG 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.


AMGEN INC: Petition for Certiorari Filed in ERISA Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen 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 Amgen filed on September 3,
2015, a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court and,
on September 24, 2015, plaintiff Harris waived his right to
respond to the U.S. Supreme Court petition in this Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action case.


BAJA MINING: Has $11MM Settlement in Donohue Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Baja Mining Corp. said that further to its news release on October
6, 2015 announcing settlement of the Donohue class action
litigation (the "Action"), a final settlement agreement has been
executed by all parties (the "Settlement"). The Settlement remains
subject to the approval of the Ontario Superior Court as described
below. The Settlement is made without any admission of liability
and the parties have agreed to a settlement amount of CDN
$11,000,000.00, inclusive of administration and legal cost of the
class, and any other costs or expenses related to the Action or
the Settlement. The settlement amount will be covered by Baja's
insurers.

The parties have agreed to use their best efforts to effect this
Settlement and to promptly secure Court approval and a complete
and final dismissal with prejudice of the Action as against the
defendants.

"The final resolution of this litigation will remove a heavy
burden that Baja has carried for the past three and a half years,"
stated Tom Ogryzlo, Interim CEO. "This settlement will enable Baja
to seek much broader opportunities for creating value for its
shareholders."

Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider
(as that term is defined in policies of the TSX Venture Exchange)
accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this
release.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Class Suit Remanded to N.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Bancorpsouth, 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 consolidated
pretrial proceedings have concluded and a class action case has
been remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida for further proceedings.

On May 18, 2010, the Bank was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The suit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions. The suit also makes a claim under Arkansas' consumer
protection statute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover damages in
an unspecified amount and equitable relief.

The case was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
wherein an order was entered certifying a class in this case.  The
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multi-district litigation
court have concluded and the case has been remanded to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida for further
proceedings.

"There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported
class action litigation," the Company said.  "Although it is not
possible to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability
with respect to this litigation, management is currently of the
opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, consolidated financial
position or results of operations. However, there can be no
assurance that an adverse outcome or settlement would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated results of
operations for a given fiscal period."


BANCORPSOUTH INC: No Class Certified in M.D. Tennessee Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth, 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 no class has been
certified in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

On July 31, 2014, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer were named in a purported class-action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of the Company's
common stock.  The complaint has subsequently been amended to add
the former President and Chief Operating Officer.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants made misleading statements concerning
the Company's expectation that it would be able to close two
merger transactions within a specified time period and the
Company's compliance with certain Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money
laundering requirements.

On July 10, 2015 the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the claims concerning
the Company's expectations about the closing of the mergers.  The
plaintiff seeks class certification, an unspecified amount of
damages and awards of costs and attorneys' fees and such other
equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  No class
has been certified and, at this stage of the lawsuit, management
cannot determine the probability of an unfavorable outcome to the
Company.

"Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or
financial liability with respect to this litigation, management is
currently of the opinion that the outcome of this lawsuit will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
consolidated financial position or results of operations," the
Company said.


BIOMERIEUX INC: Recalls Myla Software Products
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 4, 2015
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-55976

Under certain conditions, Myla Software, when connected to a Vitek
2 System and to a laboratory information system (LIS) allowing the
re-use of specimen ID, presents the potential to link a result
from Vitek 2 to the wrong patient and then upload those results to
the LIS.

Affected products: MYLA SERVER HP PROLIANT DL380-G8 IVD MYLA
SERVER
Lot or serial number: Myla Clinical 3.X to 4.1 DL380
                      Myla Clinical 3.X to 4.1 ML350
                      Myla Master DVD 3.2 CLI DL380
                      Myla Master DVD 4.0 Clinique
                      Myla Master DVD 4.1 Clinique
Model or catalog number: 415358 MASTER 3.2 CLI DL380
                         416546 MASTER 4.0 CLINIC
                         417191 MASTER 4.1 CLINIC
                         419071 CLINICAL V3.X TO V4.1 DL380
                         SERVER
                         419072 CLINICAL V3.X TO V 4.1 ML350
                         SERVER

Manufacturer: Biomerieux Inc.
              595 Anglum Road
              Hazelwood
              63042
              Missouri
              UNITED STATES


BOEING: Agrees to Settle 401k Class Suit for $57 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that
Boeing, the world's largest aerospace company, has agreed to pay
$57 million to settle a long-running class action lawsuit that
alleges the company's 401(k) plan charged its employees
"excessive" fees.

The two sides in Spano et al. v. Boeing et al. filed a joint
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement before Judge
Nancy Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, asking her to OK the deal.

The case was expected to go to trial in August when both sides
finally reached an agreement.

"The Settlement is fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable in
light of the circumstances of this case," attorneys for the
plaintiffs and defendants wrote in the four-page motion.
"Preliminary approval of the Settlement is in the best interests
of the Class Members and the members of each of the sub-classes."

The litigation, filed in September 2006, alleges, among other
things, that the fiduciaries responsible for overseeing the 401(k)
plan breached their duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, or ERISA, by causing the plan to pay
excessive fees, "imprudently including an excessively volatile"
Technology Sector Fund, and managing the plan's Company Stock Fund
in a manner inconsistent with ERISA's duty of prudence.

After multiple court-ordered mediation and more than a year of
"arm's-length" negotiations, both sides entered into the
settlement agreement Nov. 4, according to the joint motion.

Under the proposed agreement, in return for a release of the class
representatives' and class members' claims, Boeing and the other
defendants have agreed to pay a sum of $57 million into a gross
settlement fund.

The amount that employees -- those who participated in the
Voluntary Investment Plan -- receive will depend on the investment
"mix" in their retirement accounts from 2000 to 2006.

"Despite the foregoing, Defendants expressly deny and disclaim any
wrongdoing, fault or liability, and deny each and every claim
asserted in this action," the motion noted.

Boeing executives, in a statement sent to employees, called the
proposed settlement a "reasonable approach" to avoid the cost of
continued litigation.

According to the 65-page tentative agreement, class counsel seeks
to recover no more than $19 million in attorneys' fees and no more
than $1,845,000 in litigation costs and expenses "advanced and
carried by" it for the duration of the litigation.

Under the proposed agreement, those fees and costs will be
recovered from the gross settlement amount.

St. Louis, Missouri, law firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton
represents the plaintiffs; Bryan Cave LLP, another St. Louis firm,
represents the defendants.

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at
jessica@legalnewsline.com.
Organizations in this story
Schlichter Bogard & Denton
100 South 4th Street
Saint Louis, MO 63102
Bryan Cave LLP
One Metropolitan Square
St. Louis, MO 63102


BMW: Recalls Motorcycle C650GT Model Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: November 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 198
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015527TC
ID number: 2015527

On certain motorcycles, the front brake hose could fatigue and
crack due to tight left turning maneuvers. The outer protective
covering of the brake hose may kink due to excessive bending
stress, causing the outer jacket of the brake line to crack,
potentially resulting in a brake fluid leak. If brake fluid
leakage occurs, the maximum front brake pressure may not be able
to be applied. This would also increase stopping distances and
could affect braking control, which could increase the risk of a
crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace the front brake hose with one of an improved
design.

  Make      Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----     ----------------------
  BMW       C650GT    2012, 2013, 2014, 2015


BMW: Recalls Mini 2014 and 2015 Models
--------------------------------------
Starting date: November 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015528TC
ID number: 2015528

On certain vehicles, seat cushion parts installed in the front
passenger seat as service replacement parts may have been
incorrectly calibrated. This could cause the occupant
classification system to misinterpret the stature of the seat
occupant, which could result in the airbag not deploying when
warranted, increasing the risk of injury. Correction: Dealers will
replace the front passenger seat cushion and occupant
classification mat. Note: Should this occur, vehicle occupants
would be alerted of a problem by the "PASSENGER AIRBAG OFF"
warning light illuminating.

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


CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION: Faces Suits by Landowners
-------------------------------------------------
Kristy Foster Seachrist, writing for Farm and Dairy, reported that
Columbiana County landowners have filed two separate lawsuits
against Chesapeake Exploration, alleging Chesapeake is attempting
to evade paying the full royalties owed to them.

First lawsuit filed

Zehentbauer Family Land, Hanover Farms and Evelyn Frances Young,
who lives in Summit County but owns land in Carroll County, filed
a lawsuit against Chesapeake Exploration in Columbiana County
Common Pleas Court in late October. The lawsuit also names Total
E&P USA Inc., Pelican Energy and Jamestown Resources, which have
working interest in the wells involved.

The Zehentbauer Family Land and Hanover Farms lease calls for 17.5
percent gross royalties and the Young lease calls for 20 percent
gross royalties to be paid.

Seeking class action

They are asking the lawsuit to be certified as a class action
lawsuit since the Zehentbauer family oil and gas lease is a
representative of a group lease signed by hundreds of Ohioans.

According to the lawsuit filed by the Zehentbauer family, the
lease is one that was negotiated with various landowner groups for
either Ohio Buckeye Energy or Chesapeake Explorer.

Second lawsuit

A second lawsuit, Hope Christian Fellowship, of Wellsville, et. al
against Chesapeake Exploration was filed Nov. 4 in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, in
Youngstown.

The list of plaintiffs in the Hope Christian Fellowship lawsuit
against Chesapeake Exploration was lengthy, so here is a list of
who has joined the complaint and are seeking class action status.

Julius P. Heil
Thomas Hanson
Dale H. Henceroth
Melinda J. Henceroth
Ruth Burchfield
James M. Burchfield
Toni I. Burchfield
Marilyn S. Wendt
Janet K. Cooper
Wilford L. Copeland
Dorothy Copeland
Lance R. Hull
Nicole R. Hull
John L. Williams
Zeb Lochlear
Judith A. Locklear
Leroy H. Baker, Jr.
Christine A. Baker
Thomas P. Sherwood
Nancy S. Sherwood
Thomas Keating
Nancy Keating
Charles W. Crumbley
Bruce C. Meadows
Irma L. Meadows
Samantha Meister
Debra Meister
Holly Meister

The lawsuit claims there are 2,000 people and organizations that
could be part of the lawsuit, and plaintiffs are also asking the
case to be certified as class action.
According to the court documents, most of the leases called for
royalties equal to one-eighth of the proceeds from the sale of gas
and oil from the well pads.

Dispute

Both lawsuits are disputing the royalties being paid to
landowners. They claim in the court documents that Chesapeake is
selling the oil and gas being produced at prices much lower than
the market sales price, instead of the final price being paid by
the third-party buyer.

According to court documents, the lawsuit alleges that, beginning
in 2011, Chesapeake breached leases by selling gas and oil at
prices below the market value and charging incorrect deductions on
royalty checks.

Gas gathering

The deductions taken from the royalty checks were related to
charges incurred through gas gathering, processing, dehydrating,
compression, marketing and other costs.

According to court records in the second lawsuit, the plaintiffs
(Hope Christian Fellowship) contend that Chesapeake Exploration
falsely reported natural gas liquids were being sold at a loss.
This meant that Chesapeake canceled out the royalties that should
be paid.

Production data

The lawsuit alleges that Chesapeake reported to landowners in
their royalty checks that the wells were producing less than what
was reported to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. This
resulted in property owners getting lower royalty checks. It was
just one of the inconsistencies that landowners found between
royalty checks and information reported to the ODNR.

Corrupt activity

In the Hope Christian Fellowship lawsuit, the plaintiffs go one
step further. The landowners are asking that the court determine
that Chesapeake is engaging in patterns of corrupt activity. They
want the judge to find that Chesapeake is in violation of the Ohio
Corrupt Practices Act. This would mean that Chesapeake Exploration
has been involved with racketeering activity and theft by
deception.

Both lawsuits are asking that the court stop Chesapeake from
continuing to commit what they consider fraudulent activities, and
seek damages.

Not only Ohio

This is not the first time Chesapeake Exploration has faced
allegations like these. Chesapeake has been involved with numerous
court battles involving royalties and unjustified deductions in
Pennsylvania for the past few years and even faced a criminal
investigation.

An investigation and subsequent story by the journalism non-profit
agency ProPublica, which was printed in the Farm and Dairy,
detailed how Chesapeake sold its subsidiary Chesapeake Midstream
Partners, which would eventually become Access Midstream and in
the process generated $4.76 billion.

Gathering lines

According to the ProPublica investigation, Chesapeake sold its
network of gathering lines in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Louisiana and
Texas to Access. Chesapeake then entered into an agreement that
would transport Chesapeake's gas. In the agreement, Chesapeake
agreed to pay Access enough in fees to repay the $4.76 million
plus a 15 percent return on the investment. The result was an
increase in Chesapeake's cost of gas gathering, which resulted in
deductions on Chesapeake's royalty owners' checks.

Chesapeake did not respond to Farm and Dairy's requests for
comments.


COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Suit Over Vending Machines
----------------------------------------------------
Nick Bartholomew, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a
Metairie man is suing Coca-Cola Co. in a class action case over an
alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Emmett Magee filed suit on June 5 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana against Coca-Cola Refreshments
USA Inc. for alleged violations of the ADA with their new glass
front vendor (GFV) machines.

According to the complaint, Magee, who is blind, allegedly tried
to use these new vending machines for the first time during a
visit to East Jefferson General Hospital in February 2014. He
quickly found that he was unable to use these new vending
machines.

The claim states that Coca-Cola's new machines are inaccessible to
blind people. They offer no way for the blind to identify the code
they need to enter to choose a beverage, and the keypads to enter
the selection offer no way for the blind to differentiate the
keys.

Magee is requesting that Coca-Cola take steps to make the machines
more accessible to the visually impaired. He is also seeking this
case be deemed a class action case, litigation costs, and any
relief deemed appropriate by the court. He is represented by
Roberto Luis Costales of Costales Law Office and William H.
Beaumont of William H. Beaumont Law in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana case
number 2:15-cv-01939.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Seeks to Move Derailment Suit to Federal Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Wade, writing for The Daily Times, reported that CSX
Transportation Inc. is looking to transfer a train derailment
lawsuit from Blount County Circuit Court to federal court.

The class-action lawsuit was filed eight days after a train car
carrying a toxic chemical known as acrylonitrile derailed and
caught fire around midnight on July 2, leading to the evacuation
of 5,000 Maryville residents.

Kelli Johnson and her husband, Aaron Johnson, are the plaintiffs
representing the 5,000 people evacuated from a two-mile radius
around Mt. Tabor and Old Mt. Tabor roads.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for the "disruption and
invasion" of the evacuees' use and enjoyment of their property. No
personal injuries are being claimed. Maryville attorney Kevin
Shepherd, who filed the litigation, has previously told The Daily
Times that they expect a "fair amount and appropriate amount" in
damages.

CSX is also facing three other lawsuits in the derailment, all of
which were filed in Knoxville's U.S. District Court. The company
is now seeking to have the Johnson suit moved there as well.

CSX took the first step in that regard, filing a notice of removal
for the Johnson case in Knoxville's U.S. District Court.

Plaintiffs in the three federal lawsuits agreed to consolidate
their cases for pretrial purposes. A consolidated complaint was
filed for two of those cases, both class-action lawsuits. An
amended complaint for the third case, a personal injury suit filed
on behalf of deputies and officers who evacuated residents, has
also been filed.

Those new complaints now say the train car that derailed actually
did so some nine miles before the train was stopped in the area of
Mt. Tabor and Old Mt. Tabor roads. The complaints state the train
car derailed north of the Singleton Station Road crossing in
Louisville and was dragged the remaining nine miles or so.

Somewhere in that time, but before the train was stopped, the
train car caught fire, the suits state.

The new filings also purport to identify the cause of the
derailment, citing overheated wheel roller bearings.

A CSX spokesperson declined to comment, stating the company does
not comment on pending litigation.

In court filings, CSX notes that it will also seek to merge the
Johnson case with the the three others once it is formally moved
to federal court.

While CSX is the only defendant named in the Johnson suit, Union
Tank Car Co., which owned the tank car that derailed and caught
fire, is being sued along with CSX in the three other lawsuits.


ECOLAB INC: Mulls Appeal of Judgment in "Ross" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 the company is considering
an appeal of a judgment in the case, Ross (formerly Icard) v.
Ecolab.

The company is a defendant in five pending wage hour lawsuits
claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a
similar state law. Of these five suits, two have been certified
for class action status.

Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court -- Northern
District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an action under
California state law, has been certified for class treatment of
California Institutional employees. The Court in Ross recently
granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding
that Institutional Route Sales Managers are not exempt from
overtime pay under California wage and hour laws. The company is
considering an appeal of this judgment. The court has not
determined damages; however the company has established an
accrual, which is not material to its results of operations or
financial position.


ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "Cancilla" Lawsuit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 the Cancilla lawsuit has
been settled pending court approval.

The company is a defendant in five pending wage hour lawsuits
claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a
similar state law. Of these five suits, two have been certified
for class action status.

In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of
California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination Service
Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also seeks a
purported California sub-class for alleged California wage hour
law violations and certifications of classes for state law
violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and North Carolina. The Cancilla lawsuit has been
settled pending court approval.


ECOLAB INC: State Law Claims Remain Pending in "Charlot" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 Plaintiffs' claims under
state law remain pending in the case, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc.

The company is a defendant in five pending wage hour lawsuits
claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a
similar state law. Of these five suits, two have been certified
for class action status.

The pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court-
Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks
nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for
alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in
New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging
violations of state wage hour laws. The Court in Charlot recently
granted the company's motion for summary judgment against
plaintiffs on the federal FLSA claims. Plaintiffs' claims under
state law remain pending and the judgment in favor of Ecolab may
be subject to appeal by Plaintiffs.


ECOLAB INC: "Schneider" Case Pending in N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 pending suit, Schneider v.
Ecolab, United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, case no. 14 C 01044, seeks certification of a class of
Institutional employees for alleged violations of Illinois wage
and hour laws.


ECOLAB INC: "Martino" Case Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 pending suit, Martino v.
Ecolab, Santa Clara County California Superior Court, seeks
certification of a California state class of Institutional
employees for alleged violations of California wage and hour laws.
The Martino case has been removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. Case no. 5:14-cv-
04358-PSG.


ECOLAB INC: Settlement in "LaValley" Action Has Been Paid
---------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 court entered an order of
dismissal on August 12, 2015 in connection with the settlement of
a suit, LaValley v. Ecolab, United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, which sought certification of a class of
Territory Representatives for alleged violations of the FLSA and
New York state wage and hour laws. The settlement amount, which is
not material to the company's operations or financial position,
was paid in August 2015.


ECOLAB INC: Cases Against Nalco Consolidated in MDL 2179
--------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab 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 Nalco Company was named,
along with other unaffiliated defendants, in six putative class
action complaints related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill:
Adams v. Louisiana, et al., Case No. 11-cv-01051 (E.D. La.);
Elrod, et al. v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al., 12-cv-
00981 (E.D. La.); Harris, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No.
2:10-cv-02078-CJBSS (E.D. La.); Irelan v. BP Products, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11-cv-00881 (E.D. La.); Petitjean, et al. v. BP,
plc, et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-00316-RS-EMT (N.D. Fla.); and,
Wright, et al. v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00397-B (S.D.
Ala.). The cases were filed on behalf of various potential classes
of persons who live and work in or derive income from the effected
Coastal region. Each of the actions contains substantially similar
allegations, generally alleging, among other things, negligence
relating to the use of the company's COREXIT dispersant in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs in
these putative class action lawsuits are generally seeking awards
of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs. These cases have been consolidated in MDL 2179.

Other Related Claims Pending in MDL 2179

Nalco Company was also named, along with other unaffiliated
defendants, in 23 complaints filed by individuals: Alexander, et
al. v. BP Exploration & Production, et al., Case No. 11-cv-00951
(E.D. La.); Best v. British Petroleum plc, et al., Case No. 11-cv-
00772 (E.D. La.); Black v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et
al. Case No. 2:11-cv- 867, (E.D. La.); Brooks v. Tidewater Marine
LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv- 00049 (S.D. Tex.); Capt Ander, Inc.
v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv-00364-RH-WCS (N.D. Fla.);
Coco v. BP Products North America, Inc., et al. (E.D. La.); Danos,
et al. v. BP Exploration et al., Case No. 00060449 (25th Judicial
Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); Doom v. BP Exploration &
Production, et al. , Case No. 12-cv-2048 (E.D. La.); Duong, et
al., v. BP America Production Company, et al., Case No. 13-cv-
00605 (E.D. La.); Esponge v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 0166367
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Ezell v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-01920-KDE-JCW (E.D.
La.); Fitzgerald v. BP Exploration, et al., Case No. 13-cv-00650
(E.D. La.); Hill v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00471-CG-N
(S.D. Ala.); Hogan v. British Petroleum Exploration & Production,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2012-22995 (District Court, Harris County,
Texas); Hudley v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 10-cv-00532-N (S.D.
Ala.); In re of Jambon Supplier II, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 12-
426 (E.D. La.); Kolian v. BP Exploration & Production, et al. ,
Case No. 12-cv-2338 (E.D. La.); Monroe v. BP, plc, et al., Case
No. 1:10-cv-00472-M (S.D. Ala.); Pearson v. BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-863, (E.D. La.); Shimer v. BP
Exploration and Production, et al, Case No. 2:13-cv-4755 (E.D.
La.); Top Water Charters, LLC v. BP, P.L.C., et al., No. 0165708
(32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana);
Toups, et al. v Nalco Company, et al., Case No. 59-121 (25th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana); and,
Trehern v. BP, plc, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00432-HSO-JMR (S.D.
Miss.). The cases were filed on behalf of individuals and entities
that own property, live, and/or work in or derive income from the
effected Coastal region. Each of the actions contains
substantially similar allegations, generally alleging, among other
things, negligence relating to the use of our COREXIT dispersant
in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The plaintiffs
in these lawsuits are generally seeking awards of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Pursuant to orders issued by the court in MDL 2179, the claims
were consolidated in several master complaints, including one
naming Nalco Company and others who responded to the Gulf Oil
Spill (known as the "B3 Master Complaint"). On May 18, 2012, Nalco
filed a motion for summary judgment against the claims in the "B3"
Master Complaint, on the grounds that: (i) Plaintiffs' claims are
preempted by the comprehensive oil spill response scheme set forth
in the Clean Water Act and National Contingency Plan; and (ii)
Nalco is entitled to derivative immunity from suit. On November
28, 2012, the Court granted Nalco's motion and dismissed with
prejudice the claims in the "B3" Master Complaint asserted against
Nalco. The Court held that such claims were preempted by the Clean
Water Act and National Contingency Plan. Because claims in the
"B3" Master Complaint remain pending against other defendants, the
Court's decision is not a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), plaintiffs will
have 30 days after entry of final judgment to appeal the Court's
decision.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Faces Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
Extreme Networks, Inc. securities from November 4, 2013 through
April 9, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages Extreme Networks investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Extreme Networks class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-779.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.

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.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that Extreme Networks had not
successfully or substantially integrated Enterasys, which
materially impaired its ability to address persistent problems
with delayed and canceled sales and costs related to inefficiently
processed orders. Additionally, Extreme Networks allegedly did not
disclose that Lenovo was unprepared or unwilling to begin selling
Extreme Networks' products during the timeframe or in the amounts
necessary to support Extreme Networks' financial forecasts.

On April 9, 2015, Extreme Networks announced that it would miss
guidance for the third quarter of 2015, trading in its shares had
been halted, and Extreme Networks' Chief Revenue Officer was no
longer with Extreme Networks. On this news, Extreme Networks'
stock fell $0.74 per share, or nearly 25%, to close at $2.50 per
share on April 10, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 22, 2015. 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://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-779.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail 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.

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA
275 Madison Avenue, 34 [th] Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-686-1060
Toll Free: 866-767-3653
Fax: 212-202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


FMC CORPORATION: Dismissal of European Competition Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss a European
competition action, FMC 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.

The Company said, "Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide who claim to have been harmed as a result of alleged
violations of European competition law by hydrogen peroxide
producers assigned their legal claims to a single entity formed by
a law firm. The single entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in
March 2009 against European producers, including our wholly-owned
Spanish subsidiary, Foret."

"Initial defense briefs were filed in April 2010, and an initial
hearing was held during the first quarter of 2011, at which time
case management issues were discussed. At a subsequent hearing in
October 2011, the Court indicated that it was considering seeking
guidance from the European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether
the German courts have jurisdiction over these claims. After
submission of written comments on this issue by the parties, on
March 1, 2012, the judge announced that she would refer the
jurisdictional issues to the ECJ, which she did on April 29, 2013.

"On May 21, 2015, the ECJ issued its decision, upholding the
jurisdiction of the German court. The case is now back before the
German judge; we filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings in
September 2015.

"We do not anticipate a response by the court until late 2015.
Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a
novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border
"class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under EU or
German law -- we are unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
our potential exposure of loss at this time. We intend to
vigorously defend this matter."


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Morgan & Morgan Lawsuit Gains Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan has announced on Nov. 10 that their lawsuit
against Galilee Memorial Gardens Cemetery, filed by Kathryn
Barnett on February 9th 2014, has gained class action
certification. The lawsuit was filed for the alleged reckless
mishandling of remains as well as charges of emotional distress,
breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The initial lawsuit contains 31 different claimants, all who had
loved ones buried in the cemetery. The Johnson family was one of
the first families to discover the cemetery's alleged misconduct.
Joe Johnson is a citizen and resident of Memphis and had used
funeral services, including the final deposition at Galilee, for
his daughter Renisha Johnson, who died in April 2013.
According to the complaint, further light was shed on the
investigation when the Shelby County District Attorney General
conducted a search warrant for Galilee Memorial Gardens in January
2014. They found that the cemetery had buried three different
bodies in the same grave plot between March 9th and March 12th of
the previous year.

Furthermore, the lawsuit also states that the owner of the
cemetery, Jemar Lambert, was charged with illegally burying bodies
outside cemetery grounds, theft amassing over $60,000, and
operating without a license since 2010. In face of the
aforementioned crimes, Lambert had his bond revoked by the Supreme
court in February 2014. The Shelby County Criminal Court Judge,
Lee Coffey, described Lambert's actions as a "crime against
humanity. . . and everything that is good."

Morgan & Morgan filed the lawsuit on behalf of everyone affected
by the events at Galilee, including those who were next of kin of
any decedent delivered to the cemetery, and any persons or
entities with any defendant regarding funeral arrangements for a
decedent at Galilee.

The class action certification indicates that thousands were
buried in the four years that the cemetery has been operating
without a license. Hundreds of families have done business with
funeral homes associated with Galilee and are distraught over
allegations that the cemetery mismanaged their loved ones. Many
families are still unable to locate the remains of their loved
ones as the cemetery has no grave markers indicating where the
bodies lie. With the class action, many other victims can come
forward and receive monetary compensation for the mistreatment of
their deceased loved ones.

If you have a loved one buried in the Galilee Memorial Gardens
Cemetery, and are affected by events surrounding this class
action, contact Morgan & Morgan for information about your legal
rights.

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


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Guilty Plea Sparks 3 Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
a chemical company and its former vice president have been hit
with three price-fixing suits following the executive's guilty
plea on an antitrust conspiracy charge.

Frank Reichl pleaded guilty Oct. 27 to one count of Sherman Act
conspiracy, 15 U.S.C. 1. Reichl admitted participating in a scheme
to suppress and eliminate competition in the sale and marketing of
liquid aluminum sulfate by agreeing to rig bids. A statement about
Reichl's guilty plea from the U.S. Department of Justice said he
is "the first defendant to plead guilty to participating in the
decade-and-a-half-long conspiracy," and that "we continue to work
with our partners at the FBI to hold offenders in this industry
criminally accountable." No other charges have been announced.
The government's one-count information against Reichl referred to
his employer during the relevant period only as Company 1. But his
employer during the relevant period, from roughly 1997 to 2010,
was identified in the three suits as General Chemical Corp. of
Parsippany.

According to the charging document, Reichl met with
representatives of other chemical companies to discuss their
liquid aluminum sulfate business; agreed not to pursue
competitors' longtime customers; withdrew inadvertently winning
bids submitted to co-conspirators' longtime customers at the
request of the competitor; and instructed new employees how to
comport with the agreement not to compete with co-conspirators.
Bail was set at $100,000 for Reichl, of Flanders, who faces up to
10 years in prison and a $1 million fine, according to the
charging document. His sentencing is scheduled for Feb. 1, 2016.
On Oct. 31, Central Arkansas Water filed a putative class action
on behalf of purchasers of liquid aluminum sulfate from the
defendants or a co-conspirator between 1997 to 2010. On Nov. 4, a
similar class action complaint was filed by Detroit Water and
Sewerage Department. And on Nov. 6, another suit was filed by the
Chester Water Authority in Chester, Pennsylvania.

Users paid artificially inflated prices for liquid aluminum
sulfate as a result of Reichl's actions, the suits claim. The
product is used mainly by water treatment plants and in production
of paper, according to the complaints.

"The government entities and water authorities around the country
undergo double blind procurement policies to ensure that the
taxpayers get the best price from their suppliers, and the type of
bid-rigging and collusion alleged here was to the detriment of all
of the citizens across the nation," said Barbara Hart, Esq. --
bhart@lowey.com -- of Lowey, Dannenberg, Cohen & Hart in White
Plains, New York, who represents the plaintiff in the Chester
Water Authority suit. Other plaintiffs' counsel in the case did
not return calls.

Michael Himmel, Esq. -- mhimmel@lowenstein.com -- of Lowenstein
Sandler in Roseland, who represented Reichl in the criminal case,
said no determination has been made about who will represent
Reichl in the civil case.

Besides General Chemical, the suits name as a defendant Chemtrade
Corp. of Toronto, which purchased General Chemical in January
2014. Susan Pare, general counsel of Chemtrade, said her company
had not yet been served in the case. She noted that her company
acquired General Chemical in 2014, after the alleged conduct at
issue took place, adding that class action suits are "fairly
common responses" when guilty pleas are entered in antitrust
suits.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Sued Over Plan to Renege Healthcare Obligation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Tobin, writing for Logan Daily, reported that according to
local Glass Union President Mike Barrell, a coalition of labor
unions led by the IUE-CWA, Industrial Division of the
Communication Workers of America, has filed a federal class action
lawsuit against General Electric in the Northern District of Ohio.

The coalition includes the members of the GE coordinated
bargaining committee; the United Electrical Workers; United Auto
Workers, machinists, steelworkers, Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, teamsters and the Federation of Professional and
Technical Engineers.

According to the lawsuit, the coalition of unions and more than 20
individual retirees argue that GE is violating federal labor law
and the Employer Retirement Income Security Act, claiming it's
depriving its post-65 retirees of important retiree medical
coverage that individuals have worked for over decades and was
promised in their union contracts.

"Most everything has been handled by International," Barrell
stated. "It's been a long time coming, but they have been
following this closely."

The lawsuit comes as no surprise as GE announced last year that
effective Jan. 1, 2016, it will unilaterally terminate its post-65
retiree medical plans and replace them with an opportunity for
retirees to purchase post-65 health insurance coverage from a
private broker healthcare exchange that was selected by the
company -- OnExchange.

This change will affect approximately 130,000 GE retirees and
their spouses that will no longer have their healthcare plans
intact come Jan. 1. Locally, it is estimated there are more than
70 individuals affected by this change.

According to GE, the company is now offering a $1,000 yearly
credit for its retirees to offset some of the cost of replacing
this medical coverage that was being provided. However, for many
of the retirees that spent their lives working tirelessly for the
company, it will greatly impact them and their family members.

According to a press release received by The Logan Daily News,
thousands of GE retirees, particularly those on life saving drugs,
are facing much higher drug costs as a result of this change, and
GE is refusing to commit to supplying the yearly credit throughout
the lives of the retirees.

James Clark, chair of the coalition and IUE-CWA President said he
is outraged that a very profitable General Electric Corporation
would choose to break promises to its retirees during the most
vulnerable time of their lives.

"I am glad these retirees have unions that are willing to step up
and fight for justice," Clark stated.

In a meeting with GE retirees in September, Barrell blamed this
move on "corporate greed" and said all GE cares about is the
"bottom line."

"Many companies have found a way to improve their bottom line and
that is what they will do," Barrell said during the meeting.
"Unfortunately for the workers, they improve the bottom line on
the backs of the people who made them what they are today. We
refer to this as corporate greed."

Reportedly, GE listed $3.3 billion in savings in the second
quarter by taking such drastic measures and eliminating healthcare
benefits to those who were salaried employees and now those
working in hourly production jobs as well.

The change in benefits will not affect those who have retired, and
have not reached the age of 65. It will only affect the post-65
retirees and their spouses.

IUE-CWA and the other labor union plaintiffs are confident that
the terms of their labor contracts clearly demonstrate intent by
all parties that the benefits negotiated with GE are lifetime
benefits for GE retirees.

One local retiree, who wished to remain anonymous, spoke out and
said, "We've worked our whole lives at that plant, through the
sweltering heat of the furnaces, made that company what it is
today, and they dump this on us. It's a shame how they treat their
employees -- the same employees that have made them billions and
billions of dollars."


H-CAPITAL ADVANCE: Class Suit Filed by Asian-American Biz Owners
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action captioned Korea Week, Inc. v. Got Capital, LLC,
NLYH, LLC, and Capital Advance a/d/b/a Yalber, et.al., Case No.
151002821 (C.C.P. 2015), was filed in the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas, on behalf of Asian-American and other business
owners (including other ethnic and minority business owners)
throughout the United States, against the finance lending
companies H-Capital Advance and Yalber ("H-Capital a/d/b/a
Yalber") with corporate headquarters in Teaneck, New Jersey, and
additional corporate and affiliate offices (under different
corporate names) throughout the United States including
Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Dallas.
The company advertises by way of its Website, that it has invested
approximately $500 million dollars "in more than 12,000
businesses."

This class action represents a historical number of Asian-
American, minority, and other business owners, the largest class
of its kind, where in 2014-2015 it was estimated that there were
approximately a million minority owned businesses in the U.S.
including most notably, 26,000 Vietnamese owned nail salons,
41,000 Chinese restaurants, 30,082 total Korean owned businesses,
and 24,692 total Indian owned businesses.

H-Capital/Yalber is actively involved in advertising, marketing,
and lending of its financial goods and services, to many ethnic
and minority businesses and companies, including the Chinese,
Korean, and Vietnamese communities.  According to the company's
Website, H-Capital/Yalber's business model is primarily based on
"cash advance products" which involves financially tying repayment
processes, arrangements, and obligations directly to current and
future receivables, where the company advertises that "we purchase
a portion of your gross revenue receivables at a discount price,
using our industry established parameter, and advance a stated
amount to you [and] we promise the best combination of an advance
amount and factor percentage to suit your business."

According to the allegations set forth in the filed Class Action
Complaint, H-Capital a/d/b/a Yalber are companies engaged in a
number of predatory lending schemes, specifically targeting
various ethnic and minority communities and operating under a
number of different corporate entity names, including but not
limited to Got Capital, LLC in Philadelphia, PA, NLYH, LLC in New
York, NY, and dozens of other revolving corporate entities and
affiliates.

The class action on behalf of such business owners involves a
number of substantive violations of both state and federal
banking, lending, loan, and finance related standards and laws,
including among others, common law fraud, intentional and
negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, negligence, unjust
enrichment, monies had and received, breach of contract, unfair
trade practices and consumer protection laws, Credit Services Act,
Truth in Lending Act, good faith and fair lending standards, and
state banking, loan interest and other financial protection laws.
The Class Action Complaint highlights that such U.S. businesses
have been subjected to various predatory and targeted lending,
financing, and usury practices, including incurring exorbitant
fees, costs, interest rates, finance penalties, and most notably,
harsh and onerous financial lending practices and extortion,
involving current and future receivables, which has caused such
businesses loss of revenue, profits, reputation and good will.

For more information regarding this class action (including media
inquiries) or whether or not your business or company may qualify
for a claim, please contact the law firms of Wilkey Legal
Consultants, LLC and Yun & Associates, P.C. toll-free at (888)
598-1112 or email at:  info@hcapitalclassaction.com or visit the
Website at: www.hcapitalclassaction.com

Robert N. Wilkey, Esq. (Lead Counsel)
Wilkey Legal Consultants, LLC
Eagleview Office Plaza
600 Eagleview Blvd., Suite 300
Exton, PA 19341
(888) 598-1112 (Toll-Free)
(610) 465-7393 Ph.
www.robertwilkey.com

Chang Hi Yun, Esq. (Co-Counsel)
Yun & Associates, P.C.
583 Skippack Pike, Suite 300
Blue Bell, PA 19422
(267) 699-8763 Ph.
http://www.yunandllc.com/


HANOVER INSURANCE: Ruling in Summary Judgment Motion in Mid-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, 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
ruling on a summary judgment motion in the Durand Litigation is
not expected before mid-2016.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The named
plaintiff, a former employee who received a lump sum distribution
from the Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the
time of her termination, claims that she and others similarly
situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum distribution
because in computing the lump sum, the Company and the Plan
understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The plaintiff
claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and those of
similarly situated participants by failing to pay an additional
so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value of an
estimate of future interest credits from the date of the lump sum
distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65.

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009. In
response, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 30,
2010. In addition to the pending claim challenging the calculation
of lump sum distributions, the Amended Complaint included: (a) a
claim that the Plan failed to calculate participants' account
balances and lump sum payments properly because interest credits
were based solely upon the performance of each participant's
selection from among various hypothetical investment options (as
the Plan provided) rather than crediting the greater of that
performance or the 30 year Treasury rate; (b) a claim that the
2004 Plan amendment, which changed interest crediting for all
participants from the performance of participant's investment
selections to the 30 year Treasury rate, reduced benefits in
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") for participants who had account balances as of the
amendment date by not continuing to provide them performance-based
interest crediting on those balances; and (c) claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty and ERISA notice requirements
arising from the various interest crediting and lump sum
distribution matters of which plaintiffs complain.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court granted the Company and the
Plan's Motion to Dismiss on statute of limitations grounds the
additional claims set forth in (a) and (b) above, however, in
response to a motion for reconsideration, the Court allowed the
new breach of fiduciary duty claim to stand, but only as to
plaintiffs' "whipsaw" claim that remained in the case. On June 22,
2012, the Company and the Plan filed a Partial Motion for Summary
Judgment to dismiss the "whipsaw" claim of one of the named
plaintiffs who received his lump sum distribution after December
31, 2003.

On October 2, 2013, the Court granted the Company and the Plan's
Partial Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed with prejudice
the "whipsaw" claim of the named plaintiff who received a lump sum
distribution after December 31, 2003 and the similar claims of the
putative class members he sought to represent. On December 17,
2013, the Court entered an order certifying a class to bring
"whipsaw" and related breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting
of all persons who received a lump sum distribution between March
1, 1997 and December 31, 2003, and a subclass to bring such claims
consisting of all persons who received lump sum distributions
between March 1, 1997 and March 12, 2002.

On December 17, 2013, the Court also granted plaintiffs' motion
for entry of a final order allowing an immediate appeal by the two
named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint of their dismissed
claims that the 2004 Plan amendment reduced benefits in violation
of ERISA, and for one of them, that his post-2003 lump sum
distribution should have been greater.

On January 14, 2014, the Company filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
the Court's December 17, 2013 Order requesting that the Court
reverse its order making the dismissed claims final and appealable
or, in the alternative, stay merits discovery on the claims
remaining in the district court pending resolution of the
dismissed plaintiffs' appeal. The Court denied this motion on
April 30, 2014. The appeal of the dismissal of the claims of the
two named plaintiffs added in the Amended Complaint was filed on
May 30, 2014. Oral argument on the appeal took place on June 11,
2015 and the Company awaits the Court's decision. The Company
recently filed a Summary Judgment motion based on the statute of
limitations that seeks to dismiss a subclass of plaintiffs who
received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002.
Plaintiffs have objected to this motion pending additional
discovery and the outcome of the foregoing appeal.  The trial
court has issued a scheduling order that allows for the completion
of some discovery, which is now under way, followed by additional
summary judgment briefing set to begin in February 2016.  A ruling
on the Summary Judgment motion is not expected before mid-2016.


HSBC FINANCE: To Pay $1.8MM in Lender-Placed Insurance Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Finance 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 district
court in Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al.
(D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185) issued in October 2015, an order
granting final approval of the settlement reached by the parties
in this putative class action concerning lender placed flood
insurance. In this final settlement, HSBC agreed to pay $1.8
million inclusive of all claims, attorneys' fees and
administrative costs.


HSBC USA: CDS Settlement Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 in September 2015,
the HSBC defendants settled the In re Credit Default Swaps
Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2476, for a total payment of $25
million. In October 2015, the court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement and scheduled a final settlement approval
hearing for April 2016. HSBC Bank USA's portion of the settlement
is $12.5 million.


HSBC USA: 2 Class Actions Filed in Ontario and Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 in September 2015,
two putative class action complaints were filed in the provinces
of Ontario and Quebec, Canada, against, among others, HSBC, HSBC
Bank plc, HSBC North America, HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank Canada.
The complaints allege, among other things, that defendants
conspired to fix the supply and rates of currency in the foreign
currency market by sharing confidential customer information and
coordinating trading to control or manipulate key rates. These
actions are in early stages.


HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Commodity Exchange Suit Fully Briefed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 in In re Commodity
Exchange Inc., Gold Futures and Options Trading Litigation,
Defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint is fully briefed.


HSBC USA: Motion to Dismiss Silver Fix Case Fully Briefed
---------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 in In re London
Silver Fixing, Ltd. Antitrust Litigation (Silver Fix Litigation)
Defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint is fully briefed.


HSBC USA: Consolidated Response Filed in Platinum Fix Case
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 in Platinum and
Palladium Fix Litigation Plaintiff's filed a second amended
consolidated complaint in July 2015. Defendants filed a
consolidated response thereto in September 2015.


HSBC USA: Decision in Checking Account Overdraft Case on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 in the Checking
Account Overdraft Litigation, the court in Ofra Levin et al v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11) ("State
Action") denied in September 2015 the federal plaintiffs' motion
to intervene in the state action. The plaintiffs have appealed
that decision.


HSBC USA: Court Lifted Stay in Stephen and Leyla Hill Case
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 the court in
October 2015 lifted the stay in Stephen and Leyla Hill, et al. v.
HSBC Bank plc, et al. (Case No. 14-CV-9745(LTS), a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against various HSBC defendants, including HSBC Bank
USA, by direct investors in Madoff Securities who were holding
their investments as of December 12, 2008. The case seeks to
recover damages lost to Madoff Securities' fraud on account of
HSBC's purported knowledge and furtherance of the fraud. The HSBC
defendants' response to the complaint is due in November 2015.


HSBC USA: Faces "Ahmed" Class Action in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA 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 putative class
action entitled Saber Ahmed v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association
(Case 5:15-cv-02057) was filed in October 2015 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
against HSBC Bank USA. The action alleges that HSBC Bank USA
contacted plaintiff, or the members of the class he seeks to
represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice,
without prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.227 et seq. ("TCPA").
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of up to $1,500 for each
violation. This action is at a very early stage.


IBM: Former Workers Can Proceed with Age Discrimination Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reported that two former IBM
employees who say the company lied about downsizing in order to
replace them with younger workers can proceed with a proposed
class action, a U.S. judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas in Manhattan denied a motion by
IBM and its lawyers at Jones Day to dismiss the 2014 suit,
rejecting the company's claims that legal waivers the former
employees signed in order to receive severance packages precluded
them from bringing age discrimination claims.


JPMORGAN CHASE: CDS Settlements Subject to Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 settlements in the
credit default swaps litigation are subject to Court approval.

In July 2013, the European Commission (the "EC") filed a Statement
of Objections against the Firm (including various subsidiaries)
and other industry members in connection with its ongoing
investigation into the credit default swaps ("CDS") marketplace.
The EC asserts that between 2006 and 2009, a number of investment
banks acted collectively through the International Swaps and
Derivatives Association ("ISDA") and Markit Group Limited
("Markit") to foreclose exchanges from the potential market for
exchange-traded credit derivatives. The Firm submitted a response
to the Statement of Objections in January 2014, and the EC held a
hearing in May 2014. DOJ also has an ongoing investigation into
the CDS marketplace, which was initiated in July 2009.

Separately, the Firm and other defendants have entered separate
agreements to settle a consolidated putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers and sellers of CDS. The complaint in
this action had alleged that the defendant investment banks and
dealers, including the Firm, as well as Markit and/or ISDA,
collectively prevented new entrants into the market for exchange-
traded CDS products. These settlements are subject to Court
approval.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Has Revised Settlement to Resolve FX Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Firm has
entered into a revised settlement agreement to resolve the
consolidated U.S. class action related to Foreign Exchange
Investigations and Litigation.

The Firm previously reported settlements with certain government
authorities relating to its foreign exchange ("FX") sales and
trading activities and controls related to those activities,
including settlements in May 2015 with the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System (the "Federal Reserve"). Under the DOJ settlement, the Firm
agreed to plead guilty to a single violation of federal antitrust
law and to pay a fine of $550 million. Under the Federal Reserve
settlement, the Firm agreed to the entry of a Consent Order, to
pay a fine of $342 million, and to take various remedial actions.
FX-related investigations and inquiries by other non-U.S.
government authorities, including competition authorities, remain
ongoing, and the Firm is cooperating with those matters.

Since November 2013, class actions have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against foreign exchange dealers, including the Firm, principally
for alleged violations of federal antitrust laws based on an
alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates reported
on the WM/Reuters service. In March 2014, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended U.S. class action complaint; two other class
actions were brought by non-U.S.-based plaintiffs. The Court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss the U.S. class action and
granted the motion to dismiss the two non-U.S. class actions.

In January 2015, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement in
the U.S. class action. Following this settlement, a number of
additional class actions were filed seeking damages for persons
who transacted FX futures and options on futures (the "exchanged-
based actions"), consumers who purchased foreign currencies at
allegedly inflated rates, and participants or beneficiaries of
qualified ERISA plans.

In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the U.S. class action filed an
amended complaint, adding new claims as well as new parties. The
Court also consolidated the exchange-based actions into the U.S.
class action. The Firm has entered into a revised settlement
agreement to resolve the consolidated U.S. class action, and that
agreement is subject to Court approval.


JPMORGAN CHASE: 2 Class Suits Filed in Canada Against FX Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 two class actions
were filed in Canada in September 2015 against the Firm as well as
a number of other FX dealers, principally for alleged violations
of the Canadian Competition Act based on an alleged conspiracy to
fix the prices of currency purchased in the FX market. The first
action was filed in the province of Ontario, and seeks to
represent all persons in Canada who transacted any FX instrument.
The second action seeks to represent only those persons in Quebec
who engaged in FX transactions.


JPMORGAN CHASE: GM Term Loan Lenders Dismiss Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 General Motors'
term loan lenders who brought class actions against JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP have voluntarily
dismissed them without prejudice.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. participated in, and was the
Administrative Agent on behalf of a syndicate of lenders on, a
$1.5 billion syndicated Term Loan facility ("Term Loan") for
General Motors Corporation ("GM"). In July 2009, in connection
with the GM bankruptcy proceedings, the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors of Motors Liquidation Company ("Creditors
Committee") filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., in
its individual capacity and as Administrative Agent for other
lenders on the Term Loan, seeking to hold the underlying lien
invalid based on the filing of a UCC-3 termination statement
relating to the Term Loan.

In March 2013, the Bankruptcy Court granted JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Creditors
Committee's complaint on the grounds that JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. did not authorize the filing of the UCC-3 termination
statement at issue. The Creditors Committee appealed the
Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of its claim to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In January 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed the Bankruptcy
Court's dismissal of the Creditors Committee's claim and remanded
the case to the Bankruptcy Court with instructions to enter
partial summary judgment for the Creditors Committee as to the
termination statement. Continued proceedings in the Bankruptcy
Court are anticipated with respect to, among other things,
additional defenses asserted by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and the
value of additional collateral on the Term Loan, which was not the
subject of the termination statement.

In addition, two purported class actions have been filed by
certain Term Loan lenders in federal court in New York against
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
seeking indemnification and asserting claims for breach of
contract, gross negligence and fraudulent concealment against
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and claims for malpractice, professional
negligence and negligent misrepresentation against Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP.

In October 2015, the lenders who brought these class actions
voluntarily dismissed them without prejudice.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Motion to Reconsider in Madoff Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 motion filed
by plaintiffs in a Madoff litigation with the Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit seeking to have the court reconsider its prior
decision in light of another recent appellate decision remains
pending.

Various subsidiaries of the Firm, including J.P. Morgan Securities
plc, have been named as defendants in lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy
Court in New York arising out of the liquidation proceedings of
Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield Sigma Limited, so-called
Madoff feeder funds. These actions seek to recover payments made
by the funds to defendants totaling approximately $155 million.
All but two of these actions have been dismissed.

In addition, a putative class action was brought by investors in
certain feeder funds against JPMorgan Chase in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, as was a
motion by separate potential class plaintiffs to add claims
against the Firm and certain subsidiaries to an already pending
putative class action in the same court. The allegations in these
complaints largely track those previously raised by the court-
appointed trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.
The District Court dismissed these complaints and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
District Court's decision. The United States Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari in March 2015.

Plaintiffs subsequently served a motion in the Court of Appeals
seeking to have the Court reconsider its prior decision in light
of another recent appellate decision. That motion remains pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal Over Madoff Case Dismissal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Firm is a
defendant in five other Madoff-related individual investor actions
pending in New York state court. The allegations in all of these
actions are essentially identical, and involve claims against the
Firm for, among other things, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. In August 2014,
the Court dismissed all claims against the Firm. Plaintiffs'
appeal of that decision is pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of Madoff Action in N.Y. Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 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 Firm has moved
to dismiss a class action case pending in New York.

A putative class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey by investors who
were net winners (i.e., Madoff customers who had taken more money
out of their accounts than had been invested) in Madoff's Ponzi
scheme and were not included in the previous class action
settlement. These plaintiffs allege violations of the federal
securities law, federal and state racketeering statutes and
multiple common law and statutory claims including breach of
trust, aiding and abetting embezzlement, unjust enrichment,
conversion and commercial bad faith. A similar action has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, although it is not styled as a class action, and
includes a claim pursuant to a Florida statute. The Firm has moved
to transfer both the Florida and New Jersey actions to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
Florida court denied the transfer motion, and that decision was
subsequently affirmed. The Florida court granted the Firm's motion
to dismiss the case in September 2015 and plaintiffs subsequently
filed a notice of appeal. The Firm moved to dismiss the case
pending in New York.


LSB INDUSTRIES: Marcus & Boxerman Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus & Boxerman announces that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed in the USDC for the Southern District of New York
against LSB Industries, Inc. ("LSB" or the "Company").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired LSB securities between May
8, 2015 and August 7, 2015, you have until November 24, 2015, to
file a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.

To join this class action lawsuit, please contact Michael
Boxerman, Esquire, of Marcus & Boxerman, at 312-216-2730, or via
email at mboxerman@marcusboxerman.com.

According to the complaint, the Company made misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that LSB and certain of its executive
officers allegedly made a series of false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company's costs
related to the expansion of the El Dorado Facility would be
significantly higher than reported; and (2) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

No class has been certified in the 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.

Marcus & Boxerman
Michael Boxerman, Esq., 312-216-2730
mboxerman@marcusboxerman.com
Facsimile: 312-216-2720


MACMAHON HOLDINGS: To Face Shareholders' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
John Conroy, writing for The Australian, reported that a class
action has been filed against Macmahon Holdings alleging the
mining contractor failed to disclose market sensitive information
in 2012 about the impact of delays at one of its biggest West
Australian mining infrastructure projects.

ACA Lawyers said the multi-million dollar suit on behalf of
shareholders alleges the company breached its continuous
disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct by failing to reveal the financial impact of delays on its
Hope Downs 4 rail earthworks and bridge construction project, part
of Rio Tinto's expansion program in the Pilbara.

ACA says Macmahon should have told the market about project delays
and the financial consequences at least four months before it
actually did in September 2012.

"People who purchased Macmahon shares between May 2, 2012 and
September 18, 2012 have paid too much as a result of Macmahon's
alleged failure to keep the market fully informed of the financial
impact of the delayed project," ACA Lawyers principal Steven Lewis
said.

ACA noted that the chief executive and West Australian manager
resigned in the wake of the delays while the Hope Downs 4
management team was changed.

ACA said the class action was open to all current or former
Macmahon Holdings shareholders who acquired shares between the two
dates.

In a release to the Australian Securities Exchange, Macmahon said
it would "vigorously" defend the action.

The quantum of the claim had not been specified, Macmahon added.

At the 4.15pm (AEDT) official market close, Macmahon shares were
down 0.53 per cent to 9.35 cents against a benchmark fall of 1.83
per cent.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Del. Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Petroleum 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 plaintiffs
in a Delaware class action related to the merger with Markwest
Energy Partners, L.P., have filed a consolidated complaint against
the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest
Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MWE GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP LLC, MPC and
Sapphire Holdco LLC, a subsidiary of MPLX.

On July 11, 2015, MPLX LP and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.
("MWE") entered into a definitive merger agreement ("Merger
Agreement") whereby MWE would become a wholly owned subsidiary of
MPLX (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
common unit of MWE issued and outstanding immediately prior to the
effective time of the Merger will be converted into the right to
receive 1.09 common units of MPLX representing limited partner
interests in MPLX, plus a one-time cash payment to MWE
unitholders. As of September 30, 2015, the implied total
enterprise value for MWE was approximately $13.7 billion,
including the assumption of debt of approximately $4.6 billion.
MPC would contribute $675 million of cash to MPLX to fund the one-
time cash payment. The transaction between MPLX and MWE, which is
subject to approval by MWE unitholders and to customary closing
conditions and regulatory approvals, is expected to close in the
fourth quarter of 2015.

In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
challenging the pending Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MWE. In
August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs
who purport to be unitholders of MWE.

On September 9, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into one
action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
now captioned In re MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder
Litigation.

On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the individual members of the board of directors of
MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MWE GP Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP
LLC, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a subsidiary of MPLX, asserting
in connection with the Merger and related disclosures that, among
other things, (i) the MWE GP Board breached its duties in
approving the Merger with MPLX and (ii) MPC, MPLX, MPLX GP, and
Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted such breaches.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, to enjoin the Merger, or
in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission of the Merger
or monetary damages. An adverse judgment for rescission of the
Merger or for monetary damages following the completion of the
Merger could have a material adverse effect on MPC. The parties
believe these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously
defend the consolidated lawsuit and therefore, at this time, we do
not believe the ultimate resolution of this lawsuit will have a
material adverse effect.


NEWFOUNDLAND, CA: Residential School Survivors Seek Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Fine, writingfor The Globe and Mail, reported that the young
children who lived at the St. Anthony Orphanage and Boarding
School in Labrador shared the beatings.

"We'd all be lined up," 59-year-old Richard Preston told a court
in St. John's, shutting his eyes as he spoke, his voice breaking.
He was 3 when he went to live at the orphanage. "There'd be four
belts hanging on the wall. They'd make us pick out which one to
whip us with."

Seven years ago, the Canadian government apologized to the former
students of Indian residential schools and authorized the payment
of billions of dollars in compensation. But the apology and
compensation did not apply to Newfoundland and Labrador -- even
for abuse after the province joined Confederation in 1949. And so,
Mr. Preston and several other indigenous Canadians went to court
to tell their stories of abuse suffered at several schools,
dormitories and orphanages, as part of a class-action lawsuit
against the Canadian government.

The case is a major challenge for the first aboriginal Justice
Minister in Canadian history, Jody Wilson-Raybould, and the new
Liberal government that inherited it. Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau has promised to implement all 94 recommendations of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission, one of which called on the
federal government in particular, as well as those who are suing
it, to settle all outstanding legal claims expeditiously, based on
agreed statements of facts.

The question is whether the Liberals will break with the past and
settle the claim, as Mr. Trudeau promised, or continue the
approach of previous governments.

Ottawa has taken the consistent position -- from the time the
Liberal government of Paul Martin first negotiated an agreement in
principle in 2005, until Conservative Prime Minister Stephen
Harper finalized it the following year -- that Newfoundland and
Labrador was different from the rest of the country, where schools
were a program of forced assimilation run as a partnership between
Ottawa and churches, beginning in the 1880s. Children were barred
from speaking aboriginal languages, and were subject to physical
and sexual abuse and neglect. The last school closed in 1996.

In Newfoundland, the government contends, aboriginals were not
isolated on reserves and were not forced by Ottawa to attend
residential schools, as they were in the rest of the country. Nor
did Ottawa operate or oversee schools and residences attended by
aboriginal children, sometimes alongside non-aboriginal children.
(The province created and ran some of the facilities in
Newfoundland and Labrador; churches and religious charities also
created and ran some institutions. A charity created St. Anthony's
orphanage under the auspices of the provincial welfare
department.)

And nor did Ottawa know about the abuse, federal justice
department lawyers say.

"If students were abused in these facilities, then the evidence
will not show Canada had (or should have reasonably have had)
knowledge of any allegations of such abuse," the government says
in a court filing.

On the same day Mr. Trudeau became prime minister, the court heard
details of that abuse from Mr. Preston and others. "I never had
anyone tell me they loved me until I was in my late 20s," he said,
after telling the court that staff made him take his urine-stained
bedsheets to the room where the children ate breakfast and refused
to let him eat.

Another, Nora Ford, 63, testified that she started at the Lockwood
School and Dormitory in Cartwright, Labrador, at age 6, and on the
first day her long black hair was chopped off and her scalp washed
with something that smelled like kerosene. She said she and others
were so hungry they would steal dirty root vegetables from the
cellar, and she developed a tapeworm. A third, Barry Allen, a
convicted murderer, testified from Dorchester Penitentiary in New
Brunswick, where he is serving a life sentence. He said a staff
member at Yale School and Dormitories in North West River,
Labrador, had molested him.

Lawyers involved in the class-action lawsuit say there are 1,000
to 2,000 former students in the group seeking damages. If they are
compensated in the same way as in the 2007 settlement, the cost
would be roughly $100-million. That 2007 settlement allotted $1.9-
billion to all students, simply for attending -- $10,000 plus
$3,000 for each year. It also authorized additional compensation
for physical and sexual abuse. All told, the cost of the 2007
settlement will be $4-billion to $5-billion, lawyers estimate.

Kirk Baert, a Toronto lawyer whose firm is one of three involved
in the class-action lawsuit in Newfoundland and Labrador, argues
the federal government had a direct role in overseeing the
facilities, and that even if it had no such role, Ottawa owed a
"duty of care" or protection to the indigenous children. He also
said he does not dispute that "a few" non-aboriginal children
attended the facilities, just as in residential schools in the
rest of the country.

"This was the policy of all of our governments at the time. It
doesn't make any sense to treat the victims differently because
the same policy was implemented by different levels of government
in different ways. [The children] suffered the same way."

Richard Preston's brother Robert, 58, who also testified, was
asked in an interview about being left out of the earlier
settlement: He said he has endured a lot in his life, "so this is
just another bump in the road." (He went to a public school but
said he suffered abuse at the St. Anthony orphanage where he went
to live around age 4, after his parents divorced.)

The 2007 settlement came in response to myriad class-action and
individual lawsuits around the country. Mr. Baert said part of the
reason for the settlement was to spare victims from having to
testify in court about the loss of their culture and their
physical and emotional suffering at residential schools.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Class Action Related to Eltroxin Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2015, that class action
proceedings related to Eltroxin have been stayed pending a
decision on a motion to appeal.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who
provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare
system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application. The
applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally
alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result,
claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a)
purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by
patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May
17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining
respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. Other
than requiring Perrigo to file its statement of defense to the
underlying proceedings, the underlying proceedings have been
stayed pending a decision on the motion to appeal.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Defending Tysabri(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc and collaborator Biogen Idec are co-defendants
in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of
Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, a serious brain
infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which
occurred in patients taking Tysabri(R), Perrigo said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 2, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 26,
2015.

Perrigo Company plc and Biogen Idec will each be responsible for
50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri(R) product
liability claims. While these lawsuits will be vigorously
defended, management cannot predict how these cases will be
resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could
result in substantial judgments against the Comapny.


PORSCHE: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Denied by Court Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reported that U.S.
District Court judge has denied Porsche's motion dismiss a class
action complaint brought by two owners who allege a "windshield
glare" visibility issue.

Porsche owners Roy Jones and Alyce Rubinfeld allege a "serious
safety defect-bright light reflecting from the unusual, beige-
colored dashboards can momentarily blind drivers, almost opaque
the windshield, and thereby severely impair the driver's ability
to see the road." They contend Porsche knew of the issue since
2011 and have filed a state class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

"In the opening paragraph of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
first amended complaint, Porsche attempts to minimize the
windshield glare, arguing it constitutes nothing more than
reflections or 'transparent images' and arguing that plaintiffs
seek to hold Porsche 'somehow responsible for the quality and
intensity of sunlight that reflects from the dashboards that they
chose. . . '" reads the court documents.

Porsche attorneys contend the alleged issue is "open and obvious
to consumers from their first encounter with a car," according to
court documents.

The owners contend that they were not aware of the alleged issue
before purchasing the vehicles, alleging it "only manifests under
certain conditions, for example, when the sun is at a certain
angle relative to the dashboard and windshield."

After hearing arguments from both sides, the judge ruled:
"Defendant's motion is denied."


RL VALLEE: Vermont Gas Wholesalers Try to Get Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan D'Ambrosio, writing for Burlington Free Press, reported that
the Vermont gas wholesalers accused of price-fixing in a class-
action lawsuit filed a motion to dismiss, which the law firms
representing the plaintiffs have urged the court to reject.

Michael Murphy of the Washington, D.C., office of Bailey Glasser,
one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, said gas wholesalers
are trying to short-circuit the process by "jumping to the end" of
the case.

"The question now is purely whether we made a case that has met
the threshold for pleading an antitrust case in Vermont," Murphy
said.

Attorney Tris Coffin, Esq. -- tcoffin@drm.com -- of Downs Rachlin
Martin PLLC in Burlington, representing gas wholesalers, said he
"can't really comment much" about the case.

"All I can tell you is in our view the case has no merit," Coffin
said.

The lawsuit, filed in June, alleges price-fixing to the tune of
more than $100 million in improper profits. Bailey Glasser LLP of
Washington, D.C., and The Burlington Law Practice PLLC filed the
antitrust case in Chittenden Superior Court in Burlington against
R.L. Vallee Inc., SB Collins Inc., Champlain Farms/Wesco Inc. and
Champlain Oil Co.

The six named plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege gas wholesalers
agreed to set their wholesale prices at nearly identical levels to
maintain illegally high retail prices in Chittenden and
surrounding counties. They allege the wholesalers agreed to
increase, decrease and maintain their prices at or near the same
time and by the same amount. They further allege motorists in
Chittenden and surrounding counties paid illegally inflated prices
for gas at the wholesalers' gas stations as well as stations the
wholesalers supplied.

"Put simply, the evidence does not support the possibility of
innocent, independent pricing decisions and instead points
directly to an extensive price-fixing scheme of long duration
perpetrated by the Defendants," the reply to the motion to dismiss
states.

In its motion to dismiss, R.L. Vallee argues, "While Plaintiffs
claim in conclusory, and cloak and dagger, fashion that Defendants
formed a cabal through 'secret meetings and conversations, often
at undisclosed, out-of-the-way locations' to conspire to fix
gasoline prices, Plaintiffs conspicuously fail to allege any facts
in the Complaint of these meeting and conversations -- no dates,
times, places, participants, discussions, or outcomes. That is
because those meetings and conversations never took place."

There have been multiple hearings and investigations into the high
cost of gas in Chittenden, Franklin and Grand Isle counties in
recent years, including a Federal Trade Commission study and a
congressional investigation by the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial, an unspecified amount of
restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and for treble
damages to be awarded as the law allows in such cases.

Tris Coffin said gas wholesalers have until Dec. 11 to file one
more brief regarding their motion to dismiss. It will then be in
the hands of Judge Helen Toor of Chittenden Superior Court to
decide whether to move forward with the case.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Defendant in "Samborsky" Case in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International is named a defendant in various
lawsuits alleging violations of federal and state laws regulating
wage and hour pay, including but not limited to the Samborsky
lawsuit, the Company 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.

"Charles Samborsky, et al, individually and on behalf of those
persons similarly situated, v. SCI California Funeral Services,
Inc., et al; Case No. BC544180; in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles, Central District-
Central Civil West Courthouse. This lawsuit was filed in April
2014 against an SCI subsidiary and purports to have been brought
on behalf of employees who worked as family service counselors in
California since April 2010. The plaintiffs allege causes of
action for various violations of state laws regulating wage and
hour pay. The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and
injunctive relief. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if
any, in this lawsuit."


SERVICE CORPORATION: "Moulton" Case to Continue Against Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International 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
Karen Moulton case will continue against the Company's subsidiary
Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans. This case was filed as a
class action in June 2013 against SCI and our subsidiary in
connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart Enterprises,
Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors
in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the
combination.

"We filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case will continue against our
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual
directors. We cannot quantify our ultimate liability, if any, for
the payment of damages," the Company said.


SOUTHGOBI RESOURCES: Court Issues Interim Rulings in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SouthGobi Resources Ltd. (TSX:SGQ)(HKSE:1878) (the "Company" or
"SouthGobi") announced the interim decision of the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") deciding two preliminary
motions in the Ontario class action (the "Action") claiming
damages under the Ontario Securities Act and at common law arising
out of the Company's restatement of financial statements as
previously disclosed in the Company's public filings (the
"Restatement").

On or about January 6, 2014, Siskinds LLP, a Canadian law firm,
filed the Action against the Company, certain of its former senior
officers and former and current directors, and its former
auditors, Deloitte LLP, in the Court in relation to the
Restatement.

To commence and proceed with the Action, the plaintiff was
required to bring preliminary motions to seek leave to commence
the Action under the Securities Act (the "Leave Motion") and to
certify the Action as a class proceeding (the "Certification
Motion"). The Court rendered its decision on the Leave Motion on
November 5, 2015.

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's Leave Motion as against each
of the former senior officers and former and current directors of
SouthGobi named in the Action on the basis that the "large volume
of compelling evidence" proved the defence of reasonable
investigation on the balance of probabilities and provided the
basis for dismissing the Leave Motion as against them.

The Court granted the preliminary Leave Motion against SouthGobi
on the basis that, at this stage, the plaintiff met the low legal
standard of "reasonable possibility of success." In granting
leave, however, the Court acknowledged the "... compelling
evidence of the defendant company ... that may prevail at trial
..." The Court refused an award of costs for both the Leave and
Certification Motions to the plaintiff.

The Company firmly believes that it has a strong defence on the
merits and will continue to vigorously defend itself against the
Action through independent Canadian litigation counsel retained by
the Company for this purpose.

For more details in respect of the class action lawsuit, refer to
the Company's Management Discussion and Analysis for the quarter
ended March 31, 2014 available on SEDAR at www.sedar.com, and, in
particular, the sub-section on "Contingencies -- Class Action
Lawsuit" of the "Regulatory Issues and Contingencies."

                       About SouthGobi

SouthGobi, listed on the Toronto and Hong Kong stock exchanges, is
focused on exploration and development of its metallurgical and
thermal coal deposits in Mongolia's South Gobi Region. It has a
100% shareholding in SouthGobi Sands LLC, a Mongolian registered
company that holds the mining and exploration licences in Mongolia
and operates the flagship Ovoot Tolgoi coal mine. Ovoot Tolgoi
produces and sells coal to customers in China.

CONTACT INFORMATION
SouthGobi Resources Ltd.
Investor Relations
Kino Fu
+852 2156 7030
kino.fu@southgobi.com
www.southgobi.com


SPOKEO INC: Argument on Viability of 'No-Injury' Suits Heard
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reported that whether a plaintiff who
alleges no injury may bring a lawsuit, including a class action,
based on a violation of statutory rights was the central issue
before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 2, 2015, when the Court
heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, et al., No. 13-
1339.

This case is of major importance to employers in light of the
increasing number of class actions brought under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) and other statutes. Indeed, a ruling in favor
of the defendant could substantially narrow the scope of
litigation under the FCRA and other statutes that permit the
recovery of statutory damages for "bare" violations of statutory
rights. Such a ruling also could make class certification more
difficult to obtain.

Facts of Case

Spokeo, Inc. is an internet "people search" service. It compiles
information about individuals from data on the World Wide Web and
offers options for obtaining that information, including certain
basic information available for free on its website and more
complete and detailed information sold in reports. Spokeo's
information contains written disclaimers to the effect that the
company does not verify or evaluate each piece of data and makes
no guarantees about any of the information offered. Spokeo also
informs its users that none of the information offered by Spokeo
is to be used to determine any person's "eligibility for credit,
insurance, employment, or for any other purposes covered under
FCRA."

In 2010, Thomas Robins brought a class action under FCRA against
Spokeo. Robins alleged that Spokeo's website contained inaccurate
personal information about him. The Spokeo site reported that
Robins had a graduate degree, that he was employed in a
professional or technical field, that his "economic health" was
"very strong" and his wealth level was in the "Top 10%," and that
he was a married man in his 50s with children. In fact, Robins had
no graduate degree, was out of work and seeking employment, was
not in his 50s, and was unmarried and had no children.

The complaint alleged that Spokeo violated the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec
1681e(2), by failing to follow reasonable procedures to "assure
maximum possible accuracy" of the reports it prepared. The FCRA
provides for the recovery of actual damages sustained and, where
the violation is "willful," for "statutory damages" of not less
than $100 and not more than $1,000. Robins alleged that Spokeo's
violations were willful and sought an award of statutory damages
for himself and members of the class, along with attorneys' fees
and punitive damages.

Spokeo, however, contended that it was not a consumer reporting
agency within the meaning of the FCRA and, therefore, was not
subject to the FCRA requirements alleged in the complaint. Spokeo
also moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that Robins had
not alleged any concrete injury to himself apart from the alleged
violation of statutory rights created by the FCRA. Spokeo argued
that Robins's failure to allege such "injury in fact" meant that
Robins lacked standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution
to bring the lawsuit.

The federal district court granted Spokeo's motion to dismiss,
ruling that a mere violation of the FCRA does not confer Article
III standing where no injury is present. On appeal, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding "the violation of a
statutory right is usually a sufficient injury in fact to confer
standing," even without any other alleged injury.

The Supreme Court agreed to review the case on the following
question: "Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a
plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could
not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by
authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of
a federal statute."

The Argument

The parties and the Supreme Court Justices appeared to agree on
the legal standard that, to establish standing to sue under
Article III, a plaintiff must allege and prove an injury that is
"concrete and particularized." They also appeared to agree that
Robins's alleged injury was sufficiently "particularized," since
the false information was about him. However, there was a sharp
disagreement about whether Robins had alleged a sufficiently
"concrete" injury to give him standing to sue.

Counsel for Spokeo argued that Article III "injury in fact"
requires actual or imminent "tangible" harm, not simply a
statutory violation that has no tangible consequences. Counsel was
confronted with numerous questions from four of the Justices, led
by Justice Elena Kagan, that made the point that Robins had
suffered a concrete injury by virtue of having false information
published about him. Counsel responded that making false
statements or disseminating inaccurate information did not equate
to an actual injury. In response to Justice Samuel Alito's
question about "how much more" Robins would have to allege or
prove to show injury in fact, Spokeo's counsel said that Robins
would have to show an actual "consequence to him from the false
information." This led Justice Kagan to point out that such proof
could be very hard to get and that loss of credit or employment
could be "the quintessential kind of injury you will never be able
to detect and surely not to prove."

Counsel for Robins and counsel for the United States, as a friend-
of-the-court, argued that a violation of any legally protected
interest -- in this case, the right of a person not to have false
information circulated about him -- was sufficient to constitute
injury in fact. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin
Scalia took issue with this in a series of hypothetical questions.
One hypothetical posed by the Chief Justice involved a person with
an unlisted telephone number who did not want his number
disclosed. If Spokeo were to publish the person's unlisted number,
but get it wrong, would that be an instance in which the
publishing of false information caused no harm, Roberts asked.
Counsel for Robins answered that the person would nevertheless
have standing.

Two other issues arose during the oral argument that could have
far reaching effects, if the Court reaches them in its decision:
(1) whether, through statutory interpretation of the FCRA, the
availability of statutory damages for violations of the FCRA's
many procedural requirements will be scaled back; and
(2) whether the decision will affect class certification.

As counsel for Spokeo argued, the FCRA contains many technical
procedural requirements, the violation of which can lead to the
imposition of statutory damages. Two Justices noted that the
Supreme Court has held that a violation of a procedural right does
not by itself suffice to give standing. Justice Kagan responded
that there is standing to sue for violations of procedural
requirements if those procedures are directed to the protection of
a concrete interest of a particular person, in this case, to the
interest in having accurate information in consumer reports.
Justice Scalia used the example of the FCRA's requirement that a
consumer report had to include a toll-free 800 number as an
example of a provision that allowed anyone to sue for its
violation, even if there was no inaccuracy in the underlying
information. Counsel for Spokeo proposed an interpretation of the
FCRA that would require a plaintiff to prove tangible harm, but
allow statutory damages to be awarded in recognition that
quantifying that harm in monetary terms would be difficult. This
interpretation of the FCRA has been largely rejected by the lower
courts, which have approved statutory damages without the
allegation or proof of any tangible harm. If this interpretation
of the FCRA were adopted by the Court in Spokeo, the effect on
FCRA litigation would be far reaching.

The ultimate decision in Spokeo also could affect class
certification in FCRA cases. A majority of the Justices appeared
to agree that a bare violation of the "reasonable procedures"
provision of Section 1681e, absent at least proof of the falsity
of the information reported, did not give standing. Accordingly,
Justice Kagan stated to counsel for Robins that "the class as
you've defined it is not going to be certified, and I think that
that's the right answer." Counsel for Robins admitted that class
certification would require common proof, such as the use by
Spokeo of the same algorithm that led to the inaccuracies among
all class members. Counsel for Spokeo described the issue when he
stated that if FCRA liability could be established based on a bare
statutory violation, "it's a pretty clear pathway to class
certification -- and that's what has happened in case after case."
However, if falsity or what might be called "falsity plus injury"
is required, class certification would be more difficult in many
cases because individualized issues could predominate over common
issues.

Conclusion

There are enough "moving parts" to make the outcome of Spokeo
difficult to predict. Moreover, because much of the oral argument
addressed issues that the Ninth Circuit opinion had not reached,
the majority opinion in Spokeo (if there is one) could be narrow
or sweeping. However, even a narrow decision likely will be
significant, and is awaited with great interest.


STARZ: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Starz ("Starz" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: STRZA, STRZB) during the period between August 1, 2014
and October 29, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On October 29, 2015, online magazine Deadline Hollywood revealed
that a lawsuit had been filed against Starz, CEO Christopher
Albrecht, CRO Michael Thornton and Liberty Media by Keno Thomas,
the Company's former Senior Vice President of Sales and Affiliate
Marketing.  Among other things, the lawsuit alleged that the
defendants retaliated against Mr. Thomas for whistleblowing with
regard to the Company's affiliate carriage deals with Comcast and
DirecTV and for refusing to participate in illegal behavior.
Specifically, Thomas claims to have been "ordered by Starz senior
management, at the behest of Mr. Thornton, to fabricate revenue
and subscriber information so that Mr. Thornton and Mr. Albrecht
could present those falsified figures to Starz' Board of
Directors[.]"

Following this news, shares of STRZA fell $3.69, or 9%, and STRZB
fell $4.98 or over 13% on October 30, 2015.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Starz you have until January 8, 2016 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.

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


STARZ: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the securities of Starz between August 1, 2014 through
October 29, 2015 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its officers (the "Complaint").

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 8, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Expects to Make $42 Million Settlement Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare 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 expects to make the $42 million settlement payment in the
antitrust class action lawsuits filed by registered nurses in
Detroit.

On September 15, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of a
settlement between the parties in Cason-Merenda, et al. v. VHS of
Michigan, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Medical Center, et al., which was
filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan. In that matter, a certified class composed
of the registered nurses (exclusive of supervisory, managerial and
advanced practical nurses) employed by eight unaffiliated Detroit-
area hospital systems allege those hospital systems, including
Detroit Medical Center ("DMC"), violated Section Sec.1 of the
federal Sherman Act by exchanging compensation-related information
among themselves in a manner that reduced competition and
suppressed the wages paid to such nurses. A subsidiary of Vanguard
acquired DMC in January 2011, and we acquired Vanguard in October
2013. All of the defendant hospital systems other than DMC settled
prior to the Company's acquisition of Vanguard.

"We expect to make the $42 million settlement payment, which was
fully reserved at September 30, 2015, in the three months ending
March 31, 2016," the Company said.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Court Re-opened Discovery in "Maderazo" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare 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 case,
Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, had been stayed
since 2008; however, in July 2015, the court lifted the stay and
re-opened discovery.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section Sec.1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to
trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case had been stayed since 2008; however, in July 2015, the
court lifted the stay and re-opened discovery.

"Because these proceedings are at an early stage, it is impossible
at this time to predict their outcome with any certainty; however,
we believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will not
have a material effect on our business, financial condition or
results of operations. We will continue to seek to defeat class
certification and vigorously defend ourselves against the
plaintiffs' allegations," the Company said.


VIMPELCOM LTD: Howard Law Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
investors in VimpelCom Ltd. ("VimpelCom" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:VIP) between June 30, 2011 and November 2, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until January 4, 2016 to file
a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder
lawsuit.

VimpelCom provides telecommunications services under various brand
names in Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Algeria,
Bangladesh, and Pakistan. On March 12, 2014, the Company announced
that it was facing investigations by both the SEC and Dutch
authorities related to its operations in Uzbekistan. Then, on
March 18, 2014, the Company disclosed that the U.S. Department of
Justice had initiated an investigation into VimpelCom's operations
in Uzbekistan. And, in August 2015, U.S. authorities allegedly
requested that roughly $1 billion in VimpelCom assets be seized in
a wide-ranging criminal probe of alleged corruption by the Company
and two other companies, Mobile TeleSystems PJSC and TeliaSonera
AB, for paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to secure
wireless spectrum in Uzbekistan. Finally, on November 3, 2015, the
Company announced that it had set aside $900 million in litigation
costs to deal with the U.S. and European investigations into its
Uzbekistan operations. VimpelCom investors have suffered greatly
by the sharp decline in the Company's share price following these
various disclosures.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) that the Company's business practices were in violation
of applicable laws; and, (2) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the Company's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased shares of VimpelCom during the Class Period, 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, contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-
4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Howard G. Smith, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Werner Enterprises, 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 court has
denied the Company's motion for summary judgment and granted the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a Nebraska class
action.

"We are involved in class action litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska, alleging that we owe drivers
for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act and failed to pay minimum
wage per hour for drivers in our student driver training program,
related to short break time and sleeper berth time," the Company
said.

"The period covered by this class action suit dates back to 2008
through March 2014. In August 2015, the court denied our motion
for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment, ruling in plaintiff's favor on both theories of
liability (short breaks and sleeper berth time)."

"As a result, we accrued $2.0 million during third quarter 2015
related to the short break matter. Based on the knowledge of the
facts related to the sleeper berth matter, management does not
currently believe a loss is probable, thus we have not accrued for
the sleeper berth matter. We are currently unable to determine the
possible loss or range of loss. We intend to vigorously defend the
merits of these claims and to appeal any adverse verdict in this
case."


* Law Firm Loathed by Tech Expands to Industry's Home Turf
----------------------------------------------------------
Conor Dougherty, writing for The New York Times, reported that
Edelson PC is a class action law firm that specializes in suing
tech companies for alleged privacy violations. The firm has sued
pretty much every big tech firm you've heard of -- Google,
Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix -- so Silicon Valley hates them.

And now they can hate them a little more. Edelson announced it was
opening an office in San Francisco, the firm's first office
outside its Chicago headquarters. It is a natural expansion since
many of their cases are litigated in the Bay Area.

Edelson and its founder, Jay Edelson, were profiled in The New
York Times in April. Some of the firm's recent cases include a
suit that alleges Twitter is snooping on direct messages between
users. Another, detailed in The New York Times story, claims
Facebook has "secretly amassed the world's largest privately held
database of consumer biometrics data."

Rafey Balabanian, Edelson's head of litigation, will run the San
Francisco office. Mr. Balabanian has led privacy cases against
several Bay Area companies, including Netflix, LinkedIn, Twitter
and Facebook.

"We look forward to sharing a home with the tech companies that
have such a profound impact on our daily lives," said Mr.
Balabanian in a press release announcing the move. "We hope that
our presence alone will serve as an important reminder that
Silicon Valley's entrepreneurial spirit should not give way to
consumers' rights."

It's a good bet that exactly zero technology firms feel the same
way. Mr. Balabanian admitted as much in the interview, noting that
there was "a bit of sarcasm" in his canned press release comments.

"It's like, I'm sure they're pumped to have us out here," he said.

Mr. Balabanian is bringing along two other attorneys from the
firm's Chicago office, and in an interview he said he would like
the office to have eight lawyers by next summer.

Edelson will face a major test next year. Early in November the
firm argued one of its highest profile cases, against a people
searching service called Spokeo, in front of the Supreme Court.
Edelson's suit alleges that Spokeo violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by posting false information about consumers.

The case is being closely watched by tech giants -- Google and
others have filed amicus briefs in support of Spokeo -- because it
deals with the issue of "standing," a technical legal argument in
which a defendant more or less says they can't be sued for
violating the law if nobody lost money or got hurt.

That defense is tech firms' go-to weapon in privacy cases, where
it is hard to show how people are injured when companies look in
on their emails or other data, usually for the purpose of selling
ads. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision will play a huge role in
determining how much larger Edelson's firm -- and, by extension,
the growing class action privacy industry -- can get.


* Westchester Country May Hire Firm for Online Booking Tax Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Barg, writing for White Plains Daily Voice, reported that
Westchester County is considering separate legal action against
travel websites that were allegedly underpaying taxes to local
governments, according to lohud.com.

A similar class-action suit was filed in 2013 by 50 municipalities
across the state but was reversed after a court ruled that a
provision in Nassau County's tax law disqualified the suit from
class-action status.

The suit would allege that certain booking sites have been paying
a discounted rate in taxes after marking up the price of rooms
sold to the public, lohud reported.

Westchester County charges a 3 percent tax on all hotel bookings.


                            *********

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  * * *