CAR_Public/151215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 249


                            Headlines


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: "Colyer" Dismissed with Leave to Amend
ADULT OCCUPATIONAL: Gravenhurst Mother Joins Abuse Class Action
ALOHA STADIUM: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Soccer Game
ASCENSION PARISH: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment
BEST BUY: "Nunez" Suit Alleges Misleading Representation

BLUE BUFFALO: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
BNP PARIBAS: Has $1.86-Bil. Settlement of Antitrust Case
BOSS SERVICES: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA: Local Sues Over Drug Addiction Treatment
CALIFORNIA: Highschoolers Win Class Suit Over "Fake" Classes

CERNER CORP: Gives Arbitration Ultimatum to Employees
CHARMING CHARLIE: Settlement in Privacy Suit Wins Final Approval
CHICAGO, IL: Camera Light Program Constitutional, Judge Rules
COMCAST: Antitrust Class Suit Sent Back to Drawing Board
CONRAD INDUSTRIES: "Virgen" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action

CYTRX CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Action
DELTA PETROLEUM: Feb. 19 Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement
DOLE FOOD: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Lizardo" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
EASY PC: State Farm Has No Duty to Cover TCPA Class Action

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT: Montana Affirms Class Cert. in Insurance Suit
EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Faxes
EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: "Deledonne" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Face Tagging Class Action
FANDUEL: Nashville Resident Files Class Suit

GALENA: Settles Two Insider Trading Class Actions for $20 Million
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations
GNC HOLDINGS: Dec. 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
GROUPON: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $8.5 Million
HAIN CELESTIAL: Has $7.5MM Settlement in False Labeling Suit

HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Minn.
KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Court Explains Rule on "Picking Off" Plaintiffs
KOL BARAMA: Supreme Court Approves Discrimination Class Action
LITTLE KIDS: Faces Class Action Over Spilling "Bubblin' Buckets"
LSB INDUSTRIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit

MAPLEBEAR INC: Grocery Couriers Must Arbitrate Class Claims
MERCURY PAYMENT: Class Status Sought in Card Processing Fee Suit
MINNESOTA: Sued Over Integration Plan for Twin Cities Metro
NASHVILLE, TN: Criminal Expungement Under Fire for Potential Cost
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Pedersen" Gender Bias Case Tossed

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-State Player Challenges Transfer Rule
NII HOLDINGS: Labaton Sucharow, Kessler Topaz Named Class Counsel
NSW AMBULANCE: Central Coast Paramedics to Join Abuse Class Action
PAGEDALE, MO: Turning Residents Into Revenue Stream, Suit Says
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Eastman" First Amended Complaint Tossed

RESERVE MANAGEMENT: March 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Suit
SEVENTH GENERATION: Court Drops MMWA Claim in "Tsan" Class Suit
SIENTRA INC: Vincent Wong Law Files Securities Class Suit
SPECTRUM PHARMA: Jan. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

SUNTECH POWER: Feb. 11 Fairness Hearing on $5MM Class Settlement
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Suit
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: Feb. 4 Fairness Hearing on $14MM Deal
TOYOTA MOTOR: Cal. Judge Wants "Cahen" Hacking Suit Revised

UBER: California Judge Sets Trial Date in Drivers' Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Expands California Drivers' Class Action
UNITED KINGDOM: Gov't Sued Over Women Who've Lost Out on Pensions
VALE SA: February 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
VALEANT PHARMA: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit

VIMPELCOM LTD: Bribery Investigations Spark Telenor Review
VIMPELCOM LTD: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Maurice Blackburn to Widen Emissions Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Porsche, Audi Owners Can Join Diesel Class Suit
ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Website Established for Net Winners

* Codacon Urges Duped Olive Oil Consumers to Seek Compensation
* Rule 23 Subcommittee to Tackle Two Pending Settlement Issues
* Smaller Companies Must Prepare for Class Action Threats
* Supreme Court to Tackle Class Actions with Major Implications





                            *********


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: "Colyer" Dismissed with Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend in the captioned case RICK L. COLYER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No.:  14-CV-04416-LHK, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Rick Colyer and Harry Zweifel bring this action against
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richard A. King, Timothy E. Morris,
James H. Welch, and Pamela P. Palmer.

In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
comprised of all persons "who purchased or otherwise acquired
AcelRx's common stock and/or call options, or sold/wrote AcelRx's
put options between September 30, 2013 the day that AcelRx
submitted the NDA for Zalviso and July 25, 2014 the day that
AcelRx received the CRL for Zalviso."

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made "materially false and/or
misleading" statements in various press releases and SEC filings
during this class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants failed to disclose "a substantial and existing defect
with the Phase 3 Device that caused the device to malfunction" --
the optical system errors.  Further, Plaintiffs allege that these
optical system errors occurred at a sufficiently high rate such
"that the issue would certainly [have] draw[n] attention from the
FDA" and would have "very likely . . . require[d] the company to
conduct" additional trials for Zalviso.

Plaintiffs note that AcelRx had also designed a modified device in
an attempt to address these errors, but that AcelRx had failed to
disclose this fact in AcelRx's press releases or public filings
during the class period. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the
individual Defendants (Palmer, King, Morris, and Welch) are
controlling persons of AcelRx and are therefore liable under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

In her Order dated November 25, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1YROTXrfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Should
Plaintiffs elect to file an amended complaint curing the
deficiencies identified herein, Plaintiffs shall do so within 30
days of the date of this Order. Failure to meet the 30 day
deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the
deficiencies identified in this Order will result in a dismissal
with prejudice. Plaintiffs may not add new causes of actions or
parties without leave of the Court or stipulation of the parties
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

The Court said Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. The amended complaint fails to plead facts
sufficient to show that Defendants committed a material
misrepresentation or omission or that Defendants acted with
scienter.  The Court fails to see how these opportunities support
an inference of scienter. All that Plaintiffs have managed to
describe are common business practices that virtually all
companies undertake. More importantly, Defendants' alleged actions
are again entirely consistent with Defendants' own narrative:
Defendants sought financing in order to help take a core product
to market and Defendants sought partners in order to help
distribute this product.

The Court also finds that financing and partnership opportunities
do not give rise to a strong inference of scienter. Defendants
either believed Zalviso would be rejected or believed that Zalviso
would be approved by the FDA. Under the former scenario,
Defendants could not have been motivated by a first mover
advantage. Under the latter scenario, Defendants' genuine belief
in Zalviso's approval undermines an inference that Defendants made
false or misleading public statements either with intent or with
deliberate recklessness. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have
failed to sufficiently allege that Defendants made false or
misleading statements or Defendants acted with intent or with
deliberate recklessness in making any such statements.

Evan Jason Smith, Esq. -- esmith@brodsky-smith.com of Brodsky &
Smith LLC and Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. --
nprongay@glancylaw.com of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Adam Zhamukhanov

Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Esq. -- jkaban@cooley.com -- Jeffrey
Michael Walker, Esq. -- jwalker@cooley.com -- John C. Dwyer, Esq.
-- jdwyer@cooley.com -- Koji Francis Fukumura, Esq. --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- and Michelle T Ton, Esq. --
mton@cooley.com of Cooley LLP serve as counsel for Defendant
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


ADULT OCCUPATIONAL: Gravenhurst Mother Joins Abuse Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Cooper, writing for Gravenhurst Banner, reports that a
Gravenhurst mother is joining the fight to seek compensation for
her adult daughter, who she claims was abused at a provincially
operated residential facility in the mid-1990s.

The daughter has been described as funny with a good sense of
humor, a love for small animals and a smile that could make anyone
beam right back.

These more recent days are not always filled with happiness,
according to her mother, who lives in Gravenhurst.  The daughter,
now in her early 40s, still experiences flashbacks from the trauma
she suffered while living at the Adult Occupational Centre in
Edgar, located south of Barrie, according to her mother.

The centre is one of the institutions identified in a recent
multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit.

The suit involves 12 former provincially run residential
facilities for people with developmental disabilities, including
the former Muskoka Regional Centre in Gravenhurst.

"My daughter has mental health issues as well as being
developmentally disabled . . . she is considered mosaic downs,"
her mother said, adding the woman has the mental ability of a
10- to 12-year-old girl.

The allegations have not been proven in court and a proposed
$35.9-million settlement was reached between the province and the
firm representing the plaintiffs.  The courts could approve the
deal this coming spring and after that, claimants can submit
applications to an adjudicator for possible compensation up to
$42,000 for former residents who suffered harm while living at the
residential facilities across the province.

The mother has asked that her and her daughter's names not be used
for fear that if they were to receive any money from the
settlement, other relatives may seek a portion of the
compensation.

In the case of the Edgar Centre, the suit identifies a timeframe
of between Jan. 1, 1966 and March 31, 1999 as the period when the
alleged incidents occurred.  The mother said her daughter stayed
at the centre for two years in the mid-1990s.

A spokesperson from the Ministry of the Attorney General stated in
an email sent to this newspaper on Dec. 7 regarding the
allegations made by the mother, "In light of the settlement, and
the anticipated claims process, it would not be appropriate for
the ministry to comment on any specific allegations."

The mother claimed her daughter had been abused while under the
institution's care, not by one of the staff, but by a man she met
there as a resident and wanted to marry . . . a man who had a
criminal background the family had not been told about.

"When I found she wanted to get married  . . . he gave her the
ring and the whole nine yards . . .  when I was told about Edgar I
was not told about the people in there . . . it wasn't until I
took him out to lunch (she found out about his background) . . .
then I told him hell would freeze over before I allowed him to
marry her," she said.

Not long after this incident, the mother said the man abused her
daughter, leaving the girl, in her words "bruised and scared to
death."

The mother called centre officials about the matter and she said
did not receive what she felt was an adequate explanation.

The mother removed her daughter in 1994 and brought her home to
live with her at her then-home in the Penetang region.  But the
memories of what happened to her at the centre haunted the
daughter and, coupled with her mental illness, the situation
turned into a difficult transition for the daughter, her family
and her caregivers.

"She was in Community Living there but they could not cope with
her condition," her mother said.  "She just kept getting sicker
and sicker.  It ended up she went into the hospital . . . now she
has developed schizophrenia."

The daughter has been living in Newmarket at a group home for more
than 10 years now and is doing better, although her mother said
she still has some ongoing issues as a result of her experiences
at the centre.

The mother said she would be putting a claim to the class-action
suit adjudicator on behalf of her daughter, adding the money would
be used to get her daughter more help for her issues.

"I will, because of everything she has suffered there, all the way
through the bloody system," she said.


ALOHA STADIUM: Faces Class Action Over Canceled Soccer Game
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that lawyers in Hawaii filed a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of fans who couldn't go to a canceled
U.S. women's soccer team game.

Fans flew to Oahu from the mainland and neighbor islands to watch
the exhibition game that was abruptly canceled, said Brandee
Faria, managing member at law firm Perkin & Faria.  One plaintiff
from Los Angeles spent $1,000 on airfare, hotel and parking
expenses, she said.

"There's a lot of people, both from outer islands and from the
mainland, that traveled here specifically for that," Ms. Faria
said.

Game tickets are being refunded to the 16,000 fans who planned to
go, but other expenses are not being refunded.  The suit seeks to
recover that money from the U.S. Soccer Federation and the Aloha
Stadium Authority.

"The Stadium Authority was responsible for providing a first class
regulation soccer field," Ms. Faria said.  "On the other hand the
U.S. Soccer Federation was responsible for making sure that that
venue was appropriate for players."

Neither fulfilled those responsibilities, she said.

Lois Manin, deputy manager at the Aloha Stadium Authority,
declined to comment and Neil Buethe, a spokesman from the Soccer
Federation didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

The United States was scheduled to pay Trinidad and Tobago in
Hawaii as part of a 10-game exhibition tour celebrating the
American victory in the Women's World Cup last summer.

The fact that the match fell apart over field conditions speaks to
the unequal treatment of the women's soccer team, Ms. Faria said,
because the stadium and Soccer Federation could have done more to
save the game.

"They have the ability to take a field that is otherwise unsafe
and either turf it or put in natural grass . . . but they didn't
even fix it," Ms. Faria said.

An attorney from the U.S Soccer Federation had written a letter to
Aloha Stadium saying it defaulted on its agreement with the soccer
team, calling the stadium field "unfit, unsafe and unplayable."
Stadium officials have said they had no prior issues with turf
safety.

The class-action suit was filed in Hawaii state court on Dec. 8.


ASCENSION PARISH: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case captioned, DARRIN KENNY LEWIS, SR.,
individually and as natural tutor of his minor child B; OSCAR
VARNADO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-30030 (5th Cir.), Circuit Judge
Edward C. Prado of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit, affirmed the summary judgment issued in favor of
Defendant-Appellee Ascension Parish School Board, holding that
material fact issues surrounded the discriminatory purpose and
effect of the Board's adoption of a redistricting plan that
concentrated economically disadvantaged students in a majority-
nonwhite school district.

Lewis sued under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, asserting violations of his
children's Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection. He
essentially raised two challenges to Option 2f: first, he alleged
that the Board adopted Option 2f "to ensure that East Ascension
High School [and its feeder schools] would maintain a
disproportionately large non-white minority population, leaving
the remaining two East Bank schools as predominantly white; and
second, he alleged that because Option 2f placed a
disproportionate number of at-risk students in the East Ascension
feeder zone, "Option 2f 'would ensure that the nonwhite minority
students at East Ascension High School and in its feeder system
would not, now and in the future, be afforded educational
opportunities equal to those available to the students at either
Dutchtown High School or St. Amant High School.

The Board removed the action to federal court and successfully
moved for summary judgment.  The district court found Option 2f
facially race neutral and concluded that Lewis had not presented
competent evidence of both discriminatory intent and
discriminatory effect so as to invoke strict scrutiny.

On appeal, Lewis argued that the district court erroneously failed
to consider his racial balancing and de jure segregation
arguments.

In his Order dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/wpuScyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Prado, writing for the
Fifth Circuit, found no error in the district court's ruling that
Option 2f contains no explicit racial classifications. Lewis
provides no basis for the Court to conclude that the district
court's factual finding that Option 2f is facially race neutral
and assigns students to schools on the sole basis of geography is
clearly erroneous.


BEST BUY: "Nunez" Suit Alleges Misleading Representation
--------------------------------------------------------
Randy Nunez, and all others similarly-situated v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03965 (D. Minn., October 29, 2015), seeks
to remedy the Defendant's false and misleading representation of
"original" or "regular" prices, purported "sale" prices, and
corresponding phantom markdowns on merchandise sold in its retail
stores.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant advertised, marketed, and
sold merchandise while falsely representing former
"original" or "regular" prices and with corresponding false price
discounts for such merchandise sold throughout its retail stores.

The Defendant distributes and sells products, services, and
solutions focused on technology to hundreds of thousands of
consumers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200,
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

          - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 756-6994
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

          - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 253-6307

          - and -

      E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
      Tel: (205) 908-4906
      Fax: (866) 747-3905
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net


BLUE BUFFALO: Enters Into Class Action Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc. on Dec. 10 disclosed that its
subsidiary Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. has entered into a
settlement agreement in the class action lawsuits brought on
behalf of consumers and consolidated in the Multi-District
Litigation pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim, among other things, that
certain Blue Buffalo products were not consistent with the "True
Blue Promise."  Blue Buffalo denies any wrongdoing, and has agreed
to this settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and
expense of further litigation.

Under the terms of the agreement, Blue Buffalo will pay $32
million into a settlement fund to settle the claims of the
plaintiff class.  Any attorneys' fees awarded by the court and all
costs of notice and claims administration will be paid from the
settlement fund.  The amount that each class member who submits a
claim for reimbursement will receive will depend on the total
amount of Blue Buffalo products purchased by the claimant during
the class period and certain other conditions.

"More than a year ago, we informed our Pet Parents about the
misconduct of a former ingredient supplier and a broker.  While we
will continue to pursue our claims against them, we decided that
it is in the best interest of our Pet Parents and our company to
resolve the class actions now.  All of us at Blue Buffalo continue
to work tirelessly to make pet food with the finest natural
ingredients for our furry family members," said Bill Bishop,
Chairman and Founder of Blue Buffalo.

The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary and final
approval by the court.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company expects to
record a pre-tax charge of $32 million ($20 million after tax)
which will be recorded as a discrete item in SG&A in the fourth
quarter of 2015.  The Company intends to pay for the settlement
with cash on hand.  Any recovery from third parties and insurance
related to this settlement would be recorded when realized.


BNP PARIBAS: Has $1.86-Bil. Settlement of Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rothman, writing for Class Action recovery For Mutual Funds,
reported that recently, class plaintiffs moved for the preliminary
approval of a $1.865 billion settlement of the Credit Default Swap
Antitrust Litigation.  In this case the plaintiffs alleged that,
in and around 2008 and 2009, a number of financial institutions
conspired to prevent new entrants from successfully introducing
exchange trading venues and electronic platforms that would have
increased competition and transparency in the credit default swap
("CDS") market.  The case is part of growing list of antitrust
actions against financial institutions where mutual funds and
other institutional investors are potential class members.  Others
include the previously filed LIBOR class action, and the ongoing
litigation involving the market for U.S. Treasuries, the Foreign
Exchange market and the precious metals markets.  Because these
cases differ from settlements arising from alleged violations of
the securities laws, and provide additional avenues to recover
assets, institutional investors should closely monitor the
developments in this area.

The proposed settlement class in the CDS case includes "[a]ll
Persons who, during the period of January 1, 2008 through
September 25, 2015, purchased CDS from or sold CDS to the Dealer
Defendants, a Released Party, or any purported co-conspirator, in
any Covered Transaction."  The settlement defines "CDS" to include
"any and all types of credit default swap(s) and CDS-based
products, including, without limitation, single-name CDS, CDS on
corporate, sovereign and municipal reference entities, tranche
CDS, basket CDS, index CDS, and CDS futures."  Under the
settlement agreements , a purchase or sale of CDS shall be deemed
to be a "Covered Transaction" in each of the following
circumstances: (i) if the purchase or sale was by or on behalf of
a Person either domiciled or located (e.g., had a principal place
of business) in the United States or its territories at the time
of such purchase or sale; (ii) if the Person was domiciled and
located outside the United States and its territories at the time
of any such purchase or sale, where such purchase or sale was in
United States commerce; or (iii) where such purchase or sale
otherwise falls within the scope of the U.S. antitrust laws.  The
"Dealer Defendants" include BNP Paribas, Bank Of America
Corporation, Bank of America, N. A., Barclays Bank PLC, Citibank,
N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Credit
Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Bank PLC,
HSBC Bank USA N.A., JP Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A., Morgan Stanley & Co. L.L.C., Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.,
Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, UBS AG, and  UBS Securities LLC.

One important way that the recovery process for antitrust
settlements can differ from securities law settlements is in how
settlement proceeds are distributed.  While it appears based on
the preliminary notice that potential settlement class members
will have to file a proof of claim form in the CDS settlement, in
other antitrust settlements (such as the some of the settlements
arising from the Foreign Exchange litigation), class members did
not file claim forms because the defendants' records were a
sufficient basis for allocating the settlement funds.  In those
cases, institutions could receive checks without any direction as
to how the funds should be allocated.  Our Institutional Investor
Class Action Recovery Practice monitors all of these cases, and we
make sure that our clients know how to properly file claims and
when to expect recoveries.


BOSS SERVICES: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------
Alba Patricia Martinez Torres, Claudia Leticia Banegas Henriquez,
and all others similarly-situated v. Boss Services, LLC, Tammy
Boss, and Randall Boss, Case No. 4:15-cv-00174 (E.D.N.C., October
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for allegedly
misclassifying Plaintiffs to avoid paying wages mandated by
federal and state law in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a cleaning company that does
residential and commercial pressure washing and interior cleaning,
specializing in new construction homes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Pedro Krompecher, Esq.
      KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      4010 Barrett Drive #203
      Raleigh, NC 27609
      Tel: (919) 977-8082
      E-mail: pedro@krompecherlaw.com

          - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA, CA: Local Sues Over Drug Addiction Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roshini Nair, writing for CKNW.com, reported that a recovering
addict has taken the first steps in launching a class action
against the government of BC for charging fees for a methadone
treatment program.

Laura Shaver, a heroin addict on social assistance, signed up to
be part of a methadone treatment program.

But before she began, she says she was forced to sign a fee
agreement.

In a lawsuit, Shaver alleges the fee agreement  which
automatically deducts around $20 a month from her welfare cheques
is unfair.

Shaver says her addiction treatment is medically necessary and
that the province doesn't make those on welfare pay fees for other
medical services.

None of the allegations have been proven in court, nor has the
suit been officially deemed a class action.


CALIFORNIA: Highschoolers Win Class Suit Over "Fake" Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Trinh, writing for laist.com, reported that high school
students from Los Angeles to Oakland have won a class-action
settlement over being forced to take "fake" classes where some say
they did grunt work like take out the trash or sat around in
cafeterias and learned nothing.

Mark Rosenbaum, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs and director
of Public Counsel Opportunity Under Law, said that students had
been enrolled in classes with no academic content, according to
the L.A. Times. He said that during these "sham periods," students
would be doing things like taking out the garbage, making coffee,
watering plants and sorting faculty mail. Some had bogus "home
courses" where students got to leave school and go home before
noon, Rosenbaum said. The suit also claimed that schools in the
lawsuit purposely kept students from taking the courses they
needed to graduate, according to KCAL 9.

One of the students named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Jessy
Cruz, a senior at John C. Fremont High in Los Angeles, said that
he had to take three courses that didn't have any instructional
merit, leading to the fact that he didn't have enough credits to
graduate, the Press Telegram reports.

The class action lawsuit, Cruz v. State of California, involved
six schools that were located in low-income areas heavily
populated with minorities: John C. Fremont High, Thomas B.
Jefferson High School and Susan Miller Dorsey High School in the
Los Angeles Unified School District; Compton High School in the
Compton Unified School District; and Castlemont High School and
Fremont High School in the Oakland Unified School District.

It was filed by Public Counsel with the help of the ACLU of
Southern California on behalf of the students in May 2014 in the
Alameda County Superior Court, and the state Board of Education
voted to approve a settlement. The settlement would make major
changes so that students would be getting the education they need.
State education officials would be required over the next two
years to help schools with major scheduling issues or when there
were a large number of students being assigned to these bogus
classes; change the student information system to flag incidents
whenever schools assigned these type of "fake" classes, and notify
all California districts of these new requirements.

It would also require that the education department pay $400,000
in legal fees to the plaintiffs when the settlement gets the final
approval by a judge.

"The settlement in the Cruz case ensures that California's most
vulnerable students will no longer be sent home or warehoused in
contentless classes, and it communicates the message that the
promise of equal education requires no less than a full day of
instruction for all of California's students," said Kathryn
Eidmann, an attorney with Public Counsel, according to the Press
Telegram.

Briana Lamb told KCAL 9 that in her senior year at Fremont High
School, even though she repeatedly asked administrators if she
could take other courses, she ended up having to go to do work
like stamp letters and cut paper out of workbooks.
"They're not in Beverly Hills, they're not in Palo Alto,"
Rosenbaum told KCAL 9, "so they just assumed this is part of the
norm."

Last year in Thomas B. Jefferson High School in South L.A.,
hundreds of senior students, who needed credits to graduate, were
forced to sit around in the gym or cafeteria and do nothing.
Rosenbaum told KCAL 9 that when he asked a school official about
it, he said the official said, "I've never been to Jefferson, I
don't know what's going on in Jefferson, I haven't paid any
attention to what's going on in Jefferson, it's not my job."
Well, that's going to change, Rosenbaum said.


CERNER CORP: Gives Arbitration Ultimatum to Employees
-----------------------------------------------------
Andy Alcock, writing for 41KSHB, reports that Kansas City's Cerner
Corporation has presented its U.S. employees with a choice: Give
up your right to sue the company or lose your chance to get merit
pay raises.

And, as part of the arbitration ultimatum, Cerner doesn't give up
its right to take employees to court -- even though workers lose
the option.

This is legal?

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions make it legal for companies to
force employees into arbitration and to give up their right to go
to court.

In the Cerner case, Kansas City labor attorney Mike Hodgson says
Cerner's agreement may not be legal because of an added twist.
Cerner offered stock options to workers who agreed to arbitration.

"I think it's possible to challenge the arbitration agreement as
it stands now," he said.

UMKC Law Professor Rafe Foreman says Cerner is not the only
company cornering people into arbitration.

"What's good for the goose is not good for the gander?
Something's wrong here," he said.

A recent New York Times investigation revealed all kinds of
companies are pushing Americans to arbitration.

Read the fine print

Credit card companies and major national service corporations like
Netflix, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Starbucks have arbitration
agreements in place with customers -- customers who might not even
know if they don't read fine print in service agreements.

"When we put our foot on the scales of justice and we tip it in
our direction, the whole thing becomes skewed," said Mr. Foreman,
who believes taking away court rights is unconstitutional.

Arbitration agreements prevent large numbers of customers from
going to court in class action lawsuits, if they've been
mistreated.  Instead, individual customers would take their
grievance to an independent arbitrator.

The New York Times investigation found not many customers do it.
The report notes that with 15 million customers, Time Warner Cable
has had seven arbitration cases in the last five years.

"What chance does one individual have against a world wide global
corporation? None, financially," said Mr. Foreman.

Arbitration: Friend or foe?

Minnesota Senator Al Franken is part of a group of congressional
lawmakers pushing for arbitration reform.

But so far, the measure hasn't progressed and isn't expected to
become law.

Cerner spokesman Dan Smith and groups like the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce believe arbitration is both fair and efficient.

They claim class action lawsuits put more money in the pockets of
lawyers than employees or consumers.


CHARMING CHARLIE: Settlement in Privacy Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted final
approval to the Class Action Settlement in the case captioned,
HEIDI ANDERSON-BUTLER and PAULA HAUG on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARMING CHARLIE
INC., a Delaware Corporation; CHARMING CHARLIE LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:14-01921 WBS AC (E.D. Cal.).

Charming Charlie is a retailer selling women's apparel and
accessories in stores across the country, including California.
Plaintiffs Heidi Anderson-Butler and Paula Haug visited Charming
Charlie stores located in Chino Hills and Folsom, California,
respectively. Plaintiffs brought the instant putative class
action, on behalf of a putative class of consumers in California
from whom defendant requested personal information during the
course of credit card transactions, against Charming Charlie, LLC,
alleging defendant required plaintiffs to provide personal
information when making a credit card purchase in violation of
California Civil Code section 1747.08.

Under the settlement, defendant will pay $350,000 in the form of
transferable store vouchers to class members valid for six months
after issuance and redeemable for in-store purchases of
merchandise at Charming Charlie stores. Class members who made
claims will receive vouchers for about $26.  Although the
settlement provided for a limit of $20 per voucher with remainder
vouchers to be distributed to claimant class members if necessary,
defendant has agreed to distribute the entirety of the voucher
fund at once.

Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement on June 18, 2015 and the court granted
preliminary approval on July 29, 2015. Plaintiffs seek final
approval of the parties' stipulated class-wide settlement pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).

In his Memorandum and Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/PDH8hlfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shubb found that the
settlement agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court appointed Heidi Anderson-Butler and Paula Haug as class
representatives and James M. Lindsay of Lindsay Law Corporation as
class counsel.

As of the time of the fairness hearing, 13,505 members had opted
into the class and, as a result, each claimant will receive a
voucher for roughly $26.  The attorney's fees and incentive awards
will be paid separate and apart from class compensation and will
not detract from the settlement fund.

The Court also awarded $140,000 as plaintiffs' counsel fees and
costs and $5,000 each as incentive payments to the named
plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are represented by James M. Lindsay, Esq. --
jlindsay@lindsaylawcorporation.com -- LINDSAY LAW CORPORATION

Charming Charlie, LLC is represented by Craig Edward TenBroeck,
Esq. -- ctenbroeck@cooley.com -- Darcie Allison Tilly, Esq. --
dtilly@cooley.com -- Michelle Doolin, Esq. -- mdoolin@cooley.com -
- COOLEY LLP


CHICAGO, IL: Camera Light Program Constitutional, Judge Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has slapped a permanent stop sign on a class action
lawsuit against the city of Chicago and the vendors it uses to
administer its red light camera program, as the judge said the
city should be allowed under state law and the Illinois and U.S.
constitutions to delegate the task of reviewing potential red
light citations to administrators and technicians hired by the
vendors.

On Dec. 9, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve dismissed with
prejudice the lawsuit brought by plaintiff Matthew Falkner, who
had argued the city and its vendors should pay back the amounts
improperly collected from people forced to pay the fines under the
allegedly illegal traffic citation program.

"The relevant statutes detail a thorough framework governing the
red light violation, the automated red light traffic system, and,
specifically, the two-layer-technician-review process, leaving no
room for the traffic compliance administrator or technicians to
'make the law,'" Judge St. Eve wrote.  "The Act merely enables the
technicians to review recorded images and determine whether a
driver was crossing a particular landmark at the time the street
light displayed a red signal, thereby violating the General
Assembly's red light statutes.

"In other words, the Act simply confers the 'authority or
discretion as to [the Act's] execution' to the administrator and
technicians, which is 'unobjectionable.'"

The dismissal marked Mr. Falkner's likely final try at overturning
the red light camera program and securing refunds for himself and
others who ran afoul of the city's red light camera enforcement
program.

In spring 2014, Mr. Falkner had first filed a class action,
arguing the city's selected red light camera program vendor,
Redflex, should be forced to pay back a large portion of the more
than $100 million it had collected as its administrative share of
the $520 million the city had collected in red light camera
traffic fines since 2003.  In that initial complaint, Mr. Falkner
had argued the court should invalidate and order refunded the
portion of the fines dedicated to Redflex because the vendor had
stood accused of bribing Chicago city officials to secure and hold
its contract to administer the red light camera program.

The bribery scandal launched lawsuits and administrative actions
against Redflex and its executives. Chicago hired Xerox in 2013 to
replace Redflex as the administrator of the red light camera
program.  IBM has served since 2003 as the city's selected vendor
to review the red light camera tickets issued by the city and its
primary vendors.  IBM during that time has reviewed about 500,000
potential red light violations annually, court documents said.

However, in April, Judge St. Eve dismissed that action, saying
Falkner had not demonstrated the bribery actually harmed him in
any way, as, whether Redflex had paid off city officials or not,
he still would have been compelled to pay $100 for running a red
light at an intersection with a red light camera in 2013.

The judge allowed Judge Falkner to file an amended complaint,
which he did in May, changing his legal tact to focus his
arguments on the city's alleged unconstitutional delegation of
power to its contracted red light camera vendors to issue and
review the $100 tickets issued to those caught running red lights
by the cameras mounted at various intersections throughout the
city.

St. Eve, however, said she believes the city acted within its
constitutional bounds, as she said the city not only had the
authority to create a red light camera enforcement program, to
also delegate to others -- even private contractors -- the power
to execute the program, as well.

Since state law requires motorists to stop at red lights, and
state law gave the city the authority to establish the camera
program to enforce the red light laws, the city, by hiring
contractors to administer the program and review the tickets, did
not unconstitutionally delegate its "sovereign power . . . to the
public traffic compliance administrator or private review-
technicians."

"Rather, it is constitutionally delegating 'the authority to
execute the law,'" Judge St. Eve said.

The judge also brushed aside Mr. Falkner's assertions the
technicians, working for private companies, were serving "private
interests," rather than those of the city, noting contracts
indicate the vendors' pay is not linked to the number of tickets
issued.

In her dismissal of Mr. Falkner's action in April, Judge St. Eve
had warned Mr. Falkner he would only be allowed one more
opportunity to find a line of legal reasoning to support his legal
contentions against the red light program.  After dismissing his
most recent complaint, St. Eve said Falkner's efforts had run out
of fuel, as she dismissed his amended complaint with prejudice,
meaning he cannot attempt to file a similar action against the
city and its red light camera vendors again.

Mr. Falkner was represented in the action by attorneys Thomas C.
Cronin -- tcc@cronincoltd.com -- of Cronin & Co., of Chicago;
Thomas J. Connick -- tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- of Connick Law,
of Cleveland; and Edward C. Cochran -- edwardcochran@wowway.com --
of Shaker Heights, Ohio.

Redflex was defended by attorneys with the firm of Honigman Miller
Schwartz & Cohn, of Chicago; IBM was represented by the firm of
Kirkland & Ellis, of Chicago; and Xerox by the firm of Baker
Hostetler, with offices in Chicago and Cleveland.  The city of
Chicago was represented by attorneys from its Department of Law.


COMCAST: Antitrust Class Suit Sent Back to Drawing Board
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that consumers expecting a payout in an antitrust class action
against Comcast were set back when a federal judge ruled that they
had not adequately defined the settlement class.

The ruling frustrated relief of a 5-year-long case that claims the
nation's largest cable company unlawfully forced buyers of its
Premium Cable package to rent a proprietary cable box.

Comcast reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs --
including customers and some state governments -- in August, and
in September, the plaintiffs submitted the agreement's terms,
which would provide from $5 in cash to four free months of
Showtime (valued at $40) to class members, for a total payout
capped at $15.5 million.

The proposed class member included residents of California,
Washington or West Virginia who had subscribed to Premium Cable
since 2005, or anyone in the country who subscribed during the
same period and opted out of the company's arbitration clause in
its user agreement.

But U.S. District Judge Anita Brody ruled that the class is not
ascertainable, a linchpin in class definition, as there is
insufficient evidence to determine whether claimants fall into the
proposed category.

Plaintiffs proposed that class membership would be supported
through Comcast's customer records or various indicia of their
purchase of cable. But Brody found that such a class definition
would not properly limit the number of claimants and would allow
potential noncustomers to enter into the settlement.

"Although Comcast has represented that it may have records as far
back as 2011 for some former subscribers, Comcast does not have
records for any putative class members that ceased subscribing to
Comcast during the six-year period from 2005 through 2010," Brody
wrote. "To compensate for this absence of Comcast records,
plaintiffs provide a laundry list of other possible types of
evidence that former subscribers could submit to prove membership
in the settlement class. Included in the list are police reports
and insurance claims. It is implausible, however, that such
evidence would ever demonstrate that an individual subscribed to
Premium Cable from Comcast and rented a set-top box."

Plaintiffs also proposed submission of "proof of payment of rental
fees" of the cable box, which Brody said "required no proof at
all."

She refused to certify the settlement class or give preliminary
approval.


CONRAD INDUSTRIES: "Virgen" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JULIO VIRGEN, v. CONRAD INDUSTRIES, INC.,
ET AL., Case No. 6:15-0465 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Carol B.
Whitehurst of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana denied Plaintiff's motion to proceed as a
collective-action, to approve judicial notice, and for disclosure
of the names and addresses of potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

Virgen asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on
behalf of himself and similarly situated employees against Conrad,
Impact, and M&M Group Inc. d/b/a National Contracting Service.
According to Virgen, he was hired by Impact to work as a painter
for Conrad. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of "All individuals
who worked or are working performing manual labor directly for
Conrad Industries, Inc. or indirectly through Impact Marine LLC,
or any other labor staffing company, during the previous three
years, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA,
29 U.S.C. Sec. 207, and who did not receive full overtime
compensation."

In the motion, plaintiff moves to conditionally certify a
collective action under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA, and for
judicially-approved notice to be sent all Putative Class Members
by first class mail and e-mail. If granted conditional
certification under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), plaintiff asks the
Court to direct defendants to: (1) provide plaintiff with the
names and last known addresses of the potential opt-in plaintiffs,
and (2) approve the sending of the class notice to the potential
opt-in plaintiffs. Plaintiff also requests that this Court approve
an opt-in period of six months.

In her Memorandum Ruling dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kXBooufrom Leagle.com, Judge Whitehurst found that
Virgen has failed to meet his burden of making a preliminary
factual showing that similarly situated individuals exist.

Julio Virgen is represented by:

Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
COSTALES LAW OFFICE
3801 Canal St
New Orleans, LA 70119
Tel: (504)534-5005

     - and -

William Henry Beaumont,Esq.
WILLIAM H BEAUMONT LAW
3801 Canal St, New Orleans,
LA 70119
Tel: (504)483-8008

Defendants are represented by Hal D. Ungar, Esq. --
hungar@hanrylaw.com -- HANGARTNER RYDBERG & TERRELL & Patricia A.
Bollman, Esq. -- patricia@bollmanfirm.com -- LAW OFFICE OF
PATRICIA A BOLLMAN


CYTRX CORP: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CytRx Corporation (NASDAQ: CYTR), a biopharmaceutical research and
development company specializing in oncology, on Dec. 10 disclosed
that it reached a successful agreement to settle the consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, titled In
re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation.  The consolidated case
was brought against the company and/or a number of current and
former directors and officers following allegations of stock
promotion.  The agreement was reached in connection with a
voluntary mediation led by the Honorable Judge Dickran Tevrizian,
a retired federal judge from the Central District of California.

The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability or
wrongdoing and includes a full release of CytRx and the current
and former directors and officers in connection with the
allegations.  CytRx believes the allegations are completely
without merit, and is settling the lawsuit to avoid potentially
lengthy and costly litigation.  The settlement is subject to
definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and court approval.

The terms of the agreement provide for a settlement payment to the
class of $4,000,000, of which at least $3,500,000 will be paid by
the Company's insurance carriers.  The Company will also issue
$4,500,000 worth of shares to the class, which will be between a
minimum of 1,200,000 shares of common stock and a maximum of
1,800,000 shares of common stock to the class depending on the
prevailing stock price at the time of the court's final approval
of the settlement agreement.

"We are pleased to reach a settlement agreement on the securities
class action and believe it is in the best interests of CytRx and
our shareholders.  We will continue to focus on our pre-commercial
activities for aldoxorubicin, our pivotal, global Phase 3 trial
with aldoxorubicin in second-line soft tissue sarcomas, our newly
designated drug candidate DK049, and additional research and
development with our LADR(TM) technology," said Steven A.
Kriegsman, Chairman and CEO.

                   About CytRx Corporation

CytRx Corporation is a biopharmaceutical research and development
company specializing in oncology.  CytRx currently is focused on
the clinical development of aldoxorubicin, its improved version of
the widely used chemotherapeutic agent doxorubicin, and DK049, a
novel drug conjugate which is expected to enter clinic trials in
2016.  CytRx is also expanding its pipeline of oncology candidates
at its laboratory facilities in Freiburg, Germany, through its
LADR(TM) (Linker Activated Drug Release) technology platform, a
discovery engine designed to leverage CytRx's expertise in albumin
biology and linker technology for the development of a new class
of anti-cancer therapies.


DELTA PETROLEUM: Feb. 19 Fairness Hearing on Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christine M. Arguello of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado preliminarily approved the
class settlement in the case captioned, PATIPAN NAKKHUMPUN, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DANIEL J. TAYLOR, Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-101038-CMA-CBS,
CONSOLIDATED FOR ALL PURPOSES WITH CIVIL ACTION No. 12-CV-01521-
CMA-CBS (D. Colo.).

Plaintiff Patipan Nakkhumpun's amended consolidated complaint
alleges that Defendant Daniel J. Taylor violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 by making materially false and misleading
statements in a press release that was issued on July 7, 2010.
Defendant Taylor was, at that time, the Chairman of the Board of
Delta Petroleum Corporation. Following the November 9, 2011
announcement, Delta's share price lost $1.34 per share in value
and closed at $0.71 per share on November 10, 2011, a one-day
decline of 65%.

The case is back before the District Court on remand following the
Tenth Circuit's partial reversal of the Court's prior order
granting dismissal of all claims against all defendants. The Tenth
Circuit found that Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint stated a
valid securities fraud claim against Defendant Taylor for his
statements in the July 7, 2010 press release. The Tenth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of all other claims against all other
defendants.

Instead of continuing to litigate the single claim against
Defendant Taylor, the parties including the previously dismissed
defendants entered into a stipulation of settlement. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, the class of Delta stock
purchasers would receive a $3.2 million cash payment, which would
be distributed to each claimant pursuant to a plan of allocation.
The settlement class would include all persons who purchased Delta
common stock during the period March 11, 2010, through November 9,
2011.

In her Order dated November 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KXRDaPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Arguello preliminary
approved the settlement, and appointed Nakkhumpun as lead
plaintiff, Federman & Sherwood as lead counsel and Heffler Claims
Group as claims administrator. The maximum amount that Plaintiff's
counsel may be reimbursed for expenses from $98,500 to $100,000.

The Court scheduled the final fairness hearing on February 19,
2016, at 2:00 p.m.

Patipan Nakkhumpun is represented by Stuart William Emmons, Esq. -
- swe@federmanlaw.com -- William Bernard Federman, Esq. --
wbf@federmanlaw.com -- FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD

Daniel J. Taylor is represented by Eric Neil Landau, Esq. --
elandau@jonesday.com -- Kevin Hugh Logan, Esq. --
klogan@jonesday.com -- Travis Shenandoah Biffar, Esq. --
tbiffar@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


DOLE FOOD: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
San Antonio Fire & Police Health Care Fund ("San Antonio F&P
Health") and San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund ("San Antonio
F&P"), against Dole Food Company ("Dole" or "the Company") and
certain of the Company's executive officers.  The action, which
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
on behalf of sellers of Dole securities during the period of
January 2, 2013 to October 31, 2013, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants Dole
and its senior executive officers conducted a fraudulent scheme to
acquire the publicly held shares of Dole and convert the Company
to a privately-held enterprise owned by David H. Murdock
("Murdock"), Dole's Chairman of the Board and CEO.  To implement
their scheme, Dole and its executive officers made a series of
materially false and misleading negative statements about the
Company's operations and finances, and omitted to disclose
material information, with the intention of deceiving the
investing public and artificially lowering the price of Dole's
stock so that Murdock could buy the Company at an artificially
depressed price.

After Defendants' misstatements had artificially deflated the
price of Dole's common stock, on June 10, 2013, Murdock delivered
his initial proposal to take Dole private at a price of $12.00 per
share.  On August 12, 2013, the Board announced that Dole and
Murdock had entered into and signed a definitive merger agreement
by which Murdock would acquire all of the outstanding shares of
Dole common stock not currently beneficially held by him for
$13.50 per share.  The merger closed on November 1, 2013, the day
after the close of the Class Period.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
December 10, 2015.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is February 8, 2016.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializing in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Lizardo" Suit Alleges RICO Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Roderick Lizardo, and all others similarly-situated v. DraftKings,
Inc. and FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-13674 (D. Mass., October
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a
non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other
individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. Defendant DraftKings, Inc., is incorporated in
Delaware with its principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 573-5118
      Fax: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

          - and -

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1 California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 398-8700
      Fax: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

          - and -

      Mila F. Bartos, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1077 30th Street, N.W., Suite #150
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 337-8000
      Fax: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com


EASY PC: State Farm Has No Duty to Cover TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that State Farm Fire &
Casualty Co. had no duty to defend a computer repair company
against a class action alleging that it violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited fax ads, a
Wisconsin appeals court affirmed on Dec. 9, holding that the
policy in question clearly excludes TCPA-related claims.

A panel of the appellate court in Waukesha upheld a lower court's
finding that State Farm's policy excluded from coverage all the
underlying claims against policyholder Easy PC Solutions LLC.

The lead plaintiff in the class action against Easy PC, Wilder
Chiropractic Inc., argued that not all of the underlying
allegations were tied to purported TCPA violations, but the
appellate panel disagreed.

"Even if the complaint gave rise to an initial grant of coverage
for 'advertising injury' or 'property damage' under the 2010-11
policy, that policy's exclusion for actions arising out of an
alleged TCPA violation would ultimately preclude coverage," Judge
Paul F. Reilly wrote for the panel.

The underlying suit stemmed from a trio of faxes that Easy PC sent
to Wilder between Sept. 30 and Oct. 18, 2010.  Such unsolicited or
"junk" faxes are prohibited by the TCPA and subject to a fine of
$500 per violation, according to Wilder's September 2011
complaint.

Wilder sought to represent a class of anyone who received a junk
fax from Easy PC in the four years before the filing of the suit,
a group estimated to number least 200, according to the complaint.

Easy PC ultimately settled with Wilder for nearly $9 million and
assigned its rights to recover from State Farm to Wilder, court
papers show.

State Farm filed suit, arguing that it had no duty to defend Easy
PC or cover the settlement, and the trial court agreed.

On appeal, Wilder contended that the lower court erred in finding
that the 2010-11 State Farm policy excluded coverage.

According to Wilder, the policy's exclusion for TCPA-related
claims does not apply to its allegation of conversion.  Wilder
said in the underlying complaint that the unsolicited faxes
"effectively stole" the time of its employees who received them
and resulted in damages via the loss of printer paper and toner.

The appellate panel was unconvinced, holding that the basis for
Wilder's conversion claim was the same as that for its TCPA
violation claims.

"It matters not that, as Wilder argues, the conversion claim 'is
premised on the actual damage to the class caused by its receipt
of Easy PC's faxes' and '[t]o plead and prevail on the conversion
count, it is necessary for class members to have received messages
and to have suffered some loss as a result," Judge Reilly wrote.
"The exclusion is directed at Easy PC's actions, not the effect of
its actions."

Wilder also argued on appeal that its complaint potentially
implicated earlier State Farm policies that did not contain a TCPA
exclusion. However, the panel said the underlying suit did not
allege that Easy PC actually transmitted unwanted faxes anytime
other than the three occasions in 2010.

"Although Wilder's complaint alleges that Easy PC transmitted 'the
same or similar' unsolicited faxes to Wilder and at least 199
other recipients, it does not allege that this occurred at any
time outside of three dates in September and October 2010," Judge
Reilly wrote.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Lisa S. Neubauer further noted that
there was no evidence Easy PC sought a defense from State Farm
under any policies other than the one issued for 2010-11.

Attorneys for the parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Judges Lisa S. Neubauer, Paul F. Reilly and Mark Gundrum sat on
the appellate panel.

State Farm is represented by Mark D. Malloy -- mdm@mtfn.com -- of
Meissner Tierney Fisher & Nichols SC and Michael C. Borders --
mborders@dykema.com -- and Rosa M. Tumialan --
rtumialan@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

Easy PC is represented by John W. Hein. Wilder is represented by
Phillip A. Bock of Bock & Hatch LLC and David M. Oppenheim --
Doppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- and Jeffrey A. Berman --
JBerman@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson & Wanca.

The case is State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Easy PC Solutions
LLC et al., case number 2014AP2657, in the Court of Appeals of the
State of Wisconsin.


EMPLOYEE BENEFIT: Montana Affirms Class Cert. in Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Michael E. Wheat of the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed
the order of the Montana First Judicial District Court, Lewis and
Clark County, granting Kent D. Roose's motion for class
certification and declaratory judgment in the case captioned, KENT
D. ROOSE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LINCOLN COUNTY EMPLOYEE GROUP
HEALTH PLAN; EMPLOYEE BENEFIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; JOINT
POWERS TRUST; JOHN DOES 1-50; JOHN DOES 51-100, Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. 2015 MT 324 (Mont.).

On October 3, 2007, Roose was severely injured in an automobile
crash on Highway 93. The driver of the other vehicle, Stearns,
whose negligence is undisputed, was killed in the accident.
Stearns' liability insurance carrier tendered the limit of its
liability coverage, and his estate also paid funds to Roose;
however, these payments fell short of covering the more than
$320,000 in medical expenses incurred by Roose for treatment at
Kalispell Regional Hospital after his injury.

In October 2009, Roose brought suit against EBMS, JPT, and Lincoln
County, though the County was later dismissed as a party,
requesting declaratory and injunctive relief, and class action
certification. On April 4, 2014, Roose filed a motion for partial
summary judgment and class certification.

Roose argued that Appellants violated Sec. 2-18-902(4), MCA,
through systematic practices that amounted to seeking subrogation
against Stearns' liability carrier before Roose was made whole.
Roose also requested class certification on behalf of every member
of Appellants' plans subject to Montana law that contained the
coverage exclusion. Roose requested a declaratory judgment that
both the exclusion and Appellants' systematic practices violate
Montana's made-whole laws. He also sought an injunction requiring
Appellants to cease all illegal practices. Finally, Roose, as an
individual, requested a trial seeking actual and punitive damages
for bad faith.

On September 22, 2014, the District Court issued its order on the
motion for summary judgment and class certification. The court
found that certification was appropriate for an equitable relief
class under M. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and authorized a notice to be
sent to potential class members to determine the viability of the
class and to gauge the necessity of certifying a restitution
subclass. The court granted a declaratory judgment stating that
JPT, as an insurer governed by Title 2, MCA, was required to
comply with Montana's made-whole laws.

On appeal, Appellants argued that the District Court abuse its
discretion when it certified the proposed class under Rule 23 of
the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure and that the District Court
abuse its discretion by defining the class over-broadly.

In the Opinion dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3wt0uzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wheat concluded that
the District Court did not abuse its discretion by certifying the
class or by defining the class over-broadly. The Court found that
the District Court's reasoning reasonable and designed to
facilitate a fair and efficient resolution of the matter and will
not reverse the court's finding that the requirement of M. R. Civ.
P. 23 (a)(1) was met.

Kent D. Roose is represented by:

William R. Bieler, Esq.
BURK, LEE & BIELER, PLLC
216 Main Ave N
Choteau, MT 59422
Tel: (406)466-5755

     - and -

Erik B. Thueson, Esq.
ERIK THUESON LAW OFFICE
213 5th Ave
Helena, MT 59601
Tel: (406)449-8200

Defendants are represented by:

Robert C. Lukes, Esq.
Peter J. Arant, Esq.
Justin K. Cole, Esq.
GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP
350 Ryman St
Missoula, MT 59802
Tel: (406)523-2500


EMPLOYERS MUTUAL: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
MadisonRecord.com reports that chiropractor Gerald Bemis of Alton,
once a favorite plaintiff for class action lawyers, has returned
to that role.

He sued two California companies in federal court on Dec. 4, for
sending him a facsimile, and he moved to certify a class on
Dec. 7.

"Unsolicited faxes damage their recipients," wrote his lawyers,
Philip Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- of Chicago and Timothy
Campbell of Godfrey.

The lawyers wrote that a recipient loses the use of his fax
machine, paper and ink toner.

They wrote that an unsolicited fax wastes valuable time and
interrupts privacy.

Messrs. Bock and Campbell associated with Tom Lakin's law firm of
Wood River at the crest of the class action wave in Madison
County, prior to 2005.

Mr. Lakin filed at least 20 class actions against insurers for
Gerald Bemis and brother Frank Bemis, also a chiropractor.

The Illinois Supreme Court shut down the last of those actions,
denying review of an appellate court decision in favor of
Employers Mutual.

In that case, Mr. Campbell represented Frank Bemis.

In the new action at federal court in East St. Louis, Gerald Bemis
seeks damages from Progressive Funding, 11th Hour Investments and
12 John Does.

He claims they sent advertisements in an attempt to attract
borrowers, without invitation or solicitation.

He seeks damages of $500 to $1,500 per violation under the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

He also alleges common law conversion.

"By sending plaintiff and the other class members unsolicited
faxes, defendants improperly and unlawfully converted their fax
machines, toner and paper to defendants' own use," Messrs. Bock
and Campbell wrote.

"Defendants also converted plaintiff's employees time to their own
use," they wrote.

Mr. Bemis also alleges that the defendants violated Illinois
consumer fraud law, by forcing him to pay for their advertising.

He claims they caused substantial injury to hundreds of persons.

U.S. District Judge David Herndon will preside.


EXPERIAN HOLDINGS: "Deledonne" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Deledonne, Jr., and all others similarly situated v.
Experian Holdings, Inc. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01763 (C.D. Calif., October 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of express
contract, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other things, damages,
including actual and statutory damages, equitable relief, costs,
and reasonable attorney fees.

This is a data breach class action brought on behalf of 15 million
consumers of T-Mobile US Inc., and all other similarly affected
individuals, whose personal information and personal financial
information from at least between September 1, 2013 and September
16, 2015 was exposed to hackers when Defendants Experian Holdings,
Inc. and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. was subject to a
data breach.

Experian provides credit reporting services using a database of
235 million US consumers and some twenty-five million US
businesses. Clients include retailers, financial services firms,
utilities, not-for-profits, and small businesses. Experian
operates as an information services company that provides data and
analytical tools to its customers around the world through several
business lines including credit services, decision analytics,
marketing services, and consumer services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wylie Aitken, Esq.
      AITKEN AITKEN COHN
      3 MacArthur Pl #800
      Santa Ana, CA 92707
      Tel: (714) 434-1424
      Fax: (714) 434-3600
      E-mail: wylie@aitkenlaw.com

          - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Tel: (281) 488-8854
      Fax: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

          - and -

      Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
      JOHNSON VINES PLLC
      2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Tel: (501) 372-1300
      Fax: (888) 505-0909
      E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Face Tagging Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for CookCountyRecord.com, reports that
contending its photo tagging technology doesn't violate Illinois'
law forbidding the sharing of certain biometric information,
Facebook has asked a judge to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed
by a non-Facebook user who claims he and other people who do not
have accounts on the social media site have been harmed by the
site's photo Tag Suggestions feature.

The feature uses facial recognition technology to analyze photos
people upload to Facebook, then asks the user posting the photo if
they want to "tag" their friends, suggesting Facebook users who
resemble the people in the photo.

Three class-action lawsuits filed by Facebook users over the
potential privacy implications of the technology are pending in
federal court in Northern California.

Plaintiff Frederick William Gullen had filed suit in Chicago
federal court in Illinois on Aug. 31.  According to court
documents, Mr. Gullen does not have a Facebook account, but said
an unknown person uploaded a photo of him to Facebook and manually
"tagged" him by selecting his likeness and typing in his name.

Mr. Gullen claimed Facebook then stored that information about his
name and "facial geometry" to a database so it can suggest his
name if the Tag Suggestions feature identifies another photo of
him.

Mr. Gullen's suit charged Facebook with violating Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), a law that restricts how
companies can collect, store and use biometric information such as
fingerprints, retina or iris scans, or face or body scans.

In moving to dismiss, Facebook stated that Mr. Gullen's premise is
wrong from the start.

"Tag Suggestions does not apply to people without Facebook
accounts," says a document filed by Facebook's attorneys in
support of the motion to dismiss.  "If a person who is tagged in a
photo on Facebook does not have a Facebook account, Facebook does
not, contrary to . . . the complaint, save a 'face template' and
'corresponding name identification' in its 'database.'"

The attorneys went on to address other arguments that they say
nullify the complaint -- giving particular emphasis to language in
the BIPA that specifically exempts photographs and information
derived from photographs from the law's regulation.

The motion to dismiss also argued that Illinois is not the proper
venue for the lawsuit and Illinois courts have no jurisdiction in
the matter.  The lawsuits filed by Facebook users were
consolidated in California because the user agreements accepted by
those creating Facebook accounts specifically state disputes with
the company will be heard in courts there.  Facebook is
incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California, and
argues that Gullen's complaint does not claim any negligent or
reckless activities took place in Illinois or any relationship to
the state.

"Facebook has done nothing to create a relationship with
plaintiff, who alleges that he does not have a Facebook account
and has never interacted with Facebook," the motion stated.
"Facebook's registration to do business and its physical office in
Illinois have nothing to do with the alleged events giving rise to
this suit and thus cannot support specific jurisdiction."

Mr. Gullen has asked for $5,000 for every willful or reckless
violation of the BIPA by Facebook and $1,000 for every negligent
violation.  The class for the suit would include all Illinois
residents who do not have Facebook accounts, whose photos have
been tagged on the site by Facebook users and whose facial
recognition information was then captured and stored by Facebook.

Mr. Gullen is represented by Katrina Carroll and Kyle Alan
Shamberg of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

Facebook is defended by Vincent Connelly --
vconnelly@mayerbrown.com -- Matthew D. Provance --
mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- Lauren R. Goldman and Archis A.
Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP.


FANDUEL: Nashville Resident Files Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
John Balch, writing for Nashville Leader, reported that a
Nashville resident has filed a class action complaint in Howard
County on behalf of himself and all other Arkansas residents
"similarly situated" against the fantasy football league giant,
FanDuel.

The complaint was filed Oct. 23 in Howard County Circuit Court by
"John Doe," who identifies himself only as a Nashville resident.
The plaintiff accuses FanDuel of "bait and switch deception of
Arkansas consumers regarding its promotion of its online fantasy
sports game of skill."

The plaintiff contends that during a certain time period FanDuel
"ran television ads in Arkansas promoting its fantasy football
electronic game by promising new subscribers that if they
deposited $200 into a new FanDuel account it would match their
deposit with another $200."

The complaint further contends, "The television ads were false,
deceptive, unconscionable and operated as 'bait and switch'
advertising, because they made an attractive, but insincere offer
as FanDuel did not intend to match the initial $200 deposit with
another $200."

The precise number of members of the class to be involved in the
complaint has yet to be determined. Class members can be all
"residents of the State of Arkansas that subscribed to FanDuel's
service by opening an account with a sum of $200 from August 1,
2015 to the date of filing (Oct. 23) of this complaint."

The plaintiff is "fully prepared to pursue diligently this case
for all Class members" through its counsel under Arkansas Rule of
Civil Procedure 23.

The complaint was submitted by Scott Poynter of Poynter Law Group
of Little Rock; Jeremy Hutchison of Hutchinson Law Firm of Little
Rock; and William T. Crowder and Corey McGaha of Crowder McGaha,
LLP, also of Little Rock.

The complaint plans to question whether FanDuel violated the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA) with advertising
the $200 deposit match and then allegedly not following up with
the match.

The plaintiff and "each Class member" is demanding a jury trial on
all "issues so triable." Also, the plaintiff is asking to be
appointed as the "Class Representative and his counsel as Class
Counsel" and award damages for the alleged violation of the ADTPA.

The case has been assigned to Judge Charles Yeargan.

FanDuel, Inc., is described on its website as "one-week fantasy
football leagues for real money." The company is based out of
Delaware with its principal place of business in New York.

The complaint claims FanDuel is "present and doing substantial
business in Howard County, Arkansas."


GALENA: Settles Two Insider Trading Class Actions for $20 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Hayes, writing for Portland Business Journal, reports
that the erstwhile Portland bioscience company, Galena Biopharma
Inc., has settled two class action lawsuits over alleged insider
trading for $20 million.

Galena announced it had reached an agreement in principle to
settle both suits pending in U.S. District Court in Portland.  The
suits were brought against the company and several current and
former executives and directors over allegations of stock
promotion and insider trading in early 2014.

Galena, which recently moved to San Ramon, California, said the
settlement contains no admission of liability or wrongdoing: "The
company believes the claims are without merit but is settling the
lawsuits to avoid potentially lengthy, costly, distracting and
time-consuming litigation," it said in an announcement.

Investors alleged Galena hired a PR firm to write stories, under
aliases, touting the company's stock and allowing insiders to
trade at artificially inflated levels.  Former CEO Mark Ahn was
able to sell $3.8 million of his stock.

After its actions came to light, the stock plummeted in value.
Out of the $20 million paid to settle the suit, $16.7 million will
be paid by Galena's insurance carriers and $3.3 million by the
company through a combination of $2.3 million in cash and $1
million in shares of Galena's common stock.  The shares are to
constitute less than 1 percent of total outstanding shares.
The terms include a $15 million cash payment by the insurance
carriers, which the company will use to fund the class action
settlement, and cancellation of 1.2 million in director stock
options, according to the announcement.

Galena has also agreed to changes to certain corporate governance
policies.  In addition, the company's insurance carriers agreed to
pay $5 million for plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.

CEO Mark Schwartz said he looked forward to closing this chapter
and focusing on advancing Galena's clinical pipeline.
Galena recently announced that it plans to shed its current
product portfolio -- Abstral sublingual tablets and Zuplenz Oral
Soluble Film.  It will instead focus on its oncology pipeline: the
NeuVax breast cancer vaccine it's developing, as well as another
immunotherapy drug, GALE-301.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Securities Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Gorrie, and all others similarly situated v. General
Nutrition Corporation, Joseph M. Fortunato, Michael M. Nuzzo,
Michael G. Archbold and Tricia K. Tolivar, Case No. 3:15-cv-02037
(D. Ore., October 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

The Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Defendant GNC operates as a specialty retailer of health and
wellness products. It is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Its common stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker
symbol "GNC".

The Individual Defendants served as officers and members of GNC
board.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Ratliff, Esq.
      RANSOM, GILBERTSON,
      MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
      1500 NE Irving St., Ste 412
      Portland, OR 97232
      Tel: (503) 226-3664

          - and -

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Dec. 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of GNC Holdings Inc. (NYSE: GNC) securities from May 2,
2013 through October 22, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important December 28, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the class action filed by the firm. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for GNC investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the GNC class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-543.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. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE 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: (1) GNC unlawfully sold thousands
of units of products in Oregon that contained picamilon; (2) GNC
unlawfully sold thousands of units of products in Oregon that
contained BMPEA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 28, 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://rosenlegal.com/cases-543.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.

Contacts
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th 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


GROUPON: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $8.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------
abc30.com reported that if you bought a Groupon and let it expire,
you could get a refund for more than the Groupon was worth.

The company just agreed to an $8.5 million settlement following a
class action lawsuit. Now customers who bought a Groupon between
November 2008 and December 2011 qualify for a 130-percent refund
in the form of credits toward future Groupons.

To receive the settlement award, you'll need the barcode of the
voucher you never used.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Has $7.5MM Settlement in False Labeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Lexington Law Group
regarding the Avalon Organics and Jason Brand Cosmetics Class
Action Lawsuit.

A proposed settlement has been reached in a California class
action lawsuit about the labeling and advertising of certain
Avalon Organics(R) and JASON(R) brand cosmetic products.  The
plaintiffs in the lawsuit assert that the packaging and
advertising for these products misled consumers to believe that
the products were wholly or at least mostly organic.  The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain") denies all the plaintiffs'
allegations and is entering into this settlement to avoid
burdensome and costly litigation.  The settlement is not an
admission of wrongdoing.  The court has not decided who is right
and who is wrong.

Am I a Class Member?  You may be a member of the Class if you
purchased at least one Avalon Organics(R) brand cosmetic product
in California during the time period from May 11, 2007 through May
11, 2011 or at least one JASON(R) brand cosmetic product in
California during the time period of May 11, 2007 through January
30, 2011.  The specific Avalon Organics(R) brand cosmetic products
sold in California between May 11, 2007 through May 11, 2011 and
the specific JASON(R) brand cosmetic products sold in California
during the time period of May 11, 2007 through January 30, 2011 at
issue in this litigation are referred to as the "Challenged
Products."  A complete list of the Challenged Products can be
found on the website.

What Am I Eligible to Receive?Hain will establish a $7.5 million
settlement fund to pay approved Class Member claims, notice and
administrative costs, incentive awards to the named plaintiffs,
and attorneys' fees and costs. Also, Hain will provide up to $1.85
million in coupons toward the purchase of Avalon Organics(R) brand
or JASON(R) brand cosmetic products. Eligible class members
without receipts may elect to receive either (i) a cash payment of
up to $50 or (ii) a cash payment and coupons worth a combined
total of $80. The amount of your payment will depend on the
statements in your Claim Form (including whether you have receipts
for your purchases in which case there is no cap to your recovery)
and whether you choose only cash or a combination of cash and
coupons.  The amount of the claim paid (cash or cash and coupons)
to class members will also depend on how many people file claims.
Complete details of your options are in the detailed notice found
at www.HainOrganicCosmeticsLawsuit.com.

What are My Options? Submit a claim form by January 12, 2016 -
this is the only way to receive a cash payment or a cash payment
and coupons. Exclude yourself by January 12, 2016 - get out of the
settlement. You will not receive benefits, but keep your right to
sue the Defendant.  Object by January 12, 2016 - write to the
Court about why you do not like the settlement.  Do nothing ? get
no cash or coupons from this settlement.  You give up any rights
to sue Hain or any of its affiliates on your own about the same
legal claims in this lawsuit. You will also be legally bound by
all orders the Court issues and judgments the Court makes in this
class action.

The Judge will hold a Final Approval Hearing on February 11, 2016
at 9:30 a.m. at the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA
94102, in Courtroom C on the 15th Floor.  At this hearing, the
Judge will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate, and whether to approve attorneys' fees and costs of up
to $4,000,000 and plaintiffs' awards not to exceed $16,500 in
total.  The motion for attorneys' fees and costs will be posted on
the website after it is filed. You may appear at the hearing, but
you don't have to.


HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 9 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota on behalf of holders of Hutchinson
Technology Incorporated ("Hutchinson Tech" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: HTCH) common stock on November 2, 2015, in connection
with the proposed acquisition of Hutchinson Tech by companies
beneficially owned by TDK Corporation (the "Proposed
Transaction").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 9, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Hutchinson Tech's Board of Directors (the
"Board") and certain affiliates of TDK Corporation ("TDK") with
breach of fiduciary duty and/or violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act").  Hutchinson Tech is a global
supplier of critical precision component technologies such as
suspension assemblies for hard disk drives.

On November 2, 2015, Hutchinson Tech and TDK jointly announced
that they had entered into an agreement and plan of merger
pursuant to which the Company's shareholders will receive $3.62
per share for each share of Hutchinson Tech common stock that they
own and potential additional consideration of up to $0.38 per
share, for a total consideration of $4.00 per share, depending on
the amount of the Company's cash-on-hand at the time of closing.

On November 23, 2015 and again on December 4, 2015, the Board
filed a materially false and/or misleading preliminary proxy
statement with the SEC on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") in violation
of Sec14(a) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and in breach of the Board
members' fiduciary duty of candor.  The complaint alleges that the
Proxy, which recommends that Hutchinson Tech shareholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction, fails to disclose material
information regarding the deal and deprives the Company's
shareholders of their right to cast an informed vote.  For
example, the Proxy fails to disclose the following material
information, among other things, which renders statements made in
the Proxy false and/or misleading: (a) the Board's failure to
comply with the Minnesota Business Corporation Act with respect to
the prompt formation of an independent special committee; (b)
managements' projected cash positions; (c) managements' financial
projections presented to the Board; (d) information regarding the
nonexistent sales process; (e) material details underlying the
financial advisor's valuation analyses; and (f) the financial
advisor's conflicts of interest.  The omissions and false and
misleading statements in the Proxy were material in that a
reasonable shareholder would consider them important in deciding
how to vote on the Proposed Transaction.

Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive and equitable relief on
behalf of holders of Hutchinson Tech common stock on November 2,
2015.  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

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


KOHLL'S PHARMACY: Court Explains Rule on "Picking Off" Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle l. Dama, Carrie A. Hall, and Tanya M. Salman, writing for
The National Law Review, reported that on October 22, 2015, in
Ballard RN Center, Inc. v. Kohll's Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc., 2015
IL 118644, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified mootness issues in
class actions.

In April 2010, Ballard RN Center, Inc. (Ballard) sued Kohll's
Pharmacy & Homecare, Inc., (Kohll's) for violations of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for sending unsolicited
fax advertisements. Ballard sought to represent a class of
similarly-situated individuals and businesses that also received
unsolicited fax advertisements from Kohll's. Simultaneously with
filing the lawsuit, Ballard filed a motion for class
certification, stating it would file a supporting memorandum after
obtaining discovery necessary to flesh out its satisfaction of the
certification requirements.

Kohll's subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. Kohll's
argued Ballard's TCPA claim was moot because Kohll's had tendered
a check to Ballard for more than the amount it could hope to
recover prior to a "complete" motion for class certification being
filed. Ballard, however, refused the offer and returned the check.
Kohll's argued that Ballard's failure to submit and pursue a
"complete" motion for class certification rendered Ballard's TCPA
claim moot under the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in Barber
v. American Airlines, Inc., 241 Ill. 2d 450 (2011). Ballard
countered that the motion for class certification filed at the
same time as the complaint was sufficient to avoid mootness under
Barber, because any delay in proceeding on class certification was
"a direct result" of Kohll's "obfuscation of discovery."

The circuit court denied Kohll's motion for summary judgment on
the TCPA claim, concluding that Kohll's did not send the checks to
Ballard until after Ballard filed its motion for class
certification and, therefore, the claim was not moot under Barber.
The appellate court reversed, finding Barber implicitly required a
motion for class certification to "contain sufficient factual
allegations" to "bring the interest of the other class members
before the court."

The Illinois Supreme Court subsequently concluded its precedent in
Barber did not "impose any sort of threshold evidentiary or
factual basis" for class certification motions--only a timing
requirement. The court also found that Ballard's motion for
certification was sufficient and not a "frivolous shell motion,"
because it "contains a general outline of plaintiff's class
membership, class action allegations, and effectively communicates
the fundamental nature of the putative class action."

The Ballard decision is important because it eliminates
opportunities for defendants to moot class actions by tendering
relief when plaintiffs have filed only a basic motion for class
certification. Thus, plaintiffs in Illinois will likely file
motions for class certification concurrently with their complaints
which in turn will hinder defendants' ability to successfully
challenge the sufficiency of such motions.


KOL BARAMA: Supreme Court Approves Discrimination Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yair Ettinger, writing for Haaretz, reports that the Supreme Court
approved a class action suit on Dec. 10 against an ultra-Orthodox
radio station for its alleged exclusion of women from the air.

The court rejected an appeal by the station, Kol Barama, against
the suit, which is being brought by the Orthodox women's
organization Kolech, that the station does not allow women to
appear on the air.

The appeal was presented by attorneys Asaf Fink and Orli Erez-
Likhovski, and by the Israel Religious Action Center of the Reform
Movement, which is involved in the appeal though it does not
appear formally as part of it.

In their ruling, Supreme Court Justices Yoram Danziger, Esther
Hayut and Daphne Barak-Erez echoed the district court's criticism
of Kol Barama, which was established in 2009 as part of a
franchise of the Second Authority for Television and Radio.  Since
2011, as complaints against the station increased, it slightly
softened its policy and allowed women to speak briefly on the air.
However, this did not satisfy Kolech, which initiated a class
action suit against the station for 104 million shekels (about
$26.9 million).

Last year, the district court ruled that Kolech could bring a
class action suit, despite a rare legal situation in that no
individuals are involved as injured parties.

However, Kol Barama appealed, stating that it had not broken the
anti-discrimination law and that Kolech did not have the right to
bring a class action suit.  But the Supreme Court allowed the suit
to go forward on the argument that it would be difficult to bring
in individual women who would publicly claim they had been
discriminated against by the station.

In the ruling, Justice Danziger related at length to the exclusion
of women in the public sphere and expressed "disgust at this
phenomenon, which seems only to be growing, to the extent that it
reaches the level of prohibited discrimination."  Justice Danziger
also said that the exclusion of women "fatally wounds human
dignity, and crudely impairs the basic and core rights of women."

Justice Danziger said the seriousness of the situation comes to
light particularly when women are forced to have a court declare
that they are allowed to conduct basic activities in the public
sphere, and that this hurts not only individual women but all of
society.

Justice Danziger ruled that the radio station would have to pay
the 100,000-shekel cost of the appeal and Kolech's attorneys' fees
of 50,000 shekels.

The director of Kolech, attorney Yael Rockman, said the ruling was
precedent setting because it was the first time the court has
addressed the question in principle of the exclusion of women.
Moreover, Rockman said, "The court had reiterated the importance
of Kolech in making women's voices heard" and in representing
women.

Kol Barama said, "We regret the court's decision, but it should be
remembered that this is a suit that relates to a period five years
ago. Since then the radio station has made a number of changes
together with the Second Authority and the court approved them.
Nevertheless, the court accepted the station's position on the
central point and determined that the station could not be fined
without proof of damage."

The station claimed that the women filing the suit "are Reform and
are completely unconnected to the station and our listeners. . . .
Kol Barama is an ultra-Orthodox station and operates according to
the directives of the [leading rabbis'] to protect the dignity and
glorification of women in keeping with the position of halakha
[Jewish law] and accepted laws and norms and it will continue to
operate in this way in the future."


LITTLE KIDS: Faces Class Action Over Spilling "Bubblin' Buckets"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoang Tran, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consumer
recently filed a class-action lawsuit against the manufacturer of
"no-spill" toy bubble buckets, alleging that the buckets do, in
fact, spill.

Jonathan Huzarsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed suit on Oct. 21 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Little Kids, Inc., alleging
violations of consumer protection laws, negligent
misrepresentation, breaches of warranty and unjust enrichment.

Little Kids manufactures and specifically markets various types of
purportedly "no spill" toy bubble buckets called "Bubblin'
Buckets," which the company claims are designed to prevent spills
when young children knock them over, drop them or turn them upside
down.

Mr. Huzarsky argues that this feature is valuable for parents with
young children and, as such, the marketing and claims of the
defendants present a convincing reason to purchase the buckets.

He alleges, however, that the buckets actually have a strong
tendency to spill that is inherent in the design of the products.
He also alleges that, despite being aware of such inherent design
defect, Little Kids continues to charge a premium price for the
buckets

Mr. Huzarsky is suing for compensatory damages, statutory and
punitive damages, restitution, legal costs and an injunction
against Little Kids so it is prohibited from continuing to market
the buckets as "no spill."

He is represented by David Pastor of Pastor Law Office, LLP, in
Boston; Jason P. Sultzer -- sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- of
The Sultzer Law Group, P.C. in Poughkeepsie, N.Y.; and Brett D.
Zinner -- brett@rosenbergfortuna.com -- of Rosenberg Fortuna &
Laotian, LLP in Garden City, N.Y.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case no.
1:15-cv-13613-DJC


LSB INDUSTRIES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that less than three weeks remain
for investors to file a motion for lead plaintiff in a class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers (the
"Class") of securities of LSB Industries, Inc. ("LSB" or the
"Company") during the period of May 8, 2015 and August 7, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The action alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers.

On May 8, 2015, LSB estimated the total cost related to the
expansion of its El Dorado Facility to be in the range of $495
million to $520 million.  On July 14, the Company raised the range
to $560 million to $575 million.

Then, on August 7, 2015, LSB disclosed that the total cost to
complete the El Dorado Facility expansion would be in the range of
$660 million to $680 million, significantly higher than its May
and July 2015 estimates, "due, in part, to work performed by a
previous subcontractor."  LSB further revealed that it intended to
implement certain recommendations after the Strategic Committee of
the LSB Board of Directors reviewed the Company's business
strategy, corporate governance structure, related party
transactions and other governance practices of the Company.

On this news, shares of LSB declined $12.09 per share, over 34%,
to close on August 7, 2015, at $23.01 per share, on heavy volume.
On September 3, 2015, the Company announced that LSB President and
Chief Executive Officer Barry H. Golsen had resigned -- effective
immediately.

On November 6, 2015, the Company changed its cost estimate for the
El Dorado plant yet again.  On that date, LSB announced, among
other things, that it now expects the expansion of its El Dorado
plant to cost between $831 million and $855 million, up from its
last estimates of between $660 million to $680 million.  LSB stock
fell over 35% in intra-day trading after this announcement.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) the Company's costs related to the expansion of the El
Dorado Facility would be significantly higher than reported; and
that, (2) 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.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased LSB securities during the Class Period.  If you
purchased LSB securities, and either lost money on the transaction
or still hold the security, you may wish to join in this action to
serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than November 24, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an LSB
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(212) 779-1414
http://www.bernlieb.com


MAPLEBEAR INC: Grocery Couriers Must Arbitrate Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of grocery delivery drivers who say they were wrongly
classified as independent contractors and denied benefits must
seek relief through individual arbitration, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Dominic Cobarruviaz sued grocery store delivery
service MapleBear Inc., or Instacart, in San Francisco Superior
Court in January. The class action was moved to Federal Court in
February.

In July, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a memo stating that
an increasing number of employers are misclassifying workers as
independent contractors.

The Labor Department said courts must use a multi-factorial
"economic realities" test to determine whether a worker is an
employee or contractor. The test focuses on whether the worker is
economically dependent on the employer or business.

However, in June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court also upheld the
enforcement of arbitration clauses in class actions -- the same
issue U.S. District Judge Edward Chen grappled with in his Nov. 3
ruling on Instacart's motion to compel arbitration.

Instacart is a company that dispatches workers to shop for,
purchase and deliver groceries via a mobile phone app. It required
its contractors to sign identical agreements with arbitration
clauses, stipulating that the drivers must settle labor disputes
through a private arbitrator rather than in the courts.

Chen found parts of the agreement stating workers must cover half
the costs of arbitration and cover all of the company's legal
costs if they lose to be "unconscionable."

However, the judge also determined the contract was not
"permeated" with unfair clauses so he voided the fee-sharing and
fee-shifting provisions while granting Instacart's motion to
compel arbitration.

"Having severed the two challenged clauses, the Court finds that
arbitration may be compelled," Chen wrote in his 20-page ruling.

The judge also found that the workers' claims for civil penalties
under California's Private Attorney Generals Act could not be
arbitrated, and he therefore excluded those claims from
arbitration.

On the question of class-wide arbitration, Chen found the parties
never agreed to settle labor disputes on a class-wide basis.

"The court determines that class wide arbitration was not
specifically agreed upon by the parties and will compel
arbitration on an individual basis only," Chen wrote.

The judge granted Instacart's motion to compel arbitration on an
individual basis and stayed further litigation on the workers'
California civil penalties claims pending the outcome of
arbitration.

In June, Chen denied Uber's motion to compel arbitration over
claims that it misclassified drivers as independent contractors.
The judge found Uber "buried" its arbitration clause within the
fine print of the second-to-last page of its agreement with
drivers.


MERCURY PAYMENT: Class Status Sought in Card Processing Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert John Lystad, Esq. -- robert.lystad@bryancave.com -- in an
article for Lexology.com, reported that following on the heels of
the Heartland Payments Systems, Inc. ("Heartland") v. Mercury
Payment Systems, LLC ("Mercury") pending litigation, enterprising
plaintiffs lawyers in Georgia and Florida have filed suit seeking
class action certification against Mercury and co-defendant Global
Payments Direct, Inc. ("Global"). The suit primarily alleges that
Mercury's promises of low fees and transparent pricing were
illusory, along with a number of provisions of its Merchant
Services Agreement being void as against public policy --
including a provision purporting to require a merchant to cover
Mercury's legal fees, even in a dispute in which the merchant is
the prevailing party.

The claims set forth in the complaint, which was filed earlier in
November in Fulton County Superior Court (Atlanta, Georgia), are
factually similar to the claims made by Heartland against Mercury,
a subsidiary of Vantiv, Inc., but are based on different legal
theories. In the Heartland v. Mercuryaction, Heartland has alleged
that Mercury's illusory promises of low fees and transparent
pricing amounted to false advertising and unfair competition. In
the Fulton County action, the Plaintiffs allege that similar
practices and promises give rise to claims for breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in
every contract and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiffs also seek a
declaration that certain provisions in the agreements between the
prospective class members and Defendants are unconscionable and
unenforceable.

The Plaintiffs may, however, face an uphill battle on class
certification since their claims are in many ways dependent on the
individual pricing and categories of fees negotiated with each
merchant in the class, pursuant to the Merchant Services
Agreements between Mercury and each separate prospective merchant
class member. Such variations, if demonstrated by Defendants, may
defeat the commonality necessary for class certification, and
require contract-by-contract review of each MSA, which may
undermine the Plaintiffs' claim that a class action is a superior
vehicle for resolving this dispute.

Nevertheless, for payment processors and merchant acquirers, this
suit is evidence of an increasing level of scrutiny on the
industry from the plaintiffs bar. As a result, processors and
merchant acquirers should revisit their form agreements and
billing practices to ensure they are free of provisions that a
court might consider against public policy, and that all fees
payable by a merchant are clearly identified in the application,
the main agreement, or a schedule to the agreement. Processors and
merchant acquirers should also ensure that their agreements
provide them the right to periodically increase payment processing
fees, and charge new fees as the marketplace changes (e.g.,
additional data security fees). Such provisions, if coupled with a
limited termination right by the merchant, would likely ensure
that the agreement is both enforceable and also not deemed a
contract of adhesion.


MINNESOTA: Sued Over Integration Plan for Twin Cities Metro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Blotz, writing for Fox9.com, reported that if you thought the
desegregation battles of a generation ago were over, you're wrong.
In Minneapolis, a class action lawsuit was filed against the State
of Minnesota to come up with a better integration plan for the
Twin Cities metro.

The attorneys behind the lawsuit are the same attorneys who
launched a similar effort in the 1990s. They argue the state is
not offering equal protection under the constitution, and they
have a number of parents who agree.

"I felt all the time that we were living in small Mexico in the
United States," said Alex Cruz, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
"And if I want them to succeed later in life and do better, they
have to integrate and be part of society."

At a news conference, attorney John Schulman argued the state has
failed to provide an adequate education.

"An unequal education is by definition is not an adequate
education, and it's that simple," Schulman said.

The lawsuit uses Department of Education test score data to make
its case. In the latest 8th grade level standard reading tests,
only 44 percent of Minneapolis students passed. 39 percent passed
in St. Paul.

Yet in Edina, Minnetonka, Wayzata, Woodbury and Mahtomedi, a far
greater percentage of students pass. But the attorneys argue the
solution is not more busing.

"Clearly it's going to involve a change in school attendance
areas," Schulman said. "Whether that actually adds any busing at
all I think is very questionable, because many kids will go
shorter bus rides, some kids will go longer bus rides, but it will
be a mix." What do you think?

Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius was in northern Minnesota
and hadn't seen the lawsuit, but in a statement said, "The
Minnesota Department of Education is committed to helping every
student achieve academic success."

But these parents believe success happens faster when children of
color and ethnicity aren't separated by schools.

"It's like having small countries in the U.S. when we all live
here," Cruz said. "We should integrate and all learn to live
together and get the better or best out of every culture."

The lawsuit, filed in Hennepin County, does not ask for injunctive
relief. It simply asks a judge to order the state to remedy the
violations of state law -- a solution that's anything but simple.


NASHVILLE, TN: Criminal Expungement Under Fire for Potential Cost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Barchenger, writing for The Tennesean, reported that a
unique proposal to erase criminal charges filed against about
128,000 people in Nashville has come under fire by some who say it
would cost more than $14 million to carry out.

Eight objections were filed in court, prompting Nashville attorney
Daniel Horwitz, who brought the class-action case, to make what
could be a key change for the idea's survival. The new element is
people would have to opt in to the case to have their records
destroyed, instead of opting out, as Horwitz had originally
proposed.

"We've bent over backward to accommodate every concern that has
been raised so far, and we'll continue to do so," he said.

Horwitz filed the class-action case before Davidson County General
Sessions Judge Rachel Bell in September. It would require that
agencies destroy records of 350,000 charges filed against 128,000
people that were dismissed or never prosecuted.

One concern raised by attorneys in court filings was that
individuals going through the immigration process sometimes need
to prove they were not convicted of a crime. Expunging records
could destroy those documents, the attorneys' filings say.

Objections filed by state agencies shed light on how much the
mass-destruction of records could cost.

The Tennessee Department of Correction said in court papers it
would cost $6.1 million to destroy their records.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation said it already has a
backlog of 1,194 orders to destroy cases each month. To destroy
records for the 350,000 charges as sought in this case would cost
$8.6 million, according to documents filed on behalf of TBI.

Horwitz said TBI's estimate was more than 100 times what other
agencies estimated the cost to be.

"People's lives shouldn't be used as leverage to expand a
government budget," he said. "Additionally, given the myriad
unresolved problems that exist within Tennessee's prison system
right now, it's a shame that the TBI and the Department of
Correction have focused their attention on shutting down a popular
local effort to help thousands of innocent people clear their
names."

Metro government and the state agencies say in court filings that
the case cannot be heard in General Sessions court.

Metro Nashville Department of Law says in its objection that the
state expungement law, as enacted by the legislature, means only
an individual can request to expunge their own case.

In a September hearing, District Attorney Glenn Funk and Criminal
Court Clerk Howard Gentry said they supported the mass-destruction
of records. Horwitz said 22 individuals and organizations support
the effort. He has requested a hearing be pushed back.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Pedersen" Gender Bias Case Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the captioned case SHANNON PEDERSEN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETICS ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No.: 14-2544, (D.N.J.)

This action asserts claims for gender discrimination arising out
of penalties imposed on several female National Collegiate
Athletics Association (NCAA) athletes at Kean University.
Plaintiffs are current and former Kean University female athletes.
Ms. Pedersen and Jaclyn Janicky currently play for the school's
women's soccer team.  Emily Cristaldi is a former member of the
women's basketball team.

Plaintiffs allege that the penalty was instituted even though
other less severe alternatives existed. They also maintain that
the decision was part of NCAA and the University's policy and
practice of treating female athletes worse than male athletes.  In
comparison, Plaintiffs reference incidents at other universities
involving men's sports teams where players were not penalized.

Defendants National Collegiate Athletics Association and Ameen
Najjar filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.

In her Opinion dated November 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Lg9SEyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Arleo said all five
claims revolve around Defendants' revocation of Plaintiffs'
scholarships in September 2011. Plaintiffs knew about the decision
because they were asked that same month to decide whether to play
or keep their scholarship. As alleged in paragraph 28 of the SAC,
"[o]n or around September 30, 2011, shortly after Kean University
was put on notice for a violation dealing with off-season
activities in Europe, plaintiffs were removed from their
respective sports team or forced to forfeit their scholarship
money with no hearing or considering any other less severe
alternative besides removal from the team or revoking of their
scholarship."  These claims therefore accrued on or around
September 30, 2011. Because this action was instituted in April
2014, the claims are time-barred. Defendants' continued refusal to
deny Plaintiffs a scholarship is simply a residual effect of the
original scholarship revocation. Plaintiffs, moreover, were
alerted about the existence of the claim when the denial occurred
in September 2011, and no pattern of discrimination was necessary
to shed light on Defendants' allegedly discriminatory conduct. The
continuing violations doctrine therefore has no application in
this case. Plaintiffs' state and federal RICO allegations are
woefully inadequate. Most of the allegations consist only of
threadbare recitals of RICO elements and conclusory statements.
Those that do assert genuine factual allegations are either
largely irrelevant to these Plaintiffs or indecipherable. Finally,
Plaintiffs have decided not to defend most of these allegations in
the brief. The Court therefore dismisses Counts 2 and 3 with
prejudice.

Timothy J. McIlwain, Esq. of McIlwain, LLC serves as counsel for
Plaintiff Shannon Pedersen

Kathryn E. Deal, Esq. -- kathryn.deal@dbr.com -- Michael W.
McTigue, Jr. -- michael.mctigue@dbr.com -- and Jennifer Burke
Dempsey, Esq. -- jennifer.burke@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP serve as counsel for Defendant National Collegiate
Athletics Association


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-State Player Challenges Transfer Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Coyne, writing for KSL.com, reported that a former Weber State
football player who says his scholarship was not renewed following
the 2012 season has filed a federal lawsuit against the National
Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) alleging it violates
antitrust laws by forcing players to sit out a year after
transferring schools.

The lawsuit filed on behalf of Devin Pugh in U.S. District Court
in Indianapolis, where the NCAA is based, also contends NCAA rules
that limit scholarships violate antitrust provisions. Bowl
Subdivision schools are limited to 85 football scholarships and
the number is 63 for schools in the Championship Subdivision.

The NCAA said it was aware of "the specific facts of the
plaintiff. However, it appears that many of the allegations are
patterned after litigation filed by this lawyer in other cases."

Among the lawyers filing the lawsuit was Steve Berman of Seattle,
who brought a lawsuit against the NCAA involving former West
Virginia football player Shawne Alston, saying it and the five
major conferences violated antitrust laws by agreeing to cap the
value of an athletic scholarship at less than the actual cost of
attending school; a lawsuit filed by former Gardner-Webb
quarterback John Rock challenging the NCAA's scholarship
restrictions; and a case where a federal judge in San Francisco in
July approved a $60 million settlement for college athletes in a
class-action lawsuit filed against the NCAA and video-game maker
Electronics Arts.

Another case working its way through the courts, led by antitrust
lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, challenges universities' right to cap
compensation at the value of a scholarship.

Pugh was a cornerback at Jenks High School in Oklahoma and
accepted a scholarship from Weber State, an FCS school in Utah,
after coach Ron McBride told him his scholarship would be renewed
annually as long as he did well academically and remained
eligible, the lawsuit says.

New coach Jody Sears told Pugh following the 2012 season his
scholarship would not be renewed, the lawsuit says.

Several schools were interested in offering Pugh a scholarship,
including Colorado State and Colorado, but those and other schools
didn't do so after the NCAA denied him a hardship waiver that
would have allowed him to play right away, the lawsuit states.
Because he had redshirted as a freshman, he would have had only
one year of eligibility remaining after sitting out a year.

Pugh later accepted a scholarship from Division II Colorado State-
Pueblo, where he could play two years. The lawsuit said that
scholarship was worth far less than the one from Weber State,
covering only tuition, but not books, housing or other costs. The
lawsuit said because of that, Pugh had to take out $6,000 a year
in loans at CSU-Pueblo compared with $3,000 a year at Weber State.

"Student-athletes who jockey for these scholarships suffer severe
penalties for transferring, while NCAA coaches are allowed to job
hop, reaping enormous financial benefits and rising to earn more
than $3 million per year," Berman said in a statement.

Pugh tore his quadriceps muscle in his first year at CSU-Pueblo
and left the following year after he got a full-time job, nine
credits short of his degree.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, contending the NCAA's
prohibition on multi-year scholarships has injured thousands of
athletes by causing them to pay millions more in tuition when
their scholarships are reduced or not renewed.

The lawsuit asks the court to rule that a prohibition on multi-
year athletic scholarships, restrictions on the number of
scholarship that can be offered and rules regarding student-
athletes' ability to transfer are unlawful. It also seeks
unspecified actual and punitive damages.


NII HOLDINGS: Labaton Sucharow, Kessler Topaz Named Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Virginia granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and appointment of class representatives
and class counsel in the case captioned, IN RE NII HOLDINGS, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13-15-00390-CV (E.D. Va.).

The action arises out of a strategic business shift undertaken by
NII Holdings, Inc., a telecommunications company headquartered in
Virginia. NII offered wireless voice and data services through its
Nextel-branded subsidiaries in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile,
and Peru.

Lead Plaintiffs, all of which are large pension funds, brought
this action against NII and three current and former NII officers
-- Steven Dussek, who was Chief Executive Officer until December
2012; Steven Shindler, who was Chief Executive Officer after
December 2012; and Gokul Hemmady, who was Chief Financial Officer
until October 2012 and Chief Operating Officer after June 2012,
continuing in that position until the end of the class period.

On September 15, 2014, NII filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York and received court approval of its bankruptcy plan in
June 2015. Due to the bankruptcy, all claims against NII have been
extinguished, leaving only the individual NII officers as
defendants in this civil action which charges them in two counts
with violations of Sec. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 and with "control person" liability under Sec.
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These counts are
premised on allegations that defendants "engaged in a pattern of
lies and half-truths concerning the progress and efficacy of NII's
3G transition, the quality of its customer base, and the company's
ability to generate and maintain positive subscriber growth
metrics.

In the motion, Lead Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) composed of "all
persons and entities that, during the period from February 25,
2010 through February 27, 2014, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded securities of NII Holdings, Inc.
and/or NII Capital Corp. together with NII Holdings and who were
damaged thereby." Lead Plaintiffs also seek their appointment as
Class representatives.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/i0ohhefrom Leagle.com, Judge Brinkema found that
Lead Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they satisfy the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b) by a preponderance
of the evidence.

The Court appointed Labaton Sucharow LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP as Co-Class Counsel and Susan R. Podolsky as Class
Liaison Counsel.

Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne Aniskevich --
eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Steven Jeffrey Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Susan Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law
Offices of Susan R Podolsky.

State-Boston Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne Aniskevich, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Steven Jeffrey Toll, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC & Susan
Rebbeca Podolsky, The Law Offices of Susan R Podolsky.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and The Law Offices of Susan R
Podolsky also represent Industriens Pensionsforsikring A/S; Danica
Pension, Livsforsikringsaktieselskab; The Local 58/NECA Funds; The
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers Pension Plan; and
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund.

NII Capital Corp., Defendant, represented by Edwin Louis Fountain,
Jones Day & Tara Lynn Renee Zurawski, Jones Day.

Individual defendants Steven P. Dussek, Gokul Hemmady, and Steven
M. Shindler, Defendant, represented by Michael Dana Warden --
mwarden@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP.

DeKalb County Employees Retirement Plan represented by Craig
Crandall Reilly, Law Office of Craig C. Reilly.  The firm also
represents Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, TOBAM, SAS,
and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System.


NSW AMBULANCE: Central Coast Paramedics to Join Abuse Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Taylor, writing for Central Coast Gosford Express Advocate,
reports that dozens of distressed Central Coast paramedics are set
to join a landmark class action against NSW Ambulance over years
of alleged bullying, discrimination and harassment by management.

The Express Advocate can reveal discussions are under way with
group litigation specialists Maurice Blackburn in preparation for
hundreds of current and former paramedics taking unprecedented
legal action against the state's ambulance service.

Paramedics and a senior industrial officer with the Australian
Paramedics Association (NSW) has lifted the lid on decades of
alleged abuse by management, a "militaristic culture" of being
told to "suck it up and get back to work" after attending highly
traumatic scenes, and a lack of support for those suffering from
post-traumatic stress disorder.

A current Coast paramedic, who did not want to be named, said
stress levels were "out of control" due to the lack of relief time
between jobs.

"Everyone needs to debrief after being at a traumatic scene.  But,
because of the bed-lock and delays at hospitals, you just don't
get the relief time between jobs anymore," he said.

"The bucket of stress is continually being filled up and never
released."


PAGEDALE, MO: Turning Residents Into Revenue Stream, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kanya D'Almeida, writing for RH Reality Check, reported that
residents of a predominantly Black town in Missouri filed a class
action lawsuit against their city, alleging that its tough
enforcement of the municipal Code of Ordinances has effectively
turned locals into a revenue stream.

Under this extensive code, authorities in Pagedale, Missouri, can
slap homeowners with tickets and fines for such "violations" as
having mismatched curtains hanging in their windows, or an
unpainted wooden post in the front yard.

Officials can also issue fines to residents walking on the left-
hand side of a crosswalk, hosting a barbecue in their front yard,
allowing their children to play on the street in front of their
homes, or wearing pants "below the waist."

The town, which lies a few miles south of Ferguson in St. Louis
County and is home to just over 3,300 people, issued 2,255 non-
traffic related tickets in 2014, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reported in May--approximately two tickets per household.

This represents a 495 percent increase since 2010, according to a
statement by the Institute for Justice, which teamed up with local
residents to file the complaint in the District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

U.S. Census data shows that 93 percent of Pagedale's residents are
Black, and a quarter of its population lives below the poverty
line. Already struggling to make ends meet, members of this
community say that outrageous code enforcement mechanisms have
brought them to their knees.

Two of the case's leading plaintiffs, Valarie Whitner and Vincent
Blount, have lived in Pagedale for decades and borne the brunt of
the city's harsh ticketing regime. Between the pair they've racked
up over $2,800 in fines involving their home, including tickets
for weeds in their vegetable garden and chipped paint on a
downspout.

Whitner has been arrested in front of her own home for an
"unspecified ticket," according to case documents on the Institute
for Justice website, and Blount has even been hauled into jail for
failing to appear in court over fines and tickets. At one point,
Whitner was forced to take out a pay-day loan with a 99 percent
APR in order to pay off some of the fines.

"This is a part of life now," Whitner said in a video about her
case, holding up a sheaf of paperwork related to the loan plans.
"This is the cycle; this is my life."

Excessive fining of homeowners really took off in 2009, when the
State of Missouri strengthened a piece of legislation known as the
Macks Creek law, aimed at capping the amount of revenue
municipalities could raise from traffic tickets at 30 percent of
their general fund. But even as traffic fines dropped, cities and
towns across Missouri experienced an explosion in non-traffic
related citations, which are exempt from the Macks Creek
amendment.

While these practices have been devastating for Pagedale
residents, they have been incredibly lucrative for the city. In
2013, 17 percent of Pagedale's total revenue of over $2 million
came from fines and fees, the Institute for Justice found.

Furthermore, the city's FY 2014-2015 budget set its "anticipated
earnings" from ticketing at $353,000--effectively establishing a
monetary target for code enforcement, regardless of how many
actual violations occur, which legal experts say violates the Due
Process Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.

As the complaint points out:

The need to generate revenue creates an unconstitutional incentive
for Pagedale's prosecutors and municipal court to convict a
defendant, regardless of whether Pagedale personnel respond to
this incentive. As such, the need to generate revenue creates a
substantial risk of bias and prejudgment. This incentive to
convict deprives the named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated
of the due process of the law.

Institute for Justice Attorney Josh House told RH Reality Check in
a phone interview that the problem is not just that Pagedale
budgets for fines and fees, but also the amount the city
anticipates earning off of tickets.

"It is questionable whether or not the town could even exist
without these fines and fees," House said. "The Municipal Court of
Pagedale actually turns a profit. Based on their budget, it looks
like it costs less to run the court than the revenue they get from
it--this is part of our bias claim."

City officials have vehemently denied any link between aggressive
ticketing and revenue collection from its impoverished residents.

"It's got nothing to do with driving up revenue. And it's got
everything to do with making the properties code compliant and
safe," Pagedale City Attorney Sam Alton told the New York Times.
"You have a city that's trying to live within the law . . . and
make its properties safe," he said.

But a close look at the laundry list of fines being levied against
locals suggests otherwise.

An analysis of state court data by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
which provided the impetus for the Institute for Justice to link
with Pagedale residents in the class action suit, suggests that
many of the violations have little to do with safety.

Earlier this year the newspaper reported homeowners receiving
citations for such offenses as peeling paint, overgrown trees, and
not taking out the recycling, while 84-year-old Mildred Bryant,
also a plaintiff in the suit, once received a notice of 12
separate code violations and a warning to re-paint her entire two-
story home.

Lawyers from the Institute for Justice are hopeful that a victory
in the suit "will put hungry jurisdictions in America on notice
that they cannot use code enforcement as a mechanism to raise
revenue."

For couples like Whitner and Blount, however, a positive verdict
will have a much simpler effect: It will allow them to live in
peace in their own home, without the constant fear of waking up to
find an orange sticky note on the front door warning them of yet
another violation.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Eastman" First Amended Complaint Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted motion to dismiss first
amended complaint in the captioned case COLLEEN EASTMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, Defendant (N.D.
Cal.)

This is a putative antitrust class action against Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, a provider of clinical laboratory
testing services. Plaintiffs Colleen Eastman, Christi Cruz, and
Carmen Mendez accuse Quest of monopoly overpricing on its testing
services in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act,
California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law (UCL). They seek to represent a class defined as "health plans
and outpatients residing in Northern California who have paid
Quest directly for routine diagnostic testing on or after January
29, 2011 . . . under plan/outpatient billing arrangements where
the payment to Quest was not entirely comprised of a fixed, per-
visit copayment amount, but depended at least in part on the total
amount due Quest."

Quest moves to dismiss, arguing that the First Amended Complaint
(FAC) suffers from essentially the same deficiencies as the
original complaint and should be dismissed on essentially the same
grounds.

In his Order dated November 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LjURNNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Orrick granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss first amended complaint. Given the
approaching holidays, plaintiffs shall file their second amended
complaint, if any, on or before January 8, 2016.

Judge Orrick noted that Plaintiffs allege Quest has violated the
"unfair" and "illegal" prongs of the UCL. These claims are
derivative of the section 2 and Cartwright Act claims discussed
above, and plaintiffs make no arguments specific to them in their
opposition brief. They will be dismissed. Plaintiffs have alleged
price discounts without establishing any overcharging as a result,
exclusive dealing arrangements without establishing that they
impact more than a minor fraction of the relevant market, and
three acquisitions, one of which was cleared by the FTC and
resulted in a new significant competitor entering the market, and
the other two of which account for a combined 6.6% increase in
market share. Whether viewed in isolation or in the aggregate,
these allegations do not support plaintiffs' monopolization claims
against Quest. The expert analysis in the FAC does show that, in
2013, the prices on certain tests were higher in Northern
California than in the five comparison regions, and that in the
same year Northern California had the highest overall average
price on routine diagnostic testing. But plaintiffs cite no
authority indicating that an entity doing business in a regional
market with certain prices or an overall average price higher than
those in five other regional markets is presumptively engaged in
monopolistic overcharging. As pleaded in the FAC, the
kickback/leveraging theory does not support a section 2 or
Cartwright Act claim against Quest.

Robert Stephen Berry, Esq. -- sberry@berrylawpllc.com -- of Berry
Law PLLC -- Colleen Duffy-Smith, Esq. -- cduffysmith@mdstlaw.com -
- of Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, LLP; J. Ross Wallin, Esq. and
Silvia Noemi Ostrower, Esq. of Grais and Ellsworth LLP serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Colleen Eastman

Allison Winifred Reimann, Esq. -- areimann@sidley.com -- Richard
Raskin, Esq. -- rraskin@sidley.com -- and Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. -
- rsandrock@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin, LLP serve as counsel
for Defendant Quest Diagnostics Incorporated


RESERVE MANAGEMENT: March 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, in In re The Reserve Yield Plus Fund Securities &
Derivative Class Action Litigation No. 08-cv-10261-PGG, a summary
notice has been issued as follows:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


WILLIAM ROSS AND DAWN ROSS V. RESERVE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. ET
AL.

No. 08-cv-10261-PGG
(Class Action)

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR HELD SHARES OF THE
RESERVE YIELD PLUS FUND DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 18, 2007 TO
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY AND HAVE CONTINUED
TO HOLD THE SHARES THROUGH THE DATE OF COURT APPROVAL OF THE
PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, (a) of the pendency
of this action asserting claims against Reserve Management
Company, Inc., Reserve Partners, Inc., Reserve Management
Corporation, Bent Sr., Bent II, Bent III ("Reserve Defendants"),
real party in interest TD Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade Holdings
Corporation, Joseph H. Moglia, Fredric J. Tomczyk, William J.
Gerber, J. Joe Ricketts, and Toronto-Dominion Bank (the "TD
Ameritrade Defendants") (the "Action") as a class action on behalf
of the persons and entities who purchased or held shares of the
Reserve Yield Plus Fund during the period from January 18, 2007 to
September 16, 2008 and who were damaged thereby and have continued
to hold the shares through the date of Court approval of the
proposed Settlement (the "Class"), except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Class by definition; and (b)
that a settlement of the Action between the Reserve Yield Plus
Fund Investor Group ("Lead Plaintiff"), on behalf of itself and
the Class; Reserve Defendants; The Reserve Yield Plus Fund (now
known as the Yield Plus Fund-In Liquidation (the "Yield Plus Fund"
or "Fund") and its Independent Trustees; and TD Ameritrade
Defendants (collectively, "the Settling Parties") that has the net
effect of at least a $5.75 million benefit to Members of the Class
has been proposed.  A hearing will be held on March 4, 2016, at
10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Paul G. Gardephe, at the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 40
Foley Square, Courtroom 705, New York, New York 10007:  (A) to
determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable,
and adequate and should be approved by the Court; (B) to determine
whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided for under the
Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Action, on the
merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the releases
proposed by the Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation, should
be ordered; (C) to determine whether the application by Lead
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses incurred should be approved; and (D) to rule
upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE
ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet
received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and
Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing and Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting
the Claims Administrator:

The Reserve Yield Plus Fund Securities Class Action Litigation
c/o Crederian Fund Services LLC
1400 N. Providence Road
Bldg 2, Suite 5035
Media, PA 19063 (800) 691-7562

A copy of the Notice is available at:

          http://www.primary-yieldplus-liquidation.com

Copies of other documents, including copies of the Stipulation,
and the Complaint, are available on Lead Counsel's website at
www.hbsslaw.com

If you are a Member of the Class, you may be potentially eligible
to receive a distribution from this settlement.  If you are a
Class Member but purchased your shares indirectly (e.g., through a
broker or nominee other than TD Ameritrade, Inc.), you should
contact that broker or nominee immediately, as the Court may order
that any distribution be made through the record holders only,
consistent with its prior orders.  If you purchased shares of the
Fund during the Class Period from or through TD Ameritrade, Inc.
but currently hold those shares at another broker-dealer, you
should contact TD Ameritrade, Inc.

If you are a Member of the Class, you are subject to the
Settlement unless you timely request to be excluded.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
such that it is received no later than 21 days prior to Settlement
Hearing, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.  Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of
Allocation and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of litigation expenses must be filed with the
Court and delivered to counsel such that they are received no
later than 21 days prior to Settlement Hearing, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries may be made to Lead Counsel:

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
Reed Kathrein, Esq.
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA  94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Reed@hbsslaw.com

By Order of the Court


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announces a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Resource Capital Corp. ("Resource Capital" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RSO) concerning possible violations of federal
securities laws between March 2, 2015 and August 4, 2015.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares should
contact the Firm before the lead plaintiff motion deadline.

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

According to the complaint, on August 5, 2015, Resource Capital
announced a net loss of $0.24 per share during the quarter ended
June 30, 2015, caused by a charge of more than $41 million
stemming from the impairment of a loan made to a luxury hotel in
Puerto Rico.

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.
Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


SEVENTH GENERATION: Court Drops MMWA Claim in "Tsan" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the North District of California granted in part Defendant's
request for judicial notice, granted in part Defendant's motion to
dismiss, and denied Defendant's motion to strike in the case
captioned, MAGGIE TSAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEVENTH GENERATION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00205-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Maggie Tsan and Erica Wildstein purchased cleaning
supplies, paper products, and personal care products from
Defendant Seven Generation, Inc. because they "believed they were
natural products." Plaintiffs would not have purchased the
products if they had known they were not natural. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant labeled the products as "natural" to
persuade consumers that the products only contained natural
ingredients and that Defendant profited enormously from its false
and misleading marketing.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on January 14, 2015 asserting the
following claims for relief: (1) violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq.; (3) deceptive
advertising, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17500, et seq.; (4) unfair business practices, pursuant to
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; (5)
deceptive advertising, pursuant to Florida Statute Sec. 501.201,
et seq.; (6) breach of express warranty.

Seventh Generation moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on
several grounds: (1) Plaintiffs fail to allege a plausible theory
of deception; (2) Plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA")
claim fails; (3) Plaintiffs fail to state their claims with
specificity; and (4) Plaintiffs' express warranty claim fails as a
matter of law. Defendant also seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs'
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, arguing that their products are
not "defective" even if they are incorrectly labeled as "natural."

"The motion to dismiss is granted in regards to Plaintiffs' MMWA
claims and denied in regards to all other claims. The motion to
strike is denied," Judge Tigar said in his Order dated November 3,
2015 available at http://is.gd/2qpidbfrom Leagle.com.  Judge
Tigar found that Plaintiffs allege with sufficient plausibility
that a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by the term
natural and that the products are not "defective" even if they are
incorrectly labeled as "natural." The Court found that the higher
pleading standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) has been met, the more
lenient 8(a)(2) standard is also met.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. --
jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP, Melissa Weiner
Wolchansky, Esq. -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- HALUNEN AND
ASSOCIATES & Michael Robert Reese, Esq. -- mreese@reesellp.com --
REESE LLP

Seventh Generation, Inc. is represented by Daniel J. Herling, Esq.
-- DJHerling@mintz.com -- Michelle Gillette, Esq. --
MGillette@mintz.com -- MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO
P.C.


SIENTRA INC: Vincent Wong Law Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased Sientra, Inc.
(NASDAQGS: SIEN) securities between March 18, 2015 and September
24, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/SIEN-
Info-Request-Form-963. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
Sientra's exclusive reliance on Silimed's Brazilian manufacturing
facilities carried significant quality control risks and that the
manufacturing processes at the Silimed Rio de Janeiro
manufacturing plant were contaminated. On March 18, 2015, Sientra
filed its Form 10-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which stated that it was primarily responsible for the
manufacturing and quality assurance of its products.

On September 24, 2015, the United Kingdom's Medicines and
Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency suspended sales of Silimed
products after an audit of Silimed's manufacturing processes
revealed contamination in the manufacturing plant. On this news,
Sientra stock fell $10.88, or nearly 52.9%, to close at $9.70 per
share on September 24, 2015.

If you suffered a loss in Sientra you have until November 24, 2015
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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/SIEN-Info-
Request-Form-963.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.  Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-mail: vw@wongesq.com


SPECTRUM PHARMA: Jan. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Nasdaq:SPPI) ("Spectrum" or the "Company") securities during the
period between May 7, 2015 and October 23, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Investors who wish to become proactively involved
in the litigation have until January 4, 2016 to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Spectrum securities
purchased on or after May 7, 2015 and held through the revelation
of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class
Period, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your
ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or
obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616. No class has yet been certified in the action.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period. Brower
Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that EVOMELA is not
materially clinically distinct from existing standard melphalan
used in hospitals to treat multiple myeloma, that, contrary to
Company statements that melphalan contained a toxic additive, such
was not the case, that it was unlikely that doctors currently
using generic melphalan would suddenly switch to EVOMELA, and that
FDA approval of the EVOMELA was not likely.

According to the complaint, following the October 23, 2015 receipt
by Spectrum received of a complete response from the FDA
indicating that it was not approving the NDA for EVOMELA, the
value of Spectrum shares declined significantly.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.

Charles J. Piven
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
1925 Old Valley Road
Stevenson, Maryland 21153
Telephone: 410-415-6616
hoffman@browerpiven.com


SUNTECH POWER: Feb. 11 Fairness Hearing on $5MM Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD. ("SUNTECH") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY
SHARES OR SUNTECH 3.00% CONVERTIBLE SENIOR NOTES BETWEEN AUGUST
18, 2010 AND JULY 30, 2012, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND
WERE DAMAGED THEREBY AS ALLEGED IN THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT OR THE
AMENDED COMPLAINT.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant Zhengrong Shi ("Defendant"),
Suntech, all directors and officers of Suntech during the Class
Period and members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns and any trust,
company, entity, or affiliate controlled or owned by any of the
excluded persons and entities, or in which Defendant or Suntech
has or had a controlling interest.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, that the class
action (the "Action") is pending and that a settlement of the
Action for $5 million in cash has been proposed.  A hearing will
be held on February 11, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable
Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3 of
the San Francisco Courthouse, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, California 94102 for the purpose of determining,
among other things: (1) whether the Court should finally certify
the Class and whether the Lead Plaintiffs and Co-Lead Counsel have
adequately represented the Class;  (2) whether the Settlement, on
the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation, should
be finally approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(3) whether Judgment should be entered, dismissing the Action on
the merits and with prejudice, and whether the release of the
Released Persons as set forth in the Stipulation should be
ordered; (4) whether the Court should permanently enjoin and bar
the assertion of any Released Claims; (5) whether the Fee and
Expense Application by Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses should be approved; (6) whether the Plan of
Allocation should be approved; (7) whether any Class Member's
timely objection to the Settlement, the Fee and Expense
Application, and/or the Plan of Allocation should be sustained;
and (8) any other such matters as the Court may deem necessary or
appropriate.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Suntech American Depositary
Shares or Suntech 3.00% Convertible Senior Notes between August
18, 2010 and July 30, 2012, inclusive, your rights may be affected
by this Action and the Settlement thereof.  If you have not
received the detailed Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class
Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses And Final Approval
Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you
may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims
Administrator, by mail at: Bruce v. Suntech Power Holdings Co.,
Ltd., c/o Claims Administrator, KCC Class Action Services P.O. Box
40007, College Station, Texas 77842-4007; by telephone at:866-431-
3858; or by visiting the Settlement website
www.SuntechSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim no later than April 5, 2016, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  As further described in the Notice, you
will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of
whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you submit a written
request for exclusion from the Class in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Notice by no later than January 21,
2016.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or
application for attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and
served in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice
no later than January 21, 2016.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Co-
Lead Counsel:

Daniel S. Sommers, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., East Tower, Suite 500, Washington, D.C.  20005,
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com, (202) 408-4600 and Joshua B.
Silverman, Esq., Pomerantz LLP, 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite
3505, Chicago, IL 60603, jbsilverman@pomlaw.com, (312) 377-1181.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against TerraForm Global, Inc. ("TerraForm"), certain
of its officers, its parent company, and the underwriters involved
in its Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The class action is filed
on behalf of all those who purchased TerraForm securities pursuant
or traceable to the Company's IPO on July 31, 2015. It seeks to
recover damages against the defendants for violations of the
federal securities laws.

TerraForm owns and operates contracted "clean power" generation
assets in emerging market countries. It was structured to obtain
the bulk of these assets from its parent company and sponsor,
SunEdison, Inc. ("SunEdison"). SunEdison was to provide a
continuous pipeline of new clean energy assets for acquisition by
TerraForm. The Complaint alleges that in connection with the IPO,
the defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the financial health of SunEdison and the viability of
TerraForm's business strategy. Specifically, the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that by the time of the July 31, 2015
IPO, SunEdison was experiencing severe liquidity issues that
rendered it unable to provide the needed pipeline of new projects
to TerraForm, and, as a result, TerraForm's business objectives
were unachievable. Once these facts were disclosed to the market,
the price of the TerraForm's stock dropped precipitously. The
stock is currently trading at approximately 50% below its IPO
price.

If you are a shareholder who purchased TerraForm securities in
connection with the IPO, you have until December 28, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. To
discuss this action, please contact jfruchter@aftlaw.com or
cporsch@aftlaw.com or call toll free (800) 440-8986. If inquiring
by e-mail, please include your mailing address, telephone number,
and number of shares purchased.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which is based in New York and
has an office in California, has extensive experience in
shareholder and securities class action cases. The firm has been
ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of
recoveries achieved in a recent survey of class action law firms
conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP
Jack Fruchter
Cassandra Porsch
Toll free: 800-440-8986
jfruchter@aftlaw.com
cporsch@aftlaw.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of TerraForm
Global, Inc. ("TerraForm" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GLBL)  common
stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's Initial Public
Offering and Registration Statement of July 31, 2015 ("IPO").

If you purchased TerraForm Global securities pursuant to or
traceable to the Company's IPO, you may, no later than December
28, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation.
Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose material information in its Registration
Statement, including failure to disclose that by the time of the
IPO: (a) the IPO sponsor SunEdison was experiencing unprecedented
losses that would be revealed just days after the finalization of
the IPO; (b) SunEdison was experiencing liquidity and debt issues
that ended its ability to develop projects to sell to TerraForm
Global, thus the Company's "Yield Co" business model was
effectively moribund from the outset; and (c) the aggressive
growth plans for SunEdison and TerraForm Global were unachievable.

On August 6, 2015, only two days after the TerraForm Global IPO
closed, SunEdison reported a loss of $263 million in its second
quarter on $455 million of revenue, and a net loss of $0.93 per
share compared to consensus estimates of a net loss of $0.55 per
share. SunEdison's debt was also reported at nearly $11 billion.
Following this news, the price of TerraForm Global shares fell
from $13.66 on August 5 to $11.27 on August 6, a drop of over 17%.
About Morgan & Morgan

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

Contact:
Morgan & Morgan
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
28 West 44th Street
Suite 2001
New York, NY  10036
1-800-732-5200
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com


TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: Feb. 4 Fairness Hearing on $14MM Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States
Bankruptcy Court Eastern District of Virginia Richmond Division
has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Tibet
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCMKTS:TBET):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO:      ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TIBET
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("TIBET") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR
TRACEABLE TO TIBET'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED
IN CONNECTION WITH TIBET'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF STOCK ON
JANUARY 24, 2011; OR (2) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TIBET
COMMON STOCK FROM JANUARY 24, 2011 TO APRIL 3, 2012, BOTH DATES
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Richmond in the
action (the "Litigation"), that a hearing will be held on February
4, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Keith L. Phillips,
United States Bankruptcy Judge of the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division, 701 East Broad Street, Richmond,
Virginia 23219 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of
determining:  (1) whether the proposed Settlement Agreement
between Plaintiffs and the Chapter 7 Trustee on behalf of Anderson
& Strudwick, Inc. (the "Settling Defendants") consisting of an
allowed, unsecured claim in the total amount of Fourteen Million
Dollars ($14,000,000) in the Debtor's bankruptcy case, which will
be distributed to the Class on a pro rata basis pursuant to the
Bankruptcy Code after payment of other secured claims,
administrative claims, and other priority claims, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is
fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application for an
award of attorneys' fees of the lesser of twenty-five percent of
the Settlement amount or $2.8 million, reimbursement of expenses
of not more than $100,000 and awards to each Class Representative
not to exceed $5,000 per representative should be approved; and
(4) whether the Securities Class Action Adversary Proceeding as
against Settling Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you (1) purchased or otherwise acquired Tibet common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to Tibet's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with Tibet's initial public
offering of Stock on January 24, 2011; or (2) purchased or
otherwise acquired Tibet common stock from January 24, 2011 to
April 3, 2012, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this action.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the
"Notice") and a copy of the Class Action Proof of Claim and
Release, you may obtain copies by writing to the Claims
Administrator at: Anderson & Strudwick Litigation, c/o Strategic
Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3,
Media, PA 19063, or going to the website, www.strategicclaims.net.
You must submit a Class Action Proof of Claim and Release
postmarked no later than January 11, 2016 to the Claims
Administrator establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

As detailed in the Notice, it is unlikely that the actual dollar
value of the Settlement will be $14,000,000.  $14,000,000
represents the maximum possible Settlement Amount. The ultimate
dollar amount of the Gross Settlement Fund will likely be much
less than $14,000,000.

Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Securities Class Action Adversary
Proceeding whether or not you make a claim.  To exclude yourself
from the Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion to the
Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in the Notice, and it
must be received no later than January 5, 2016.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and awards to Class Representatives must
be received by the addresses indicated in the Notice and below by
no later than January 15, 2016.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Cal. Judge Wants "Cahen" Hacking Suit Revised
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted the Defendants' motions
to dismiss with leave to amend in the captioned case HELENE CAHEN,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No.: 15-CV-01104-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against defendants
Ford Motor Company, General Motors LLC (GM), Toyota Motor
Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., alleging that
defendants have equipped their vehicles with computer technology
that is susceptible to being hacked by third parties. They also
assert that defendants improperly collect and transmit information
about vehicle performance and the geographical location of the
cars they sell in violation of plaintiffs' right to privacy.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss.

In his Order dated November 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ML82D8from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
have not established specific or general jurisdiction against
Ford. Additionally, given the lack of injury flowing from the
asserted potential hacking issue, they lack standing to sue the
defendants. Their privacy claims are conclusorily pleaded and need
more specificity. Given the upcoming holidays, plaintiffs shall
file an amended complaint, if any, by January 8, 2016.

According to Judge Orrick, the California Class plaintiffs fail to
adequately identify a protected privacy interest. "Legally
recognized privacy interests are generally of two classes:
interests in precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive
and confidential information (informational privacy), and
interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting
personal activities without observation, intrusion, or
interference (autonomy privacy)."

Donald H. Slavik, Esq. Matthew Joseph Zevin, Esq. and Martin
Darren Woodward, Esq. of Stanley Law Group Marc R Stanley, Esq. of
Stanley Iola, LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiffs.

Christopher Chorba, Esq. -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP serves as counsel for Defendants Toyota Motor
Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Lawrence
Mallow, Sidley Austin LLP, Simone Jones, One South Dearborn,
Johnnet Simone Jones, Sidley Austin LLP & Livia M. Kiser, Sidley
Austin LLP.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas Warren
Sullivan, Crowell & Moring LLP, Cheryl Adams Falvey, Crowell
Moring LLP, Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Crowell & Moring LLP & Rebecca
Baden Chaney, Crowell and Moring LLP.


UBER: California Judge Sets Trial Date in Drivers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J . Hawkins, writing for The Verge, reported that a
California judge set a trial date for the class action lawsuit
challenging the way Uber classifies its drivers as independent
contractors. Judge Edward M. Chen ruled that the trial will start
June 20th, 2016, and will last five weeks.

The case, O'Connor v. Uber, gained some steam in March 2015 when
Chen denied Uber's motion for summary motion and in September when
he certified the case as a class action.

Critics of Uber, as well as interested parties in Silicon Valley,
Washington, DC, and beyond, are watching the case closely to see
if it changes how employees in the gig economy are defined. Uber
has argued the case is "manifestly erroneous."

The case will boil down to whether Uber can successfully convince
a jury that its classification of drivers as independent
contractors, rather than employees of Uber, is appropriate.

David Plouffe, Uber's top political strategist and the former
campaign manager of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential bid, argued
at an event in DC that there is no typical Uber driver, but rather
a range of types, from professional car service drivers to those
that only drive a few days a week.

Plouffe also said that Uber was hardly the sole source of the
nation's independent contractors. "This is not just about new
digital platforms. Many industries have had high rates of
independent workers for decades," he said. "Around 80 percent of
real estate agents were independent in 2014; 64 percent of
registered financial advisors are estimated to independent; even
20 percent of emergency room doctors are estimated to be
independent. And yes, 90 percent of taxi drivers are estimated to
be independent contractors. So any ideas or policy proposals will
inevitably affect these other industries and must take these
equities into account."

The plaintiffs argue that because Uber controls things like fares
and performance standards, they should be considered employees and
entitled to those perks stipulated under California's labor laws,
like reimbursements for vehicles expenses. In a recent decision, a
California labor commissioner ruled that an Uber driver was indeed
an employee and ordered Uber to reimburse the driver for her
expenses. Unlike that case, though, the class action lawsuit is
expected to have more wide-reaching effects.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said
in an email to The Verge that she was pleased a trial date has
been set. "We have another hearing in two weeks for further
discussion about the scope of the class," she wrote. "Judge Chen
indicated his openness to revising parts of his class
certification order that had excluded certain categories of class
members, most notably those who accepted the 2014 arbitration
agreement (which Uber had claimed had greatly diminished the size
of the class)."

Other digital platforms that classify their workers as independent
contractors include Lyft, Handy, Postmates, Door Dash, and many
other VC-backed startups. Policymakers are debating the merits of
the rise in on-demand businesses and whether these employees are
entitled to benefits such as a minimum wage, paid sick leave, and
other benefits.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Expands California Drivers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that many more Uber drivers in California can
participate in a class action against the ride service over their
employment status, a U.S. judge ruled on Dec. 9, even if they did
not opt out of an arbitration clause in their contracts.

Drivers sued Uber in San Francisco federal court, contending they
are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses,
including gas and vehicle maintenance.  The drivers currently pay
those costs themselves.

The results of Uber's legal battle could reshape the on-demand
economy, which is built around Internet companies that serve as
marketplaces matching people who provide a service with others
looking to pay for it.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen said Uber
drivers must have opted out of arbitration to be a member of the
class.  At the time, Uber said Chen's ruling meant only a "tiny
fraction" of a potential 160,000 California drivers would be
eligible to be class members.

But on Dec. 9, Judge Chen found some of Uber's arbitration
agreements unenforceable.  Judge Chen also ruled that drivers
could pursue expense reimbursement claims against the company as a
class action.

In a statement, Uber said it would "immediately" appeal Chen's
ruling.

Large class actions generally give plaintiffs more leverage to
negotiate a settlement. It is unclear how many drivers will
ultimately participate in the Uber case.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the
ruling meant "a much greater number" of Uber drivers would be
allowed to join the lawsuit.  Ms. Liss-Riordan also said expense
reimbursement was the primary damages claim in the case.

Judge Chen also ruled that Uber drivers who work for third-party
transportation providers, like limousine companies, could not be
part of the case.

The case is Douglas O'Connor et al v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California, No. 13-3826.


UNITED KINGDOM: Gov't Sued Over Women Who've Lost Out on Pensions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Read, writing for Independent.co.uk, reported that women
face losing around GBP36,000 worth of pension because they were
given inadequate notice of crucial changes to the State pension
age. As a result many are facing real hardship, warns retirement
expert Alan Higham.

He believes the government has left hundreds of thousands of woman
in financial risk by not making sure they knew that they would
have to wait for a State pension payout. And he warns the
government faces legal action from campaigners demanding fairness
and justice.

"People cannot be left high and dry in real hardship as a result.
The Government must act on the complaints its failures generate,"
Mr Higham said. "The risk of doing nothing is a class action which
could cost the tax payer a small fortune to compensate all
affected while prolonging huge suffering."

The 1995 Pensions Act increased women's State pension age from 60
to age 65 to bring it in line with men. Any woman due to reach age
60 before 2010 kept her pension age. Women born after 6 April 1950
saw their State pension age gradually rise until those born after
6 April 1955 had their State pension paid from age 65 just like
men.

But the Government waited more than fifteen years to inform people
personally: it recently admitted that the first time it wrote to
women was between April 2009 and March 2011. That means a woman
born in March 1953 could have found out for the first time at age
58 that she was not going to get her State pension until age 63.
That's effectively two year's notice of a loss of GBP18,000 of
pension income, Mr Higham points out.

Then it wasn't until 2001 that the Government included details of
the revised state pension age in pension statements requested by
people. Women who received the statements claim the pension age
change was disclosed simply as the year the pension was due to be
paid and buried in text in the middle of the statement.

Mr Higham says it's unclear when the Government first wrote to
women born between April 1953 and April 1955 whose pension age had
been moved in 1995 from age 60 to between age 63 and age 65. "My
reading of the Government's response is that no letter was sent
about this change, possibly because a further change was in the
pipeline. Their story becomes even worse," he says.

For women born in April 1955 the law changed her pension age from
60 to age 65 in 1995 and then to age 66 in 2011. But she might
only have found any of this out from the Government for the first
time at age 58 in 2013. That's effectively just two years' notice
of a loss of GBP36,000 of pension, Mr Higham says."If the
Government waits until it is sued for the losses caused by
inadequate notice then everyone given inadequate notice could
receive some compensation at huge cost to the taxpayer if their
case succeeds," he says.

"My main concern is for those in dire financial hardship: women
with little or no income living on benefits, reliant on charity or
taking no help while running down their savings with only years of
poverty ahead of them. Decency and justice demands they are
assisted immediately."


VALE SA: February 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Dec. 10 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased American Depository Receipts of Vale S.A. ("Vale"
or the "Company") (NYSE: VALE) between March 21, 2015 and November
30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Vale shareholders may, no later than February 5, 2016, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Vale and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/vale

Vale together with its subsidiaries, engages in the research,
production, and sale of iron ore and pellets, nickel, fertilizer,
copper, coal, manganese, ferroalloys, cobalt, platinum group
metals, and precious metals in Brazil and internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by failing to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business and operations.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the accident at Samarco of
the bursting of the Fundao Dam resulted in the spillage of toxic
waste; (ii) Vale had a contract with Samarco that allowed Vale to
deposit iron ore waste from its treatment plants from Vale's
Alegria mine into the Fundao Dam; (iii) Vale's programs and
procedures to mitigate environmental, health and safety incidents
were inadequate.

On November 5, 2015 the Fundao Dam suffered a catastrophic
rupture, releasing a large volume of toxic sludge into Brazil's
Santarem river valley.  The Bento Rodrigues valley, below the dam,
was almost entirely flooded by the cascade of mud that ensued
after the disaster at the dam.  The Fundao Dam was built to
accommodate the waste that results from the extraction of iron ore
from the mines in the region.  The dam was operated by Samarco
Mineracao SA, a joint venture between Vale and BHP Billiton Ltd.

On November 27, 2015, Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella
Teixeira told reporters that Brazil's federal and state
governments plan to sue Vale BHP Billiton and Samarco in response
to the Fundao Dam disaster.  Following this news, shares of Vale
fell $0.20, or 5.6%, to close at $3.37 on November 30, 2015.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
February 5, 2016, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &
Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/vale

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.


VALEANT PHARMA: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind fund
managers and investors that they have until December 21, 2015 to
file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action
lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (VRX)
if they purchased the Company's securities between February 28,
2014 through October 21, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").
This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Valeant or are a fund manager,
institutional or large individual investor, and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, including through a
possible private action against Valeant, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by December 21, 2015.

                     About the Lawsuit

Valeant and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 14, 2015, Valeant reported that it was subpoenaed by
U.S. prosecutors regarding its pricing decisions, drug
distribution and patient assistance programs and that it had
responded to a letter from Senator McCaskill concerning Valeant's
drugs Nitropress and Isuprel.

Then, on October 21, 2015, Citron Research published a report
alleging that Valeant is using pharmacies related to Philidor to
store inventory and record the transactions as sales and "that
Valeant/Philidor have created an entire network of phantom captive
pharmacies" to create fake sales of drugs or to avoid scrutiny
from auditors.

Following this news, the value of Valeant's shares has fallen from
over $175 per share, prior to these adverse disclosures, to a two
and a half year low of approximately $75.00 per share. As a result
of this massive share decline, the investment of many funds,
institutions and large investors have been decimated.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices
in New York, California and Louisiana.

Contact:

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn
Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
206 Covington St.
Madisonville, LA 70447


VIMPELCOM LTD: Bribery Investigations Spark Telenor Review
----------------------------------------------------------
Kjetil Malkenes Hovland and David Gauthier-Villars, writing for
The Wall Street Journal, reported that Norway's Telenor ASA sought
to control damage from bribery allegations engulfing its 33%-owned
affiliate VimpelCom, as Norwegian prosecutors detained a former
VimpelCom chief executive and launched their own corruption probe
into that company.

VimpelCom, Russia's third-biggest telecommunications operator, is
currently the focus of U.S. and Dutch investigations into alleged
corruption related to its operations in Uzbekistan.

Telenor said it has hired a law firm to review how it has handled
its VimpelCom ownership and representatives' actions at the U.S.-
listed company over the past 10 years, especially when it expanded
in Uzbekistan.

Telenor, which said the U.S. and Dutch probes in Amsterdam-based
VimpelCom could complicate its plan to sell its stake, declined to
comment on the Norwegian investigation.

The latest probe opens a new front in what has become an
intertwined set of investigations already involving U.S., Dutch
and Swiss authorities. In addition to VimpelCom, U.S. bribery
probes of companies doing business in Uzbekistan are targeting
TeliaSonera AB of Sweden and Russia's Mobile TeleSystems PJSC.
U.S. prosecutors are seeking to seize hundreds of millions of
dollars in assets they regard as bribes paid by the three
companies to secure business in Uzbekistan, according to U.S.
court documents.

VimpelCom, which said it had set aside $900 million to accommodate
possible losses related to the investigations, declined to comment
on the Norwegian probe. The company said it was fully cooperating
with U.S. and Dutch authorities.

TeliaSonera said it wasn't possible to assess when or how the
probes will be resolved. The company said it doesn't rule out that
certain transactions related to its activities in Uzbekistan have
been in violation of the law. Mobile TeleSystems declined to
comment on the corruption allegations but said it was cooperating
with judicial authorities.

As part of the developments, Norwegian prosecutors said they were
detaining and questioning Jo Lunder, a former VimpelCom CEO, on
suspicions of corruption related to the telecommunications
company's operations in Uzbekistan.

Mr. Lunder, a Norwegian citizen who was chief executive of
VimpelCom from 2011 to April 2015, was detained at the Oslo
airport, according to Norway's chief public prosecutor, Marianne
Djupesland.

Ms. Djupesland confirmed Norway's decision to launch its own probe
but declined to provide details.

A lawyer for Mr. Lunder, Cato Schiotz, told Norwegian radio that
his client was questioned for several hours about a $30 million
money transfer in 2011, made only two months after he took the
helm at the company.

The lawyer said Mr. Lunder denied any wrongdoing. He said police
intended to keep his client in temporary custody, something he
would challenge in court. Norwegian police couldn't be reached for
comment.

Mr. Lunder is currently CEO of the Fredriksen Group, which manages
the holdings of billionaire John Fredriksen.

The Fredriksen Group couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

The sprawling corruption allegations have sparked a debate within
Norway's government and parliament over how much current and
former executives at the majority state-run company knew about
alleged wrongdoing at VimpelCom. Telenor's chairman resigned amid
disagreement with the government.

Across the Atlantic, U.S. law firm Pomerantz LLP filed a suit
against VimpelCom in New York, saying it aimed to have the
complaint certified as a class action. Pomerantz accused the
telecom operator of misleading shareholders by failing to disclose
alleged bribery payments.

"We won't comment on specific litigation but to be clear, we will
zealously defend against these sorts of opportunistic actions,"
VimpelCom said in a statement.

Telenor declined to comment on the Pomerantz suit.


VIMPELCOM LTD: 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
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
that purchased the securities of VimpelCom Ltd. ("VimpelCom" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:VIP) between June 30, 2011 and November 2,
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 made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had
paid tens of millions of dollars to a company controlled by
Gulnara Karimova ("Karimova"), daughter of the president of
Uzbekistan; (ii) the payments to Karimova were unlawful bribes
intended to secure the Company's access to Uzbekistan's
telecommunications market; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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.

On March 18, 2014, the Company reported that it was the focus of
an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice related to its
operations in Uzbekistan.  Thereafter, on August 13, 2015, it was
reported that U.S. authorities had asked their European
counterparts to seize roughly $1 billion in assets in a wide-
ranging criminal probe of alleged corruption by the Company and
two other companies, Mobile TeleSystems PJSC ("MTS") and
TeliaSonera AB ("TeliaSonera"), for paying hundreds of millions of
dollars to businesses controlled by Karimova to secure wireless
spectrum in Uzbekistan.

On November 3, 2015, the Company announced that it had set aside
$900 million for litigation costs in connection with U.S. and
Dutch investigations into the Company's operations in Uzbekistan.
On this news, the Company's ADRs fell $0.17, or 4.63%, to close at
$3.50 on November 3, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 4, 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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Maurice Blackburn to Widen Emissions Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that Australian lawyers
suing Volkswagen over a pollution cheating device will widen their
class actions to include more of the car makers' models.

Maurice Blackburn lawyers say the law firm is set to launch more
class actions after US authorities found eight other models with
VW's 3.0-litre V6 turbo-diesel were found to have software that
allows it to cheat pollution tests.

The other models embroiled in the emissions rigging scandal now
include Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg and more Audi models.

Maurice Blackburn has already launched class actions against
Volkswagen and its subsidiaries Audi and Skoda on behalf of more
than 90,000 motorists affected by the scandal.

Rival law firm Bannister Law has also begun action against VW.

Volkswagen Australia admitted in October that more than 100,000
diesel cars, including the popular Golf and Polo models, were sold
between 2008 and 2014 with the deceptive software.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Porsche, Audi Owners Can Join Diesel Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that Volkswagen-owned luxury brands Porsche
and Audi have been added to the Australian class action against
the German car giant after the diesel scandal spread to more
models.

Owners of the Porsche Cayenne, Audi Q7 and Audi Q5 SUVs equipped
with the 3.0-litre turbo diesel V6 -- also used in the Volkswagen
Touareg -- have been added to the class action led by Maurice
Blackburn lawyers.

With already more than 13,000 respondents, it is one of the
biggest class actions ever undertaken in Australia.

While the Volkswagen Group is in the process of recalling 11
million vehicles worldwide, the diesel scandal affects
approximately 100,000 cars sold in Australia across the VW, Skoda,
Audi and Porsche brands.

In a media statement, the principal for Maurice Blackburn lawyers,
Jason Geisker, said the class action was "the most effective and
efficient way" for owners to be compensated.

While US owners of affected cars have already been offered $500 as
an "initial goodwill gesture", Volkswagen in Australia is yet to
offer any compensation to local customers.

"Where there are serious cases of corporate misconduct on such a
large scale it is important that everyone affected has the
opportunity to participate in the claim and gain access to high
quality legal representation," said Mr. Geisker.

"Whether or not people realise it, they now hold tainted vehicles
that do not comply with Australian standards, which we allege
couldn't have been imported into our country had the truth been
disclosed.

"All motorists the subject of this scam should be treated equally
and compensated in accordance with their full legal entitlements,
nothing more and nothing less."

Volkswagen is facing billions of dollars in fines overseas and in
Australia.

A little known section of Australian motor vehicle regulations
reveals companies can be fined $108,000 for each individual car on
the road that has been approved for importation and sale based on
paperwork with false claims.

With an estimated 100,000 diesel cars sold locally by Volkswagen,
Skoda, Audi and Porsche from 2009 to 2015, that puts the fines
into the billions of dollars in Australia -- if it were to be
enforced.

Furthermore, ACCC chairman Rod Sims says the company may be hit
with a $1.1 million fine per false claim.

For example, if the fuel economy and emissions claims on the
government rating label on Volkswagen Group diesel cars are found
to be false, VW can be fined for at least two misleading claims
per model -- up to $2.2 million.

With more than 20 diesel models across the Volkswagen, Skoda, Audi
and Porsche brands sold locally between 2009 and 2015 the risk of
that group of fines is more than $44 million alone.

"The penalties could be extremely large and way beyond just one
per company," Mr. Sims told News Corp Australia.

"One offence is misleading consumers about what VW has said when
they've advertised the cars," says Mr. Sims, "while the other
offence is by having these devices in use in the cars, that's a
breach of (Australia's car regulations)."

The additional legal action comes as the new global boss of VW,
Matthias Muller, a former Porsche executive, addressed media in
Germany overnight.

He admitted the software cheat had been used for 10 years and it
will take more time still to fix all the cars.

"Our experts looked at the software.  Analyzed all of the relevant
functions.  The software has been there for more than 10 years.
The (rectification) process has not been completed.  We're talking
about millions of lines of code.  We need different solutions for
different engines and variants.  Some can be fixed with a software
update. Some need additional hardware," said Mr. Muller.

Meanwhile, VW denied rumors that the car giant may sell off some
of its luxury brands such as Bentley, Lamborghini and Bugatti to
help pay for the fines and millions of recalls.

"There are no plans to sell off assets" and "there is no
indication that any board member was involved", he said.

And on the touchy subject of compensation, Mr. Muller added: "In
terms of a compensation package our customers are always at the
focus of our attention, and we are working on an overall package
for all affected markets."

The new list of cars added to legal action in the VW diesel
scandal:

    * 2013-2016 Porsche Cayenne
    * 2013-2016 Volkswagen Touareg
    * 2009-2016 Audi Q5
    * 2009-2016 Audi A6
    * 2009-2016 Audi Q7
    * 2009-2016 Audi A7
    * 2009-2016 Audi A8

The law firm says customers can register their interest on its
website at www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/Volkswagen


ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Website Established for Net Winners
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reported that a
website has been created for "net winners" in the defunct
ZeekRewards.com legal case to communicate with a court-appointed
defense attorney.

Net winners have been defined by ZeekRewards receiver Kenneth Bell
as those participants in the Ponzi scheme who had a net gain of at
least $1,000. He said the largest net winners each received more
than $1 million.

In February, Bell gained U.S. District Court permission to certify
about 9,400 net winners as defendants in a class-action lawsuit.
The list contained 15 individuals from Forsyth County, 105 from
the Triad and Northwest North Carolina, and 390 statewide.

Federal Judge Graham Mullen said much of the net winnings for some
defendants may have been dissipated, and the receiver will be
required to help the defendants pay for their defense costs.

On Sept. 12, Mullen appointed Kevin Edmundson, counsel for several
large named net-winner defendants, to represent the class.
Edmundson will communicate with the net winners through the
website, www.zeeknetwinner class.com and by email.

Bell has said he is in pre-trial negotiations with some net
winners while preparing for trial on the lawsuit. Bell said the
potential recovery from the net winners could be as much as $283
million.

"Litigation takes time, and collecting on the judgments we expect
to win against the net winners will also take time," Bell said.
In August 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
accused Rex Venture Group LLC, Zeekler, ZeekRewards.com and Paul
Burks, their principal owner, of raising $850 million through
unregistered securities.

The Lexington companies were shut down and their assets frozen.
The companies raised the money from at least 2.2 million
customers, including more than 230,000 in the U.S. and 47,000 in
North Carolina. Bell said he has recovered more than $336 million
to date.

Bell has distributed $246.05 million from the ZeekRewards.com
estate since Sept. 30, 2014. Bell said the average recipient
should get from 60 percent reimbursement to approaching 70
percent.


* Codacon Urges Duped Olive Oil Consumers to Seek Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gaynor Selby, writing for Olive Oil Times, reports that the
principle consumer rights organization in Italy is encouraging
shoppers who feel duped by buying oil olive from one of the major,
mostly Spanish-owned brand names currently embroiled in the "fake"
EVOO controversy, to seek compensation.

The consumer group Codacon -- Coordination of associations for the
defence of the environment and the rights of users and
consumers -- is steering consumers towards an online form
currently published on its website.

It says people who have bought lower quality oil should be
entitled to compensation and offers to support consumers who
register on the site for free.

The Codacon initiative said that if the alleged offences are
proven, consumers have been misled and deceived.

Seven companies are involved in an ongoing investigation into
lower quality olive oil being passed off as extra virgin.

The story is being widely reported in the Italian press, while in
the U.K. national newspaper, The Telegraph, recently ran an
article which included comments from Rosario Trefiletti, president
of another consumer association in Italy, Federconsumatori.

"The damage caused by this deceit is enormous, not just for
consumers but also for the entire country and for the image of
products that are made in Italy," he was quoted as saying.


* Rule 23 Subcommittee to Tackle Two Pending Settlement Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Beck, Esq. -- jmbeck@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, in an
article for JDSupra, wrote that "in addition to being on the
warpath about cy pres class action settlements, we try to keep an
eye on various other issues related to the much-abused Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.  First, we're pleased as punch to let you know that
all the really awful things that the Federal Judicial Conference's
Rule 23 Subcommittee was contemplating doing (rejecting/watering
down ascertainability, recognizing issue classes, writing cy pres
into Rule 23, and eliminating offers of judgment) have all been
dropped.  Only comparatively minor settlement-related issues (opt-
outs, notice, objectors, approval) remain on the Subcommittee's
agenda."

"There are also two recent, and pending, petitions for certiorari
of note raising class action-related issues.  One of them, Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Phipps, No. 15-597 (U.S., filed Nov. 6,
2015), is a spin-off of the employment-related litigation that
produced Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011).
Having lost Dukes, plaintiffs have tried to regroup by filing
separate, smaller class actions.  Given how long the Dukes
litigation was pending, the statute of limitations becomes a
serious problem for these newer, still quite large class actions.
Hence the issue of "stacking" the tolling effect of successive
class actions under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414
U.S. 538 (1974), is a major issue.  We've been aware of stacking
attempts for some time, but the courts had largely gotten it right
-- until now.  The Phipps petition is from the first court of
appeals decision ever to allow stacking as a general rule.  Hence,
the question presented is:

"Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding, in conflict with
the decisions of seven other Circuits, that statutory limitations
periods applicable to the claims of absent and unknown persons can
be extended indefinitely by filing successive (or "stacked") class
actions.

"The second pending cert. petition of note is in Microsoft Corp.
v. Baker, No. 15-497 (U.S., filed Oct. 9, 2015).  Baker involves a
trick that class action plaintiffs often employ when they've lost
the class certification battle and can't get an immediate appeal
by permission under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).  Not wanting to
litigate individual claims of relatively little value and often
questionable merit, these plaintiffs are wont to dismiss their
individual claims with prejudice to create what they claim is a
situation where they can appeal as of right.

"Wait a minute.  Does a plaintiff who voluntarily dismissed all
claims with prejudice have anything left -- any "case or
controversy" -- to appeal?  The Ninth Circuit said "yes," becoming
the second court of appeal to so hold, versus five circuits that
since 1980 have rejected jurisdiction when this gambit is tried.
There being a circuit split of long standing, Microsoft has sought
Supreme Court review.  The question presented is:

"Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an
order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs
voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice."


* Smaller Companies Must Prepare for Class Action Threats
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric S. Fisher and Ryan C. Grelecki, in an article for Inside
Counsel, report that although class actions are scary for large
companies, they are downright terrifying for smaller businesses.
Certainly, an adverse judgment in a class action could easily
bankrupt a small company, but even the mere filing of a class
action could easily drain resources long before the case reaches a
jury.

The "Copycat" Problem

For companies that do business in multiple states, "copycat" class
actions are more prevalent than ever.  In some instances, the
initiation of litigation by a state's attorney general will set
off an avalanche of class action filings by plaintiffs' attorneys.
It is also common for a plaintiff's attorney in one state to tip
off a fellow plaintiff's attorney in another state, who will then
tip off another, and so on, creating a domino effect of class
actions.

When it comes to lawsuits brought by a state's attorney general,
representatives of smaller companies should do everything in their
power to avoid the attorney general initiating litigation.
Although business owners and other decision-makers may bristle at
penalties and corrective action plans proposed by the attorney
general, such stakeholders need to understand that the prospective
risk is not limited to that state's attorney general, but includes
the plaintiffs' bar and attorney generals from other states.
Unless the company believes it can afford to fight long enough to
prove its hands are clean, in most instances, it is prudent to cut
a deal quickly, before other potential complainants spot an
opportunity.

To avoid the plaintiff's attorney domino effect, smaller companies
should promptly alert the first filing attorney that company funds
are limited.  Messrs. Fisher and Grelecki said "In our experience,
plaintiffs' attorneys often fail to consider how low profit
margins can be in certain industries, especially in the first few
years of operation.  They often incorrectly assume that a company
has sufficient assets simply because it has thousands of customers
and operates in multiple states.

"For example, if a plaintiff's attorney believes that recovery may
be difficult in her own case, she will be much less inclined to
share information about her action with an attorney from another
state. Because plaintiffs' attorneys are not simply going to take
your word about the financial condition of the company, this may
require the production of certain financial documents.

"To be clear, we do not recommend voluntarily turning over
customer information (names and addresses) or other proprietary
data, but simply enough information to show that the company does
not have the deep pockets originally assumed. These financial
documents should be deemed confidential during settlement
negotiations by agreement of counsel."

             To Compel or Not to Compel Arbitration

In disputes with consumers or employees, smaller companies may be
able to circumvent the class action process altogether if they
have valid arbitration provisions in the relevant agreements.
Although the standards for enforcement of arbitration provisions,
especially in the class action context, continue to evolve, it is
important to note that we have recently seen more regular
enforcement of class action-related arbitration agreements in most
commercial contexts.

Assuming the company's agreements with plaintiffs include
arbitration provisions, the company should seriously consider
seeking to compel arbitration immediately.  In comparison to class
action litigation, arbitration generally takes less time and
money, especially if the agreements require the use of an
established arbitration company that, unlike courts, have
streamlined discovery and hearing practices.

The greatest drawback for smaller companies in arbitration
proceedings is that most arbitrators charge substantial fees,
either upfront or soon after commencement of the process.  This is
not as problematic if a plaintiff's attorney represents only a few
claimants.  But, if the plaintiff's attorney represents tens or
hundreds of claimants, the cost associated with that many
proceedings, which must be paid at the outset, will quickly
approach six figures in arbitration fees alone.

Accordingly, for smaller companies, it is important to get a sense
from the plaintiff's attorney of how many prospective claimants
she will represent.  The best time to gather such information is
during confidential settlement discussions.  Because of fixed
upfront arbitration expenses, attorneys' fees, and the possibility
of an adverse and often binding decision, compelling arbitration
may not be the best route for smaller companies if the plaintiff's
attorney is already representing more than a few claimants.

Focus on the Named Plaintiffs

For every company facing a class action, it is important to find
out as much as possible about the named plaintiffs who serve as
the prospective class representatives.  As explained in part one
of our series, one requirement for class certification is that the
named plaintiffs are, in fact, adequate class representatives.

A common defense is that the facts surrounding the named
plaintiffs' claims are different than those of other prospective
class members.

For example, if the named plaintiffs allege the company misled
them, can the company argue that the alleged misrepresentations
made to the named plaintiffs were not made, or not made in the
same way, to others? If so, the company may be able to convince
the filing attorney that an individual settlement with the named
plaintiffs is more appropriate than a class action.

Even if the filing attorney is not convinced, she is required to
convey any settlement offers to her clients, and the named
plaintiffs may decide they would rather take a quick settlement.

It is important to note that, unless there is a class-wide
settlement, there is no way to prevent the filing attorney from
finding new named plaintiffs and seeking class certification with
these new representatives.  Regardless, it is prudent to explore
an individual settlement with the named plaintiffs as soon as
possible.

Despite the appearance, class action litigation does not
necessarily spell impending doom for smaller companies, but
representatives must act quickly and precisely to sufficiently
mitigate the associated risks.


* Supreme Court to Tackle Class Actions with Major Implications
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalina Azuero, Esq. -- cazuero@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin
Procter LLP, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, wrote
that the US Supreme Court's October 2015 term includes three cases
that may have important implications for class action litigation:
Spokeo Inc. v. Robins et al., 13-1339, Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, 14-857, and Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 14-1146.  In
each case, the Court will consider a procedural question whose
answer could change the status quo in class action litigation,
specifically: (1) in Spokeo, whether Congress, by virtue of
creating a cause of action, can confer standing on a litigant,
notwithstanding whether the litigant has been actually injured
(standing without injury could make it easier for a class to be
certified under Rule 23); (2) in Campbell, whether an offer for
complete relief can moot the claims of a plaintiff when the
plaintiff is a named representative in a putative class action;
and (3) in Tyson, whether differences among individual class
members may be ignored and a class certified under Rule 23(b)(3)
when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured
and have no actual damages.

In anticipation of opinions in 2016, we will explore the history
of the three cases and the status through oral arguments, and we
will update this post as the opinions are handed down at the end
of the term.   First up -- the Court's examination of standing in
Spokeo.

A complete company of the article is available at:

                       http://is.gd/D6RSUp


                            *********

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  * * *