CAR_Public/151223.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 255


                            Headlines


6D GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
ADS WASTE: Continues to Defend Class Action in Macon County
B&G FOODS: Defendant in Class Action Filed by Weston Firm
BUCKNELL: Devon Faces Sanction, Class Action Deadline Missed
CALIX INC: Continues to Advance Class Action Defense Costs

CAPITAL ONE: Canada Courts Okayed Settlement in Watson Case
CVR ENERGY: Faces "Mustard" Class Action Over Rentech Deal
CVR ENERGY: Faces "Sloan" Class Action Over Rentech Deal
DARA BIOSCIENCES: Superior Court Stayed North Carolina Complaint
DRDGOLD LIMITED: Class Cert. Judgment Expected in February 2016

EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Filed Class Action in Connecticut
EXELON CORP: Payments in TCPA Class Suit to Be Made This Quarter
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Securities Litigation Goes to Mediation
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Hialeah Employees' Case
GLOUCESTER TAXI: Drivers File Wage Class Action

HOME DEPOT: Must Disclose Data Breach Settlement Communications
INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Action Connected to Acquisition
INTERSIL CORP: TECTVT Reserved Right to Seek Indemnification
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Court Dismissed All Claims in "Fernandez" Case
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in SAIC Securities Litigation Pending

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over "J" Stock Shares
LEXIS NEXIS: 4th Circuit Upholds Ruling in FCRA Case
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Two Putative Class Actions Pending in Alabama
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Calif. Court Approves Class Action Deal
MARK GROUP: Former Employees Take Legal Action

MYLAN N.V.: Final Petrial Conference Set for January 19
MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $16 Million Related to Modafinil Settlement
MYLAN N.V.: Defendants Moved to Dismiss City of Providence Suit
MYLAN N.V.: No Longer Named as Defendants in Minocycline Suit
MYLAN N.V.: Indirect Purchasers' Suit Over Pioglitazone Dismissed

MYLAN N.V.: Defending Against City of Riviera Beach Action
NAVIENT CORP: Defending Class Action by Student Loan Borrower
NAVIENT CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Blyden" Action Pending
NEW YORK: City Appoints Special Master to Monitor Mold Repairs
NEW YORK: Grassroot Group Mulls Class Action Over Monitor

NEW YORK: Plans to Overhaul Use of Solitary Confinement in Prisons
OSI SYSTEMS: Defendants to Pay $15MM in Securities Class Suit
PFIZER CANADA: Court Tosses Class Action Over Patent Abuse
PIPER JAFFRAY: California and New York Cases Ongoing
PPL CORPORATION: 6th Cir. Ruling on Cane Run Claims Pending

REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Dismissal Bids Remain under Consideration
ROBERT HALF: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $19 Million
SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Motion Pending in Ritz Case
SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Samsung Antitrust Case
SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Federal Antitrust Suit

SANDISK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
SANTA CLARA, CA: Sheriff Sued Over Use of Solitary Confinement
SONUS NETWORKS: Filed Motion to Transfer "Huang" Case
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Action Mulled Over Natural Gas Leak
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Appeal in Cass Action Remains Pending

SUBARU: Quebec Man Files Class Action Over Oil Issues
SUBWAY: CCAF Objects to Class Action Settlement
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defendant in 2 Putative Class Actions
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Two Fraud Class Actions Underway
VITAL THERAPIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Employees Under Probe Amid Emissions Scandal
WEST BANCORPORATION: Ruling in Case Appeal Expected in 2016
YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss N.D. Cal. Suit
YELP INC: Suit by Former Eat24 Customer Support Employees Pending
YELP INC: Defending Class Action by Former Eat24 Sales Employee





                            *********


6D GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------
Gilman Law LLP on Dec. 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against 6D Global Technologies, Inc., its alleged
controlling shareholder, Benjamin Wei, and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

The Complaint was brought on behalf of a class of shareholders of
6D Global or its predecessor, CleanTech Innovations, Inc., and
alleges that the named Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had deficient internal controls that allowed
Benjamin Wei to exert improper influence and control over the
Company, (2) the Company was engaged in improper and undisclosed
material related party transactions, and (3) Defendants were
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the Company's stock price.
On September 8, 2015, the Department of Justice indicted Wei, the
founder of New York Global Group, for securities fraud.  On
September 10, 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil action against Wei and New York Global Group for their roles
in the alleged fraudulent scheme to obtain and profit from
undisclosed, controlling ownership interests in several U.S.
companies, including 6D Global.

Following these events, NASDAQ halted trading in 6D Global on
September 10, 2015.

If you are an investor who purchased or acquired and still owns 6D
Global common stock and suffered a loss then please contact Gilman
Law LLP today, at 1-888-252-0048 or
http://www.investment-losses.comto ensure your legal rights are
not forfeited.

                       About Gilman Law LLP

Gilman Law LLP, a leading financial law firm, has been recognized
for delivering successful results to their clients across a broad
range of claims stemming from securities class actions and
derivative actions.  For over 35 years, the Gilman Law LLP team of
highly experienced lawyers has earned renown for tireless work on
behalf of their clients on many of today's most challenging and
important legal issues.


ADS WASTE: Continues to Defend Class Action in Macon County
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a class action in the Circuit Court of Macon
County, Alabama.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses against these purported class actions, which
it will vigorously pursue. Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of these cases, the unknown
size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues in
dispute, the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a
range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated.


B&G FOODS: Defendant in Class Action Filed by Weston Firm
---------------------------------------------------------
B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that B&G Foods has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed by
The Weston Firm on behalf of Troy Walker in August 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The lawsuit alleges that our company has violated
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition
Law, with respect to the advertising, marketing and labeling of
certain Ortega taco shells.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges,
among other things, that the products are deceptively marketed
because the products are labeled "0g trans fat" on the front of
the package and contain partially hydrogenated oil.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  We
intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and believe that the
plaintiff's claims are without merit and that the products are and
have at all times been properly labeled in compliance with
applicable law.  We also believe the claims are moot because,
among other things, we began transitioning away from partially
hydrogenated oil before first being contacted by The Weston Firm
and we no longer use partially hydrogenated oil in these Ortega
products.  No discovery has commenced in this lawsuit, and a
motion to dismiss the claims is pending.  Based upon information
currently available, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of
this matter will have a material adverse effect on B&G Foods'
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity.


BUCKNELL: Devon Faces Sanction, Class Action Deadline Missed
------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a Mechanicsburg
lawyer and his law firm have been ordered to pay $5,000 for not
following a federal judge's orders in a civil case.

U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann on Dec. 16, in
imposing sanctions on Devon Jacob and Jacob Litigation, said their
clients cannot be billed for the $5,000.

The money is to go toward legal costs incurred by the defendants
related to their motion for sanctions, the judge said.

If the full amount is not paid by Jan. 15, Jacob and his law firm
will be disqualified from the case that stems from a Feb. 16,
2012, search of a Bucknell University fraternity and residence
hall, Judge Brann wrote.

Mr. Jacob represents Kevin Wagner, Frasier Esty and Tony Migliori,
three former members of Kappa Sigma fraternity who claim the
search violated their Fourth Amendment rights.

The defendants asked for sanctions, including dismissal of the
suit and attorney fees, because the third amended complaint filed
by Mr. Jacob included claims and part of counts Brann previously
had dismissed.

Mr. Jacob claimed he "simply and innocently included the dismissed
claims" and his clients bore no responsibility for his actions.

In refusing to dismiss the suit, Brann found there is no evidence
Mr. Jacob proceeded in bad faith but noted he had been warned
after his second amended complaint that he was crossing the line
with his less-than-artful pleadings.

Judge Brann cited the "argumentative, impertinent and wholly
irrelevant" introduction section of that complaint he had struck.

One should suppose the blunt criticism would suffice to dissuade
counsel from filing pleadings that fail to conform to the rules of
civil procedures and common sense, the judge wrote.  "That does
not appear to have worked in this instance," he said.

Further disregard for court orders will result in Mr. Jacob being
disqualified as counsel in this case, Judge Brann wrote.

Mr. Jacob has permission to file a fourth amended complaint but
the judge said it must be in compliance with court orders.

Six now former students identified only by initials in 2013 filed
suit against 11 Bucknell officials including President John C.
Bravman, two deputy sheriffs from two counties who participated in
the search and the counties themselves.

Three of the plaintiffs chose not to proceed when Brann ruled that
their names had to be made public.

The issue in the case is whether Bucknell, using its own law
enforcement personnel and county law enforcement personnel who
were funded by taxpayers, was authorized by the Fourth Amendment
to search the rooms without any evidence of prior wrongdoing,
warrant, consent or probable cause.

Bucknell claims it conducted, with the help of two dogs and deputy
sheriffs from Union and Montour counties, what it calls a private
administrative search that was consistent with school policy and
complied with provisions of the student handbook.

The school claims the search was conducted after drug
paraphernalia was discovered in a dormitory trash can and a
faculty member found a cell phone in her classroom with numerous
texts suggesting drug activity.

Suspected LSD tablets, marijuana, synthetic marijuana, 5.5-inch
hunting knife, slingshot, pellet gun designed to look like an
automatic pistol, 11-inch bong, 16-inch bong, nine pipes, digital
scale, seven grinders and a lock-picking set were confiscated,
Bucknell says.

Any discipline was handled internally and none of the students was
prosecuted criminally, the university says.

Mr. Jacob's attempt to make the case a class action to include all
60 students whose rooms were searched failed when Judge Brann
ruled he missed the deadline to file the required certification.


CALIX INC: Continues to Advance Class Action Defense Costs
----------------------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 26, 2015, that although Occam is no longer
a defendant in a class action lawsuit, Calix has continued to
advance defense costs related to this lawsuit.

On September 16, 2010, the Company, two direct, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, and Occam entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger and Reorganization (the "Merger Agreement"). In
response to the announcement of the Merger Agreement on October 6,
2010, a purported class action complaint was filed by stockholders
of Occam in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Steinhardt v. Howard-
Anderson, et al. (Case No. 5878-VCL). On November 24, 2010, these
stockholders filed an amended complaint (the "amended Steinhardt
complaint"). The amended Steinhardt complaint named Occam (which
has since been merged into Calix) and the members of the Occam
board of directors as defendants. The amended Steinhardt complaint
did not name Calix as a defendant.

The amended Steinhardt complaint sought injunctive relief
rescinding the merger transaction and an award of damages in an
unspecified amount, as well as plaintiffs' costs, attorney's fees,
and other relief.

The merger transaction was completed on February 22, 2011(the
"Effective Date"). On January 6, 2012, the Delaware court ruled on
a motion for sanctions brought by the defendants against certain
of the lead plaintiffs. The Delaware court found that lead
plaintiffs Michael Steinhardt, Steinhardt Overseas Management,
L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C., collectively the "Steinhardt
Plaintiffs," had engaged in improper trading of Calix shares, and
dismissed the Steinhardt Plaintiffs from the case with prejudice.
The court further held that the Steinhardt Plaintiffs are: (i)
barred from receiving any recovery from the litigation, (ii)
required to self-report to the SEC, (iii) directed to disclose
their improper trading in any future application to serve as lead
plaintiff, and (iv) ordered to disgorge trading profits of $0.5
million, to be distributed to the remaining members of the class
of former Occam stockholders. The Delaware court also granted the
motion of the remaining lead plaintiffs, Herbert Chen and Derek
Sheeler, for class certification, and certified Messrs. Chen and
Sheeler as class representatives. The certified class is a non-
opt-out class consisting of all owners of Occam common stock whose
shares were converted to shares of Calix on the date of the merger
transaction, with the exception of the defendants in the Delaware
action and their affiliates. Chen and Sheeler, on behalf of the
class of similarly situated former Occam stockholders, continue to
seek an award of damages in an unspecified amount.

Fact discovery in the case closed on April 30, 2013. On June 11,
2013, the plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ("Second Amended
Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint adds Occam's former CFO
as a defendant, and alleges that each of the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to attempt to obtain the best
purchase price for Occam and failing to disclose certain allegedly
material facts about the merger transaction in the preliminary
proxy statement and prospectus included in the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on November 2, 2010.

On July 17, 2013, attorneys representing all of the defendants
named in the Second Amended Complaint filed Defendants' Opening
Brief in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing
that all defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all counts
of the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' answering brief to
the motion for summary judgment was filed on September 3, 2013,
and defendants' reply brief was filed on October 4, 2013. A
hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held on December 6,
2013.

On April 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
issued an Opinion granting in part and denying in part the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The ruling granted
summary judgment on all claims as to Occam, the corporate entity,
and accordingly, Occam is no longer a defendant in the action. The
court also granted summary judgment in favor of those defendants
who served solely as directors of Occam with respect to all claims
alleging improper actions in connection with the Occam sale
process. The court left in place the process-based claims against
Occam's former CEO and CFO, and declined to grant summary judgment
on separate claims that the director and officer defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by issuing a proxy statement for
Occam's stockholder vote that allegedly contained misleading
disclosures and had material omissions.

On June 12, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel
Production of Documents by Defendants and Jefferies & Company,
Inc. ("Jefferies") and For Sanctions Against Defendants. This
motion sought additional documents from defendants and from
Jefferies, Occam's former financial advisor, and requested that
the court impose severe sanctions, up to and including a finding
of liability against defendants. Defendants have rejected the
suggestion that any additional documents should be produced and
vigorously opposed the imposition of any sanctions. On September
3, 2014, the court denied the motion without prejudice as to
defendants, directed counsel for the defendants to provide an
affidavit clarifying the prior conduct of discovery, and ordered
discovery into defendants' document collection and review
methodologies. The court also ordered Jefferies to produce
additional documents. Those proceedings are ongoing, but the
plaintiffs have indicated that they do not intend to seek any
sanctions against the defendants at this time. Instead, plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting leave to amend their complaint to add
Jefferies and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. ("Wilson
Sonsini"), former defense counsel in this lawsuit, as defendants.
That motion was heard by the Court on March 23, 2015. At the
hearing the Court vacated the existing April 20, 2015 trial date
and indicated it would set a new trial date after ruling on the
motion requesting leave to add additional parties.

On July 16, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add Jefferies as a defendant, but granted
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to add
Wilson Sonsini as a defendant. On July 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their Third Amended Complaint adding Wilson Sonsini as a defendant
in the lawsuit. Defendants filed their answers to the Third
Amended Complaint on September 8, 2015. Trial for this matter has
been tentatively scheduled for the weeks of April 11 and April 18
in 2016 before the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company
continues to believe that the allegations in this action are
without merit and intends to continue to vigorously contest the
action as it moves forward toward trial. However, there can be no
assurance that the defendants will be successful in defending this
ongoing action.

Although Occam is no longer a defendant in this lawsuit, the
Company has continued to advance defense costs related to this
lawsuit. The Company has obligations, under certain circumstances,
to hold harmless and indemnify each of the former Occam directors
and officers who remain defendants in this action against
judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to claims
against such directors and officers to the fullest extent
permitted under Delaware law and Occam's bylaws and certificate of
incorporation. Such indemnification obligations may ultimately
result in the payment of indemnification amounts by the Company.
In addition, under the engagement letter between Occam and
Jefferies, the Company has obligations, under certain
circumstances, to hold harmless and indemnify Jefferies against
judgments, fines, settlements and expenses related to Jefferies'
engagement by Occam, and Jefferies has demanded that the Company
indemnify Jefferies in connection with this litigation under this
agreement. The Company has begun to pay fees and expenses of
Jefferies in connection with this matter, and expects that it will
make additional payments as the matter proceeds, though at this
time the Company is not able to estimate the amount of any future
payments.

The Company continues to incur significant legal fees and costs
defending this lawsuit. The Company currently believes that its
defense costs related to indemnity obligations will exceed its
remaining available Directors & Officers liability insurance
coverage as the matter proceeds to trial.  The legal proceedings
have been protracted as plaintiffs continue to seek additional
discovery and, most recently, with the addition of Wilson Sonsini
as a defendant in the action. The Company has also incurred
certain expenses that are not covered by insurance.

Following Jefferies' demand for indemnification the Company
notified Occam's insurance carriers, and such carriers have
advised in writing that they do not believe the Jefferies
indemnification obligations are covered by the Company's
insurance. Thus, the Company's indemnification obligations to
Jefferies that apply to this lawsuit will not be covered by
insurance. The Company's indemnity obligations that are in excess
of its insurance coverage could be material, particularly if there
is an adverse result at trial, and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, operating results or financial
condition.


CAPITAL ONE: Canada Courts Okayed Settlement in Watson Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
courts across the different provinces in Canada have provided
preliminary approval of the class settlement in the case by Mary
Watson.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada.

In March 2014, the court granted a partial motion for class
certification. Both parties appealed the decision to the Court of
Appeal for British Columbia, which heard oral argument in December
2014.

In April 2015, the merchant plaintiffs and Capital One agreed to
settle all matters filed in Canada as to Capital One, and in
August 2015 the courts across the different provinces provided
preliminary approval of the class settlement.


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

The Mustard Lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the
consideration offered by CVR Partners is unfair and inadequate and
that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly
conflicted and unfair process, certain of the defendants have
breached their duties owed to the unitholders of Rentech Nitrogen,
and are engaging in self-dealing. Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges that the director defendants: (i) failed to take steps to
maximize the value of Rentech Nitrogen to its public shareholders,
(ii) failed to properly value Rentech Nitrogen, and (iii) ignored
or did not protect against the numerous conflicts of interest
arising out of the proposed transaction. The Mustard Lawsuit also
alleges that Rentech Nitrogen, Rentech Nitrogen GP, Rentech
Nitrogen Holdings, Inc., Rentech, Inc., CVR Partners, DSHC, LLC,
Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 aided and abetted the director
defendants in their purported breach of fiduciary duties.


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

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


DARA BIOSCIENCES: Superior Court Stayed North Carolina Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dara Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Superior Court
in Wake County, North Carolina has entered an order staying the
North Carolina Complaint at the request of the parties.

On June 3, 2015, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Midatech Pharma PLC, a public
limited company organized under the laws of England and Wales
("Midatech"),  Merlin Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Midatech (the "Merger
Sub"), Duke Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of Midatech (the "Secondary Merger Sub")
and Shareholder Representative Services, LLC, a Colorado limited
liability company, solely as a representative of the stockholders
of the Company (the "Stockholder Representative"), pursuant to
which (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger (the "Surviving
Corporation") as the wholly owned subsidiary of Midatech and (ii)
immediately following the Merger, Midatech will cause the
Surviving Corporation to merge with and into Secondary Merger Sub
(the "Secondary Merger"), with Secondary Merger Sub surviving the
Secondary Merger as the wholly owned subsidiary of Midatech.

The Company, its individual Board of Directors, Midatech, Merger
Sub and Secondary Merger Sub are named as defendants in purported
class action lawsuits brought by alleged Company stockholders
challenging the Company's proposed merger with Midatech.  Three
stockholder actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (Steve Schnipper v. David J. Drutz, et al., C.A.
No. 11262-VCG, filed on June 23, 2015; Matthew Quinn v. DARA
Biosciences, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11217-VCG, filed on June 26,
2015; and Eric Edwards v. David J. Drutz, et al., C,A. No. 11262-
VCG, filed on July 8, 2015) and one stockholder action was filed
in the Superior Court in Wake County, North Carolina (Jacob
Presson v. DARA BioSciences, Inc. et al., filed on July 27, 2015),
referred to as the North Carolina Complaint.

On August 21, 2015, the plaintiff in the Schnipper action filed an
amended complaint, referred to as the Schnipper Amended Complaint.
On September 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an
order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter,
In re DARA BioSciences Stockholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. 11194-
VCG, referred to as the Consolidated Delaware Action, and
designated the Schnipper Amended Complaint as the operative
complaint.  On October 1, 2015, the Superior Court in Wake County,
North Carolina entered an order staying the North Carolina
Complaint at the request of the parties.

The stockholder actions generally allege, among other things, that
(i) each member of the Company's Board of Directors breached his
or her fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by
authorizing the sale of the Company to Midatech, (ii) the merger
does not maximize value to the Company's stockholders, and (iii)
Midatech, Merger Sub, Secondary Merger Sub and the Company aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by
the members of the Company's Board of Directors.  In addition, the
Consolidated Delaware Action alleges that Midatech's Registration
Statement on Form F-4 filed August 11, 2015 omits or misstates
certain material information.  The stockholder actions seek class
action certification and equitable relief, including judgments
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger on the
agreed-upon terms.  The Company believes the claims asserted by
the plaintiffs to be without merit.


DRDGOLD LIMITED: Class Cert. Judgment Expected in February 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
DRDGOLD Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that judgment is expected in
February 2016 in respect of the certification of a class action.

In January 2013, DRDGOLD, ERPM ("the Companies") and 23 other
mining companies ("the Respondents") were served with a court
application for a class action issued in the South Gauteng High
Court by alleged former mineworkers and dependants of deceased
mineworkers. In the pending application the applicants allege that
the Companies and the Respondents conducted underground mining
operations in a negligent manner such that the former mineworkers
contracted silicosis. The applicants have not yet quantified the
amounts which they are seeking the Respondents to pay as damages.

The Companies are gathering information in preparation for the
matter. An answering affidavit opposing the application for the
certification of a class action was filed with the High Court on
June 24, 2014. The hearing in respect of the certification of a
class action commenced on October 12, 2015 and was scheduled to
conclude on October 23, 2015. Judgment is expected in February
2016.


EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Filed Class Action in Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------------
The Eastern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 3, 2015, that Barington Companies
Equity Partners, L.P. ("Barington") filed on April 17, 2015, a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company and its board
of directors (the "Board") in the Superior Court of Waterbury,
Connecticut (the "Action").  The Action alleged, among other
things, that the Eastern Board breached its fiduciary duties by
amending the Company's bylaws to allow the Board to fill vacancies
resulting from an expansion of the number of Board seats.  The
Action also challenged the Board's announced intention to increase
the size of the Board and appoint a new director after the May 20,
2015 Annual Meeting, and sought, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the Board from nominating a new director that is
the result of an expansion of the number of Board seats without
Shareholders voting on the appointment.  On April 17, 2015,
Barington filed a motion for expedited proceedings and discovery
prior to the May 20, 2015 Annual Meeting.  On April 29, 2015, the
Court issued an Order holding that the Action is derivative, and
staying the case until July 11, 2015 pursuant to Connecticut law.
On July 13, 2015, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal (the "Stipulation") entered into by the parties in
connection with the Action.  The Stipulation provides for, among
other things, the dismissal of the Action after the requisite
notice period to shareholders has expired.  The Company expensed
$320,500 in legal fees and settlement costs during the second
quarter of 2015 resulting from this lawsuit.  All costs and fees
related to this matter in excess of this amount have been paid by
the Company's insurance carrier.


EXELON CORP: Payments in TCPA Class Suit to Be Made This Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Commonwealth
Edison Company and Peco Energy Company Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that in the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Lawsuit against ComEd, payments to the class
expected to commence in the fourth quarter 2015.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text.

In February 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class
action complaint, which was denied in June 2014. On February 19,
2015, ComEd and the plaintiff agreed in principle to settle the
suit for $5 million, which ComEd has recorded as a liability as of
September 30, 2015. On September 11, 2015, the court granted final
approval of the settlement. ComEd deposited funds for the
settlement directly into an escrow account in September 2015, with
payments to the class expected to commence in the fourth quarter
2015.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Securities Litigation Goes to Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
expects to engage in mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015 in
the Securities Litigation.

In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief
executive officer and its then current chief financial officer
were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel
Esguerra v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff
alleged securities law violations involving certain disclosures in
2013 and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance
reserves. The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth
Financial, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the
same defendants, alleges the same securities law violations, seeks
the same damages and covers the same class as the Esguerra
lawsuit. Following the filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the
Esguerra lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice
allowing the City of Pontiac lawsuit to proceed.

In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement
Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the
action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation.

On December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.

"On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint," the Company said. "On March 9, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to our motion
to dismiss. On March 24, 2015, we filed our reply memorandum of
law in further support of our motion to dismiss. The Court heard
argument on our motion to dismiss the complaint on April 28,
2015."

"On May 1, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The Court
has scheduled a trial for April 2016 and we expect to engage in
mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015. If the mediation does not
result in a settlement, we intend to vigorously defend the
lawsuit. As of September 30, 2015, we accrued approximately $16
million, representing the balance of our self-insured retention on
our executive and organization liability insurance program above
legal defense costs incurred. At this stage of the litigation, we
are unable to determine whether any additional loss or range of
losses relating to this litigation is reasonably possible."


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Hialeah Employees' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System
Securities Litigation.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief
executive officer and its then current chief financial officer
were named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc.,
et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations
involving certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's
Australian mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an
initial public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive relief as the court may deem proper.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York appointed City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and
New Bedford Contributory Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and
designated the caption of the action as In re Genworth Financial,
Inc. Securities Litigation. On October 3, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

"On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as of March 4,
2015," the Company said. "On March 25, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the
motion but entered an order dismissing the amended complaint with
leave to replead. On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint. We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint and on June 16, 2015, the court denied the motion to
dismiss. We intend to vigorously defend this action."


GLOUCESTER TAXI: Drivers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Ray Lamont, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that a former
Gloucester Taxi and Livery Service driver who was let go more than
two years ago has filed a lawsuit against the company over its
treatment -- and payment -- of drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees.

The suit, brought by Gloucester resident Inge Berge, is seeking
class action status and relief for some 40 other current and past
drivers for company, even as the owner says the practice is
standard across much of the taxi industry and has been "since day
one."

Mr. Berge is a local musician and songwriter who drove a cab for
Gloucester Taxi from April 2012 through March 2013, according to
the suit.  His suit claims that, because the drivers are required
to work specific hours and a "daily work schedule," they cannot be
considered "outside contractors" and are in fact employees.  The
suit was filed as a civil action in Essex Superior Court in Salem,
though it is being scheduled for hearing in Lawrence Superior
Court, officials in Salem said on Dec. 16.

The lawsuit, filed on Mr. Berge's behalf by attorney Michael J.
Bace of Boston, does not seek a specific dollar amount for
damages.  But Mr. Bace said on Dec. 16 that he will be seeking
treble damages based on what Berge would have made had he been
paid as an hourly employee, even at minimum wage.

Mr. Bace said he will be using the same criteria for the estimated
40 other drivers he's seeking to cover in a class action, if the
court recognizes the class claim.

"We haven't yet calculated that number, but what we're looking
for, in general, is a ruling that the entire class of drivers
should be entitled to what they should have received if they were
properly classified employees," Mr. Bace said in a phone
interview. "The focus is on minimum wage laws and other employment
issues."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Berge and other Gloucester Taxi
drivers receive 40 percent of each fare the company collects from
customers, and keep 100 percent of their tips.  Mr. Berge drove an
average of two nights, or 20 hours, a week at the time.

"But a lot of the times, when it wasn't busy -- and these people
were required to be there by the schedule -- they'd be standing
around waiting for fares," Mr. Bace said.  "When that would
happen, they'd be averaging something like $3 an hour.  Yet they
were scheduled and had to be there.  That's not 'independent'.
That's an employee who's not being paid minimum wage."

Gloucester Taxi owner Jeffrey Young, cited as a defendant in
Berge's lawsuit, said on Dec. 16 that has long been the payment
format.

"This is the way it's been in the taxicab industry since day one,"
said Young, who remembered Berge as someone he had let go in 2013.
He said he had not been served with the lawsuit as of Dec. 16.
However, he had just seen an email from Bace late on Dec. 16, but
had not read the details.

"The (drivers) all know how it works when they're hired," said
Mr. Young.  He added that the company owns the cabs, covers the
cost of insurance and fuel, and pays into a workers' compensation
fund for the drivers.

"This is how it's been for years, and not just here," Mr. Young
added.

That was borne out by Bob Carrick, who now serves as general
manager of Lighthouse Taxi, the other Gloucester-based taxicab
company, under new owner Sean McKinnon. Carrick said on Dec. 16
that Lighthouse also pays its drivers under federal 1099 tax
status and as independent contractors.

In seeking class action status, the lawsuit filed by Mr. Bace
states that "the plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims
belonging to absent class members."

"The plaintiff and the absent class members," Mr. Bace wrote, "are
similarly-situated  employees who shared the same job description,
performed the same work under the same conditions, were classified
as independent contractors, denied the same employee-related
benefits, and, as a result, suffered the same type of harm."

The lawsuit then asks the court to "award the value of wages and
other benefits due to plaintiff and those similarly situated as a
result of their misclassification as independent contractors,
including unpaid wages and minimum wages."


HOME DEPOT: Must Disclose Data Breach Settlement Communications
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reports that attorneys
representing banks and credit unions in a suit against Home Depot
have won permission from a Georgia district court to examine
controversial communications sent to card issuers about a proposed
settlement related to the retailer's 2014 data breach.

The ruling came after attorneys for the plaintiffs objected to
emails that went to financial institutions the week of
Thanksgiving.  The communications, sent by third-party payment
processors, indicated Home Depot and MasterCard had reached a
proposed settlement regarding the data breach but withheld key
information, according to the attorneys, who then requested an
emergency hearing.  Calling the offers "misleading" and
"coercive," they also asked the judge to unwind any settlements
those financial institutions may have accepted.

"The order granting immediate discovery will allow the court to
learn all the facts about Home Depot's agreement with MasterCard
and determine whether to grant plaintiffs' requests to vacate any
releases and require a curative notice be sent to class members,"
plaintiffs' attorneys Gary Lynch, Kenneth Canfield and Joseph
Guglielmo said in a statement.  "In the meantime, we recommend
that financial institutions not accept any tentative settlement
offer until sufficient information is provided that enables them
to make an informed decision."

The plaintiffs now have until the end of January to conduct
discovery of the communications, according to the court.  It will
hold a hearing in February to decide what happens next.

In a separate order, Judge Thomas Thrash also said Home Depot and
MasterCard can communicate directly with financial institutions
about a settlement -- but not without a few conditions.

According to the order, once a settlement offer has been "fully
and finally negotiated" between Home Depot and a card brand, the
offer must be in writing, must provide details about the pending
class-action suit and must disclose whether the institution can
participate in a class-action suit if it accepts a settlement
offer.  It must also "explain to the putative or absent class
members that the settlement offer represents a lesser recovery
than they may potentially recover if they remain parties in the
class action and are successful in that litigation," the order
said.

Some large banks -- which Home Depot and MasterCard contacted
separately and individually -- have already declined their
settlement offers, according to a statement to the court from Home
Depot Director of Financial Services Michael Williams.  He
declined to say which banks.


INDEPENDENT BANK: Defending Class Action Connected to Acquisition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company is defending a class action connected to its acquisition
of BOH Holdings.

Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by
Independent Bank in connection with its acquisition of BOH
Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that
was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A.
Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford
International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH.
Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, alleging, among other things,
that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other
Stanford Entities and seeking to recover damages and alleged
fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks.

On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting
permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this
case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended
Class Action Complaint asserts previously unasserted claims,
including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent
scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford
Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH
officers. Given the new allegations, Independent Bank notified its
insurance carriers of the claims and the Company is pursuing
insurance coverage for these claims.

Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit,
including the newly asserted claims, are without merit and is
vigorously defending this lawsuit. This is complex litigation
involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As such,
Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may be
resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate
outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case.


INTERSIL CORP: TECTVT Reserved Right to Seek Indemnification
------------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2015, that in a correspondence
dated September 28, 2015, Thomson Consumer Electronics Television
Taiwan, Ltd. ("TECTVT") notified Intersil that it reserved its
right to seek indemnification from Intersil for any and all costs,
fees and expenses incurred as a result of a toxic tort class
action lawsuit filed in Taiwan against TCETVT and others (the
"Class Action").

Intersil said, "The Class Action pertains to alleged injuries
resulting from groundwater contamination at a manufacturing
facility in Taiwan currently owned by TCETVT (the "Taiwan Site"),
which was previously owned and operated by predecessors (including
General Electric and Harris Corporation) of our Taiwan subsidiary,
Intersil Ltd.   In the September 28 correspondence, TCETVT also
informed us that the Taipei District Court announced a judgment of
$18.5 million in the Class Action which is currently under appeal
and that TECTVT has incurred costs of $11.2 million in defending
against the Class Action through September 1, 2015."

"TCETVT also informed us that it reserved its right to seek
indemnification from us for any and all costs associated with
remediation of contamination on the Taiwan Site and nearby areas
and that TECTVT has incurred $15.9 million in remediation-related
costs through September 1, 2015.

"Under the terms of a 1999 master transaction agreement between
Harris Corporation and Intersil (the "MTA") whereby Harris
transferred its semiconductor business assets to us, environmental
liabilities (including those associated with Harris' Taiwan
semiconductor operations) were expressly retained by Harris.  The
MTA also requires that Harris indemnify us for any and all costs
relating to those retained environmental liabilities.
Accordingly, we have denied liability for both TCETVT's costs
associated with the Class Action as well as costs associated with
remediation of contamination on the Taiwan Site and nearby areas,
and have submitted a claim notice to Harris Corporation seeking
defense and indemnification from Harris under the MTA for all
claims made by TECTVT in connection with this matter."


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Court Dismissed All Claims in "Fernandez" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October, 2015,
that the Eastern District Court of California has dismissed all
claims in the case Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And All
Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc.

The Company was previously a defendant in a putative class action,
In Re: Science Applications International Corporation ("SAIC")
Backup Tape Data Theft Litigation, which was a Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia relating to the theft of computer backup
tapes from a vehicle of a company employee.

In May 2014, the District Court dismissed all but two plaintiffs
from the MDL action. In June 2014, Leidos and its co-defendant,
TRICARE, entered into settlement agreements with the remaining two
plaintiffs who subsequently dismissed their claims with prejudice.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the same theft of
computer backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations
of violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims.

On August 28, 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by the
Plaintiff against the Company. The decision remains subject to an
appeal by Plaintiff, but a notice of appeal has not yet been
filed.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in SAIC Securities Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended October, 2015,
that an appeal by plaintiffs in the In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation remains pending.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, a former chief financial officer, two
former chief executive officers, a former group president and the
former program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed
purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock from April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The
consolidated securities complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that the Company and individual defendants made
misleading statements or omissions about the Company's revenues,
operating income and internal controls in connection with
disclosures relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs
sought to recover from the Company and the individual defendants
an unspecified amount of damages class members allegedly incurred
by buying Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30,
2014 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
where the appeal remains pending.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Faces Class Action Over "J" Stock Shares
---------------------------------------------------------
Voice Observer reports that a Lehman Brothers class action suit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Lehman
Preferred Series "J" stock shares issued between February 5, 2008
and September 15, 2008.

The lawsuit was filed against several Lehman executives, as well
as firms that underwrote the offering, claiming that false and
misleading statements were made about the financial strength of
the investment bank.

On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection, causing substantial losses for investors.
The collapse began in 2007 when the mortgage market crisis
unfolded, as Lehman was heavily invested in subprime mortgages.

The Lehman Brothers lawsuit was filed on Dec. 16 in the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan by institutional investors Fogel
Capital Management. The complaint names the ex- CEO, other
ex- Lehman directors, Bank of America, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch
and other firms that underwrote the offering of the Lehman
Preferred Series "J" shares.


LEXIS NEXIS: 4th Circuit Upholds Ruling in FCRA Case
----------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit recently upheld a lower court's ruling in a case against
LexisNexis Risk Solutions FL Inc., LexisNexis Risk Data Management
Inc. and Reed Elsevier Inc. (LexisNexis).In the case, the
plaintiffs alleged that LexisNexis violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by selling certain Accurint brand reports to debt
collectors but not labeling those reports properly.


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Two Putative Class Actions Pending in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifePoint Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company and/or
Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's
subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties
unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 26
individual lawsuits filed since December 2014, and two putative
class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas
County, Alabama.  These lawsuits allege that patients at Vaughan
Regional Medical Center received improper interventional
cardiology procedures.

One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21,
2014, seeks certification of a class consisting of all Alabama
citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any
LifePoint owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding
the medical necessity of that procedure.

The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6,
2015, seeks certification of a class of individuals that underwent
an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically
necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut.  This action asserts, among
other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in
the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the
RICO violation and attorneys' fees.  In March 2015, the Company
removed this action to the U.S. District Court in Mobile, Alabama
and filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, as well as
a stay of discovery pending resolution of these motions. On April
17, 2015 the court entered an order granting the requested stay of
discovery.


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: Calif. Court Approves Class Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
MabVax Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that an Order and
Final Judgment has been entered by the Superior Court of the State
of California approving a class action settlement.

On May 30, 2014, a class action lawsuit was commenced in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of
Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as
defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the Company's
directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC,
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities
Master Fund LP, together the "Parties". The suit alleged the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
a breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with the Company's
Merger with MabVax Therapeutics. In support of their purported
claims, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board has historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary
duty to its stockholders, and claiming with respect to the Series
B Private Placement and the Merger, that such transactions
involved an inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal
protection devices, and that the Company's board of directors
would receive personal benefits not available to its public
stockholders as a result of the Merger. The plaintiff sought to
enjoin the Merger and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and
expert fees and costs.

On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement (the "Settlement"), pursuant to which the Company
agreed to file with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the Merger. The Settlement was subject to certain
confirmatory discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to
the Parties' agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, would
settle the litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Among many
other terms, under the Proposed Settlement the Company and all
defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims
pertaining to the Series B Private Placement, the Merger, the
prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The Proposed
Settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other stockholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the Proposed Settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly
denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any
other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any
respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated Series
B Private Placement and Merger. Finally, under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed
to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the
Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any
such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for
resolution.

On April 20, 2015, the Parties made an application for an Order
for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing of Settlement in accordance
with a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of April 20, 2015 (the
"Action"), which sets forth the terms and conditions for
settlement and which provides for dismissal of the Action with
prejudice.  The Order after Hearing on June 12, 2015, provided
preliminary approval of the settlement that was agreed to by the
Parties, in which the Company provided supplemental disclosures in
the definitive proxy filed with the SEC on June 30, 2014.  Notice
of the action as a class action was sent to class members in July
2015.

On September 18, 2015, an Order and Final Judgment was entered by
the Superior Court of the State of California, approving the
settlement that was agreed upon by both parties and closing the
case.  The Company anticipates that there will be no additional
future expenses incurred in this action by the Company after the
September 30, 2015 balance sheet date which would not be offset by
insurance.


MARK GROUP: Former Employees Take Legal Action
----------------------------------------------
Lauren Mills, writing for Leicester Mercury, reports that more
than 400 former employees of the collapsed Mark Group have joined
forces to take legal action against their one-time employer.

Leicester-based Mark Group, once a leading installer of solar
panels and home insulation, went into administration on October 7,
with the loss of 939 UK jobs -- 577 of which were based at its
headquarters in Boston Road, Beaumont Leys.

Now, 420 former Mark Group staff -- including more than 150 from
Leicestershire -- have instructed employment law specialists
Nualaw, based in Stourton, Warwickshire, to act on their behalf.

They are making a claim -- expected to be for around GBP840,000
against Mark Group Limited (in administration) and the Secretary
of State for the Department of Business Innovation and Skills.


MYLAN N.V.: Final Petrial Conference Set for January 19
-------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a final pretrial conference
is set for January 19, 2016, and a trial on liability is set to
start on February 2, 2016, in the Modafinil Antitrust Litigation.

Starting in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers
have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing
direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a
lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs.
These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state
laws in connection with the generic defendants' settlement of
patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery
has closed.

On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs'
motion) dismissing plaintiffs' claims that the defendants had
engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade.

On January 28, 2015, the District Court denied the defendants'
summary judgment motions based on factors identified in the
Supreme Court's Actavis decision.

On June 1, 2015, the District Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The indirect purchaser
plaintiffs have filed a petition from leave to appeal the
certification decision, which remains pending.

On July 27, 2015, the District Court granted the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On October 9, 2015, the Third Circuit granted Defendants' Petition
for Leave to Appeal and Mylan is awaiting the briefing schedule.
On October 16, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to stay with the
District Court pending the appeal of the decision to certify the
direct purchaser class and a decision remains pending. Several
motions also remain pending relating to the admissibility of
expert witness testimony.

A final pretrial conference is set for January 19, 2016, and a
trial on liability is set to begin on February 2, 2016.


MYLAN N.V.: Accrued $16 Million Related to Modafinil Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that in the Modafinil Antitrust
Litigation, on March 24, 2015, Mylan reached a settlement in
principle with the putative indirect purchasers. The settlement
will be submitted to the District Court for review and approval.
At September 30, 2015, the Company has accrued approximately $16.0
million related to this settlement.


MYLAN N.V.: Defendants Moved to Dismiss City of Providence Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that in the Modafinil Antitrust
Litigation, on June 29, 2015, the City of Providence, Rhode Island
filed suit against the same parties named as defendants in
litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
including Mylan, asserting state law claims based on the same
underlying allegations. All defendants, including Mylan, moved to
dismiss the suit on October 15, 2015.


MYLAN N.V.: No Longer Named as Defendants in Minocycline Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that Mylan and Mylan Laboratories
Limited are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended
complaint related to Minocycline.

On May 1, 2012, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to
Mylan pertaining to an investigation being conducted to determine
whether Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Mylan, and/or other
generic companies engaged in unfair methods of competition with
regard to Medicis' branded Solodyn(R) products and generic
Solodyn(R) products, as well as the 2010 settlement of Medicis'
patent infringement claims against Mylan and Matrix Laboratories
Limited (now known as Mylan Laboratories Limited). Mylan has
cooperated with the FTC and has responded to the requests for
information.

Starting in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited,
along with other drug manufacturers, were named as defendants in
civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the
District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those
lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers
of branded or generic Solodyn(R), and assert violations of federal
and state laws, including allegations in connection with separate
settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants of patent
litigation relating to generic Solodyn(R). Plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2014.
Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited are no longer named
defendants in the consolidated amended complaint.


MYLAN N.V.: Indirect Purchasers' Suit Over Pioglitazone Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the District Court has
granted defendants' motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers
amended complaints with prejudice related to Pioglitazone.

Starting in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug
manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect
purchasers of branded or generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).
These actions allege violations of state and federal competition
laws in connection with the defendants' settlements of patent
litigation in 2010 relating to Actos and Actoplus Met(R).
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014.

Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on October 10, 2014.

Two additional complaints were subsequently filed by plaintiffs
purporting to represent classes of direct purchasers of branded or
generic Actos(R) and Actoplus Met(R).

On September 23, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the indirect purchasers amended complaints with
prejudice.

The indirect purchasers filed a notice of appeal on October 22,
2015. The putative direct purchaser class was to file a motion to
amend the complaint and amended complaint by November 12, 2015.
Defendants' responsive pleading is tentatively due December 28,
2015.


MYLAN N.V.: Defending Against City of Riviera Beach Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. on February 27, 2015, completed the transaction by
which it acquired Mylan Inc. and Abbott Laboratories' non-U.S.
developed markets specialty and branded generics business (the
"EPD Business"). Pursuant to the terms of the Amended and Restated
Business Transfer Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
November 4, 2014, by and among Mylan Inc., New Moon B.V. (which
converted into a public limited company (naamloze vennootschap)
and was renamed Mylan N.V. on the EPD Transaction Closing Date),
Moon of PA Inc., and Abbott (the "EPD Transaction Agreement") on
the EPD Transaction Closing Date, Mylan N.V. acquired the EPD
Business in consideration for Mylan N.V. ordinary shares, Moon of
PA Inc. merged with and into Mylan Inc., with Mylan Inc. surviving
as an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Mylan N.V. and each
share of Mylan Inc. common stock issued and outstanding
immediately prior to the EPD Transaction Closing Date was canceled
and automatically converted into, and became the right to receive,
one Mylan N.V. ordinary share.

In connection with the EPD Transaction, Mylan Inc. and the EPD
Business were reorganized under Mylan N.V., a new public company
organized in the Netherlands. On February 18, 2015, the Office of
Chief Counsel of the Division of Corporation Finance of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") issued a no-action
letter to Mylan Inc. and Mylan N.V. that included its views that
the EPD Transaction constituted a "succession" for purposes of
Rule 12g-3(a) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that Mylan N.V., as successor to
Mylan Inc., is deemed a large accelerated filer for purposes of
Exchange Act Rule 12b-2. As of March 2, 2015, Mylan N.V., and not
Mylan Inc., traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Stock Market under
the symbol "MYL."

Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company is defending
against the shareholder class action filed by City of Riviera
Beach General Employees Retirement System and Doris Arnold.

On June 11, 2015, City of Riviera Beach General Employees
Retirement System and Doris Arnold (collectively, "Plaintiffs")
filed a purported class action complaint against Mylan and
directors of Mylan Inc. (the "Directors") in the Washington
County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas (the "Pennsylvania
Court"), on behalf of certain former shareholders of Mylan Inc.
The complaint alleged both breach of fiduciary duty on the part of
the Directors and breach of contract by Mylan and the Directors
relating to certain public disclosures made in connection with the
EPD Transaction and the creation of, and Call Option Agreement
with, the Foundation. Plaintiffs asked the Pennsylvania Court to:
find that the Directors breached their fiduciary duties and that
Mylan and the Directors breached the purported contract, rescind
the vote of Mylan Inc.'s former shareholders approving the EPD
Transaction, award compensatory damages and award Plaintiffs their
costs relating to the lawsuit.

On June 22, 2015, Mylan and the Directors removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court"). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
District Court on July 10, 2015, that included the same basic
causes of action and requested relief, dropped allegations against
some of the Directors named in the original complaint and asserted
the breach of contract claim not on behalf of a purported class of
former shareholders of Mylan Inc. but on behalf of a purported
subclass of such shareholders who held shares of Mylan
continuously for a specified period following consummation of the
EPD Transaction.

On July 21, 2015, a second purported class action complaint
against the same defendants, asserting the same basic claims and
requesting the same basic relief on behalf of the same purported
class and subclass, was filed by a different plaintiff in the
District Court.

On August 28, 2015, the District Court consolidated the two
actions, and, on September 4, 2015, the plaintiffs in the
consolidated action filed a consolidated amended complaint (the
"Consolidated Amended Complaint") against the same defendants,
asserting the same basic claims and requesting the same basic
relief on behalf of the same purported class and subclass, but
asserting the breach of contract claim against only Mylan.

On September 30, 2015, two of the plaintiffs in the consolidated
action filed a motion for partial summary judgment, on the breach
of contract claim (the "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment"). On
October 26, 2015, the District Court entered a stipulation and
order requiring the parties to confer concerning the scheduling of
the defendants' response(s) to the Consolidated Amendment
Complaint and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and to file
with the District Court a proposed order and stipulation on the
subject no later than November 6, 2015.

"We believe that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously," the Company said.

On October 22, 2015, the plaintiff in a separate purported class
action -- which was filed in the District Court on August 28,
2015, against Mylan and the Directors, and related to certain
public disclosures made in connection with the EPD Transaction and
the creation of, and the Call Option Agreement with, the
Foundation -- voluntarily dismissed the action. On October 23,
2015, the District Court entered an order approving the dismissal.


NAVIENT CORP: Defending Class Action by Student Loan Borrower
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a class action filed by a student loan
borrower against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class
action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned
Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et al. The plaintiff brought the
complaint on behalf of a class consisting of other similarly
situated California borrowers. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Old SLM's practice of charging late fees proportional
to the amount of missed payments constituted liquidated damages in
violation of California law; and Old SLM engaged in unfair
business practices by charging daily interest on private
educational loans. Following additional amendments to the
complaint, which added usury claims under California state law and
two additional defendants (Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient
Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a
Modified Third Amended Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. I
that complaint, plaintiffs sought restitution of late charges and
interest paid by members of the class, injunctive relief,
cancellation of all future interest payments, treble damages as
permitted by law, as well as costs and attorneys' fees, among
other relief. Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005,
Old SLM followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring
and securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary
transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs
alleged that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
constituting lenders on these loans.

Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all
private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue
in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank
since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient
and as such only liability arising from the Ubaldi litigation will
remain the sole responsibility of Navient Corporation. Plaintiffs
filed their Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 23, 2014,
Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On
December 19, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Class Certification regarding the claims concerning late fees,
but denied the motion as to the usury claims.

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file another amended complaint. On March 24, 2015, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend the
complaint again. It is not possible at this time to estimate a
range of potential exposure, if any, for amounts that may be
payable in connection therewith.


NAVIENT CORP: Motion to Dismiss "Blyden" Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint filed by Marlene
Blyden is currently pending.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, The Bank of New York, and
The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was
captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et al.

On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended Complaint on
behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated
California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged that
plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged and/or
paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law.

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint,
which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various
securitization trusts as defendants, and adds claims for
conversion and for money had and received. Defendants filed
Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015.
The plaintiff filed her Opposition on April 16, 2015, and
Defendants filed Replies on April 20, 2015.

On July 23, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint but permitted Plaintiff to
make certain amendments. On August 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a
Third Amended Complaint. The Third Amended Complaint removed all
of the Defendants except the SLM PC Student Loan 2003-B Trust, BNY
Mellon (in its capacity as a trustee), and Navient Solutions, Inc.
The other trust defendants and Navient Credit Finance Corporation
are no longer defendants in the matter. Defendants Motion to
Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint is currently pending. It is
not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential
exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection
therewith.


NEW YORK: City Appoints Special Master to Monitor Mold Repairs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times reports that a federal judge, frustrated by the
slow pace of New York's efforts to curb mold in public housing,
will appoint a special master to ensure the city complies with an
agreement to address the problem faster and more aggressively.

In a strongly worded decision issued on Dec. 15, Judge William H.
Pauley III of United States District Court in Manhattan said that
the New York City Housing Authority had been out of compliance
with the settlement's requirements "from the day it was entered
into court."

"Nycha's justifications for its failure to comply are inadequate,
and the attitude of Nycha officials appears to be one of
indifference," the judge wrote, using an acronym for the agency.

He said the situation "jeopardizes the health and public welfare
of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers."

Mold among more than 300 housing projects was exacerbated after
Hurricane Sandy three years ago, but tenants had long complained
that maintenance workers commonly scraped and painted over mold
instead of identifying leaks and other sources of moisture.  The
Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, and the
National Center for Law and Economic Justice filed a class-action
lawsuit against the city in 2013 on behalf of public housing
residents suffering from asthma.

The Bloomberg administration quickly settled, striking an
agreement under which the Housing Authority committed to
completing repairs within seven to 15 days following a work order.
The agency was also required to address the underlying causes of
mold by fixing leaks, insulating pipes and tackling other sources
of moisture.

Judge Pauley, however, found that housing officials instead had
tried to reinterpret the consent decree, which he approved, that
established the new mold abatement policy.  They have extended the
time it takes to address conditions "to weeks or even months," he
said, and after repairs have been completed recurrence of mold was
as high as 41 percent.

Housing officials said that they were reviewing the court's
decision but added that the city has committed $300 million over
three years for roof repairs, which would help deal with the root
cause of mold and excessive moisture.

The Housing Authority has been struggling with deteriorating
conditions in aging buildings and the lack of money to address
maintenance needs and major capital jobs because of deep cuts in
federal funding.

But Albert Huang, the Natural Resources Defense Council's director
of environmental justice in New York, noted: "How much money have
they wasted going in and doing superficial repairs over and over
again?"

"This is a big turning point," he added of the judge's decision to
appoint a monitor.  "There's no more Nycha playing games."

Also on Dec.15, the city comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, released
an audit that concluded is the Housing Authority was ill equipped
to handle emergencies like Hurricane Sandy in the future.
Mr. Stringer, a Democrat, said the agency lacked a communication
plan to disseminate emergency information to employees and
residents quickly and had inaccurate or incomplete information
about the number and location of emergency generators and of
tenants with disabilities who would require assistance.

But housing officials accused the comptroller of "cherry-picking
data and shifting timelines to paint an outdated picture."

"Over the past 18 months," they said in a statement, "Nycha has
worked to fundamentally change the way we approach emergency
preparedness."


NEW YORK: Grassroot Group Mulls Class Action Over Monitor
---------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Sanders, writing for lohud, reports that the backlash has
begun.  Ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders are rallying their
constituents and denouncing a state monitor's request for powerful
and sustained oversight of the East Ramapo school district.

On Dec. 14, the Board of Regents approved the recommendations of a
three-person monitor team, led by former New York City chancellor
Dennis Walcott, and extended its stay in the district for an
indefinite term.  Tapped by Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia
in August, the group spent four months scrutinizing the troubled
district.

Of the 19 recommendations offered by the state-appointed monitor
team, its proposal to install a monitor with the authority to
override school board decisions is drawing the most attention and
outrage.

Agudath Israel of America, a non-profit ultra-Orthodox umbrella
organization is publicly condemning it as "an insult to the
community."

A new group calling itself Local Rule Preservation in East Ramapo
(LRPER) is gathering support for what it hopes will be a class
action lawsuit against the state.

Rockland County Legislator Aron Wieder D-Spring Valley urged his
community to speak out at the Dec. 15 board of education meeting
with a letter declaring, "Our community is under attack."

Level-headed religious leaders lash out

"There is no other School District in New York where a duly
elected School Board, voted into office by a majority of the
District's voters, may have its decisions over-ridden by a state-
appointed monitor," said Agudath Israel's executive vice
president, Rabbi David Zwiebel in a written statement.

When asked why a national non-profit religious group would involve
itself with the affairs of a local school board, Avi Shafran,
Agudath Israel of America's director of public affairs said that
his group's mandate includes advocating "for the rights of
religious Jews, and of all religious Americans" as well as
countering "unfair negative images of the Jewish community, and in
particular its Orthodox sector."

Mr. Shafran said that challenging a particular decision of a
school board is fair game, but failing to trust an elected body to
carry out its job responsibly, in this case, "to serve all the
district's students fairly, and respect the mandates of the law -
is deeply offensive."

"It's no different from insinuating that a Jewish Supreme Court
justice is somehow compromised in ruling on an issue that involves
a Christian institution; or that a Catholic public servant is less
capable than someone else of treating Baptist citizens fairly.  Is
someone who is childless, and thus not invested personally in
public schools, unqualified to be on a school board?"

Grassroots group organizes for lawsuit

Through a new website, localrulepreservation.com, a group called
Local Rule Preservation in East Ramapo (LRPER) is seeking
signatures of people who might want to join in a planned "Class
Action Lawsuit to Defend Citizens' Rights" against the state of
New York.  Citing passages from the Bill of Rights, the state
constitution among other documents, the blog post dated December
15, decries Walcott's report and concluded," We -- as parents and
taxpayers -- must do all we can to protect the integrity of our
community, our children and their futures."

Laura Barbieri, an attorney who has filed several class action
lawsuits for the nonprofit law firm Advocates for Justice, said
the idea of a class action lawsuit at this point is premature
because no monitor legislation has yet been passed.

"Asking the court to give an advisory opinion is not justifiable
because the law is not in effect," she said.  In addition, the
constitution prevents one branch of government from meddling with
that of another.  "The state isn't going to tell the legislature
what it can do."

Local and state leaders join forces

Rockland legislator Aron Wieder, a former East Ramapo school board
president rallied his community at the Dec. 15 board meeting,
during which some speakers said they would take their complaints
about the imposition of a monitor on a duly elected school board
"all the way to the Supreme Court."  Wieder announced on Dec. 16
that he and Assemblyman Dov Hikind, D-Brooklyn, would have a
"major announcement" on Dec. 17.

"We had real hopes that Dennis Walcott would be fair.  Everything
looked and smelled right, but he really let us down," said
Mr. Hikind, who represents a heavily ultra-Orthodox district and
opposed past efforts to limit the school board's power.  "This
report is an insult to the community and schools within the East
Ramapo School District."

Back to the future

Last November, Hank Greenberg, a previous state-appointed monitor,
issued a critical report charging that the board had helped
private religious schools at the expense of public-school
children.  About 24,000 children East Ramapo go to religious
schools, mostly yeshivas.  About 8,500 children, who are mostly
poor Latinos and Haitians, attend public schools.

Assembly Democrats passed a bill granting veto power to a monitor
in June but Senate Republicans blocked it, arguing against denying
a duly elected board its rightful authority.  Assemblyman
Kenneth Zebrowski, (D-New City) has already begun relaunching
efforts to install a monitor who can override the board.

"I just said to my staff, it's like deja vu."


NEW YORK: Plans to Overhaul Use of Solitary Confinement in Prisons
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Pearson, writing for Associated Press, reports that
New York's sweeping plan to overhaul and reduce the use of
solitary confinement in its prisons has its roots in a lawsuit,
initially scrawled out by an inmate who had been sent to "the box"
for more than 1,000 days for non-violent, minor offenses.

As the practice of putting inmates in 6-by-10-foot cells alone for
23 hours each day as punishment is increasingly criticized across
the nation, most of the handful of states that have taken action
thus far have been prodded, at least in part, by lawsuits that
have alleged solitary for extended stretches is overused, harsh
and psychologically damaging.

"It's a common phenomenon that an actual lawsuit is the catalyst
for solitary reform," said David Fathi, the director of the
American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project.  "But
it's better when prison officials decide to do the right thing
without being sued. They know their system best, they know what
the problems are."

There are an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Americans currently
locked away in solitary, according to federal statistics.  The
practice has been used for decades not just in so-called supermax
facilities for particularly dangerous people but throughout prison
systems as punishment for inmates who break internal rules.

In September, California settled its own class-action lawsuit,
announcing that it will end the longstanding practice of
automatically and indefinitely putting gang members in solitary
confinement.

Recent reforms to solitary for prisoners in states such as
Mississippi and Arizona, as well as for juveniles in Ohio, also
have resulted from lawsuits.

New York, with 60,000 inmates in 54 prisons, has about 4,000 in
solitary at any given time, meaning confinement for 23 hours a
day, with one hour a day for recreation.  The new plan calls for
moving about 1,100 put there for minor or nonviolent offenses into
secure, therapeutic housing units instead, reducing the number of
violations that carry solitary sentences and imposing a three-
month maximum sentence for most rule violations.

But some states have taken the initiative to reduce the reliance
on isolation on their own.

Prison officials in Maine, Michigan and Colorado have all
voluntarily sought ways to limit the number of people held in
solitary in their custody.

Other states, such as Nebraska, are starting to examine solitary
more closely, particularly as legislatures across the country
consider bans for the most vulnerable inmates, such as juveniles,
people with serious mental illnesses and pregnant women.

There also may be other movement toward reforming, if not
curtailing, the use of solitary, experts said.

For the first time, proposed standards before the American
Correctional Association would include so-called step-down
policies that offer prisoners who have been housed in solitary
gradually increasing out-of-cell time, group interaction and
programming before they're put back in general population or
released from custody.

"This decade of work has teed up the problem to be solved but it
hasn't solved it yet," said Margo Schlanger, an expert on solitary
confinement at the University of Michigan Law School.  "The states
that have taken either baby steps or big steps have not seen
increases in violence result."

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo decided to negotiate after the New
York Civil Liberties Union filed its lawsuit in 2011, state
officials have said.

"We are New York and we have to lead by example," the governor
told his staff in instructing them to negotiate broad reforms,
said his top lawyer, Alphonso David.


OSI SYSTEMS: Defendants to Pay $15MM in Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSI Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that defendants will
pay $15.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims
that were or could have been asserted against the Company or the
other defendants in the Securities Class Action.

On December 12, 2013, a class action complaint was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Court") captioned Roberti v. OSI Systems, Inc., et al. (the
"Securities Class Action"). The Amended Complaint in the
Securities Class Action, filed on May 20, 2014, alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants violated the Exchange Act by
misrepresenting or failing to disclose facts concerning the status
of the Security division's efforts to develop automated threat
recognition software and the alleged use of unapproved parts in
its baggage scanning systems in violation of its contract with the
U.S. Transportation Security Administration (the "TSA"). The
Amended Complaint also asserts that the individual defendants
allegedly sold stock based on material non-public information.

Following a mediation and further post-mediation settlement
discussions, the parties to the litigation accepted settlement
terms proposed by the mediator and entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement (the "Settlement"), which was filed with
the Court on August 21, 2015.  The Settlement provides for the
resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities Class
Action.  The Company and the other defendants agreed to the
Settlement Agreement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and
the distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted
litigation.  Neither the Company nor the individual defendants
conceded any wrongdoing or liability, and continue to believe that
they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the
Securities Class Action.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $15.0 million
(the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release of all
claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company
or the other defendants in the Securities Class Action.  The
Company expects that the Settlement Amount will be fully covered
and funded by the Company's insurers pursuant to the applicable
insurance policies.  The Settlement received preliminary approval
by the Court but remains subject to final approval by the Court
and certain other conditions.


PFIZER CANADA: Court Tosses Class Action Over Patent Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony M. Prenol, Esq. -- anthony.prenol@blakes.com -- and James
Sullivan, Esq., -- james.sullivan@blakes.com -- of Blake Cassels &
Graydon LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that the British
Columbia Court of Appeal (BCCA), in Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc., has
held that Canada's Patent Act provides a complete code that
forecloses civil actions by consumers centered on breaches of the
statute.

BACKGROUND

The decision relates to an application to certify a proposed class
action, commenced by a representative plaintiff, Britton Low,
against various Pfizer companies, alleging that Pfizer unlawfully
abused the patent system with the result that purchasers of the
drug VIAGRA were overcharged.  The proposed class consists of B.C.
purchasers of VIAGRA during the period of January 1, 2006 to
November 30, 2012.

Mr. Low relied on the fact that Pfizer's patent for VIAGRA had
been held to be invalid for insufficiency by the Supreme Court of
Canada and the Federal Court. He therefore alleged that Pfizer's
actions in enforcing its patent so as to prevent generic versions
of VIAGRA from being marketed prior to the declaration of
invalidity of the Pfizer patent constituted actionable torts.

More particularly, Mr. Low pleaded that Pfizer's actions
constituted unlawful interference with economic relations and
unjust enrichment.

Mr. Low sought certification of the class action in the British
Columbia Supreme Court and was initially successful.  The chambers
judge held that it was not plain and obvious that the Patent Act
barred the plaintiff's action. The judge held that a third
proposed cause of action, waiver of tort, had no chance of success
and so did not allow that part of the claim to proceed.

THE APPEAL

Pfizer appealed the lower court's certification of the class
action to the British Columbia Court of Appeal.  Pfizer argued
that the Patent Act and certain regulations enacted pursuant to
the Act provide a complete code that excludes common law remedies
for a breach of the legislation.  Pfizer further argued that Mr.
Low's claim did not disclose a cause of action in either unlawful
interference with economic relations or unjust enrichment.

PATENT REGULATORY REGIME

The Patent Act establishes, among other things: (1) the
circumstances under which a patent may be granted for an
invention, (2) the grounds for invalidating a patent and (3) the
remedies for patent infringement.  The Act also contains
provisions allowing the Commissioner of Patents to exercise
certain powers (such as patent revocation or the granting of a
compulsory licence) in enumerated circumstances of patent abuse.

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (NOC
Regulations), enacted pursuant to the Act, together with the Food
and Drugs Act and associated regulations, govern the circumstances
under which a generic manufacturer can obtain approval to market a
generic version of a patented drug.  The NOC Regulations provide a
cause of action to a generic manufacturer in certain
circumstances.  More particularly, the Regulations allow a generic
manufacturer to recover the profits that it lost as a result of
its generic version of a patented drug being kept off the market
during the pendency of an unsuccessful court proceeding commenced
by the patentee under the NOC Regulations.

A further level of regulation over patented drugs is provided by
the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which regulates the
prices at which patented drugs may be sold in Canada.

None of the statutes or regulations provides a cause of action to
other persons in the channels of trade for a drug such as
consumers, pharmacists, distributors or insurers.

COMPLETE CODE ARGUMENT

The first issue before the appellate court was whether the
combination of these statutes and regulations (referred to as the
Patent Regulatory Regime) constitute a complete legislative code
as to the rights and remedies of patent holders and generic drug
makers.  Pfizer argued that the Canadian Parliament, having
provided a limited cause of action to generic manufacturers under
the NOC Regulations, must be presumed to have chosen not to create
a right of action for consumers arising directly out of a breach
of the Patent Act.

Mr. Low, in response, argued that his claim was based entirely on
common law and so the "complete code" argument did not apply.  He
further argued that because the Patent Regulatory Regime is silent
as to consumer rights and remedies for breach of the Patent Act,
it cannot be a complete code.  The relevant question is therefore
not whether Parliament intended to create a consumer right of
action but rather whether it intended to oust such a right.

The BCCA began its analysis by noting that the Patent Regulatory
Regime did not confer a direct benefit, right or protection on a
consumer.  The situation before the court was therefore
distinguishable from previous cases where legislation created a
right but did not provide an enforcement mechanism.  In such
cases, the absence of an enforcement mechanism could be taken as
implying a common law private cause of action by a consumer.

The BCCA next cited the principle that there is no common law tort
of breach of statute. Accordingly, there could be no tort of
breach of the legislation forming the Patent Regulatory Regime.

The problem with Mr. Low's argument that his claim rested on a
footing outside of the Patent Regulatory Regime, namely in the
common law of unlawful interference with economic relations and in
unjust enrichment, was that his pleading asserted that Pfizer's
wrongful conduct was its failure to make disclosure of its
invention as required by the Patent Act.  As such, Mr. Low's claim
was clearly a claim for breach of statute and his entitlement was
alleged to arise out of abuse of the patent system.

The BCCA then went on to conclude that the completeness of the
Patent Regulatory Regime forecloses civil actions by consumers
that are rooted in a breach of the Patent Act.  The BCCA noted
that prior decisions had held that the completeness of the Patent
Regulatory Regime prevented generic drug manufacturers from
claiming disgorgement of profits based on unjust enrichment.  It
would be illogical to allow consumers to claim disgorgement of
profits from brand manufacturers when generic manufacturers are
themselves precluded from claiming the same recovery based on the
identical allegedly wrongful acts.

The BCCA also noted that there was evidence that Parliament had
considered the interests of consumers when creating the Patent
Regulatory Regime.  For example, the Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board was given the power to reduce the prices of medicines
where it deemed such prices to be excessive.  Therefore, an
inference could not be drawn that Parliament, in enacting the
Patent Regulatory Regime, did not intend to oust consumer
remedies.

UNLAWFUL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC RELATIONS

The court's ruling that the Patent Regulatory Regime constituted a
complete code defeated Mr. Low's claim.  The BCCA went on,
however, to hold that even if it had not ruled that the Patent
Regulatory Regime constituted a complete code, it would
nevertheless have not allowed certification of the claim in
unlawful interference with economic relations.

The tort of unlawful interference with economic relations has
three elements, namely:

   -- An unlawful act committed against a third party
   -- Intended to cause economic harm to the plaintiff
   -- Resulting in economic harm to the plaintiff.

As such, this tort is sometimes described as creating a kind of
"parasitic" liability since the plaintiff's claim is based on (or
parasitic upon) the defendant's unlawful act against the third
party.

Mr. Low had argued that Pfizer, through its breach of the Patent
Act, had committed an unlawful act against generic manufacturers
which was intended to and, in fact, caused economic harm to VIAGRA
purchasers.  "Unlawful" conduct is conduct that would be
actionable by the third party or would have been actionable if the
third party had suffered loss as a result of it.

The BCCA, noting that a generic manufacturer has no actionable
claim against a patentee for unjust enrichment or disgorgement of
profits, held that the tort of unlawful interference, which is
based on a parasitic claim, could not possibly succeed.

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

The BCCA next considered the tort of unjust enrichment in the
event that its ruling that the Patent Regulatory Regime
constituted a complete code was, on further appeal, held to be
incorrect.

The tort of unjust enrichment has three elements:

   -- An enrichment of the defendant
   -- A corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff
   -- An absence of juristic reasons for the enrichment.

Pfizer argued that its contracts with direct purchasers such as
distributors and pharmacies constituted a juristic reason for the
alleged enrichment.  More particularly, the alleged overcharge
(i.e., the price increase attributable to the existence and
enforcement of the patent for VIAGRA) was passed on to the
ultimate consumers through these contracts between Pfizer and the
direct purchasers.  Therefore, unless these contracts could be
shown to be illegal or based on a common mistake, there was no
basis to conclude the absence of a juristic reason.

In reviewing the chambers judge's reasons, the BCCA concluded that
the judge had held that Pfizer's contracts with its direct
purchasers constituted a juristic reason. Accordingly, the
chambers judge should have found that this cause of action had no
prospect of success.

The BCCA therefore held that the appeal should be allowed.

SUMMARY

The BCCA's decision in Low v. Pfizer is certain to be influential
in other cases involving allegations of patent abuse, whether in
class action proceedings or otherwise.


PIPER JAFFRAY: California and New York Cases Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that litigation in
the separate California and New York cases is ongoing.

Several class action complaints were brought on behalf of a
purported class of state, local and municipal government entities
in connection with the bidding or sale of municipal investment
contracts and municipal derivative products directly from one of
the defendants or through a broker, from January 1, 1992, to the
present. The complaints, which have been consolidated into a
single nationwide class action entitled In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (Master Docket No.
08-2516), allege antitrust violations and are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
multi-district litigation rules. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified treble damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Several California municipalities also brought separate class
action complaints in California federal court, and approximately
eighteen California municipalities and two New York municipalities
filed individual lawsuits that are not as part of class actions,
all of which have since been transferred to the Southern District
of New York and consolidated for pretrial purposes. All three sets
of complaints assert similar claims under federal (and for the
California and New York plaintiffs, state) antitrust claims.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action and Piper Jaffray
signed a term sheet for settlement of In re Municipal Derivatives
Antitrust Litigation on September 15, 2015. The settlement is
subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and court
approval after notice to the class. If approved, Piper Jaffray
will be required to pay $9.8 million to settle the MDL class
action. Litigation in the separate California and New York cases
is ongoing. As a result, litigation-related reserve activity
included within other operating expenses resulted in expense of
$9.8 million for the three and nine months ended September 30,
2015.


PPL CORPORATION: 6th Cir. Ruling on Cane Run Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, LG&E and KU
Energy LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Kentucky
Utilities Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that oral argument has
been held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a
class action appeal related to the Cane Run Environmental Claims
but a ruling has not yet been issued by the Court.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA. In
addition, these plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance,
trespass and negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and civil penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged
statutory violations. Under the common law claims, these
plaintiffs seek monetary compensation and punitive damages for
property damage and diminished property values for a class
consisting of residents within four miles of the plant. In their
individual capacities, these plaintiffs seek compensation for
alleged adverse health effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July
2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but
one Clean Air Act claim, but declined to dismiss their common law
tort claims. Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district court
certified for appellate review the issue of whether the state
common law claims are preempted by federal statute.

In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
issued an order granting appellate review regarding the above
matter and such issues as may appropriately be presented by the
parties and determined by the court. Oral argument before the
Sixth Circuit was held in August 2015, but a ruling has not yet
been issued by the Court.

PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the outcome of this matter. LG&E
retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane Run plant in March 2015
and the remaining two coal-fired units at the plant in June 2015.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Dismissal Bids Remain under Consideration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Management Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that Defendants'
motions to dismiss the second amended complaint in a class action
remain under consideration by the Court.

On May 30, 2014, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, executive officers, and shareholders (collectively, the
"Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 ("1933 Act Claims") and sought unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock in the September
2013 and December 2013 secondary public offerings.

On August 25, 2014, Waterford Township Police & Fire Retirement
System and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System were
appointed as lead plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"). An
amended complaint was filed on November 24, 2014. In addition to
the 1933 Act Claims, the amended complaint added claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act
Claims") seeking unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 2, 2013 and October 30, 2014, inclusive.

On January 26, 2015, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in its entirety. In response, the Plaintiffs
sought and were granted leave to file an amended complaint. On
February 27, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. Like the prior amended complaint, the second amended
complaint asserts 1933 Act Claims and 1934 Act Claims and seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
were filed on April 28, 2015, the Plaintiffs' opposition was filed
on June 12, 2015, and the Defendants' reply was filed on July 13,
2015. The motions remain under consideration by the Court. The
Company believes that the claims against it are without merit and
intends to defend against the litigation vigorously.


ROBERT HALF: Settles Wage-and-Hour Class Action for $19 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that David Brennan is
one of about 4,000 current and former California employees of
Robert Half International who reached a $19 million wage-and-hour
class action settlement with the company in 2012.  The state court
judge overseeing the case awarded class counsel from the Law
Offices of Kevin T. Barnes one-third of the class fund, or $6.3
million.  Mr. Brennan, represented by class action ombudsman
Lawrence Schonbrun, objected to the settlement, arguing that under
40-year-old California precedent, the fee award should have been
based on plaintiffs' lawyers' hourly billings, not a percentage of
the class recovery.  When that argument failed to persuade the
trial court and the intermediate appellate court, Mr. Brennan and
Schonbrun took the case to the California Supreme Court, which
agreed to hear his appeal.

Mr. Brennan's case will determine how lawyers in class actions
brought under California law -- whether in state or federal court
-- are paid. Brennan and his lawyer believe class lawyers are
entitled only to a lodestar fee based on the value of the time
they spent on the litigation.  Just about everyone else, including
the public interest groups and eminent law professors that filed
amicus briefs, is convinced Messrs. Brennan and Schonbrun are
wrong.

If you've ever wondered about the relative benefits and drawbacks
of the lodestar and percentage-of-fund methods of setting fees for
class action lawyers, briefing in the California Supreme Court
case Laffitte v. Robert Half will tell you all you need to know.
But this isn't just an abstract debate over theory.  Mr. Brennan
is asking the court to use the "historic" opportunity of this
appeal to take control of class counsel fees.  He says that strict
limits on class counsel fees are necessary to "preserve the
public's respect for the prestige of the judiciary (and) the
public's interest in the integrity of the bar."

The objector claims billions of dollars depend on how the justices
decide his case.  His opponents say that if California defies the
nationwide consensus and restricts pay to hourly rates, the state
will lose the benefit of plaintiffs' lawyers acting as watchdogs
over corporate conduct.  For the entire class action bar, this a
case to keep an eye on.

Mr. Brennan's argument stems from a footnote in the California
Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Serrano v. Priest, which involved
fees for public interest lawyers who successfully challenged the
state's public school financing system.  The footnote, citing
opinions from the 2nd and 3rd Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeal, said
that the starting point for a fee award "must be a calculation of
the attorney's services in terms of the time he has expended on
the case."  But in the decades since Serrano, according to
Brennan's brief, California courts have paid lip service to
lodestar calculations but have improperly pumped up fee awards
using multipliers and enhancements based on the size of the
settlement.  The objector wants the state justices to reiterate
the primacy of the lodestar and bar judges from boosting fee
awards to multiples of hourly billings.

Class counsel Barnes' response brief pointed out that the Serrano
case didn't involve a classwide settlement fund, so of course the
fee award to plaintiffs' lawyers had to begin with a lodestar
calculation.  The court's dicta from that case, according to
Barnes, does not even apply to common fund cases -- and the two
federal circuit decisions cited in the Serrano opinion are no
longer good law.

In fact, as both Barnes and eight law professors, in an amicus
brief submitted on Dec. 14, pointed out, lodestar fees for
plaintiffs' lawyers were a vogue in the 1970s, when civil rights
cases began to proliferate.  After complaints that basing fees on
hourly billings might discourage efficiency and misalign the
interests of plaintiffs' lawyers and their clients, the 3rd
Circuit appointed a task force to examine the issue.  The task
force, with law professor Arthur Miller (now of New York
University) as its reporter, concluded that paying class counsel a
percentage of the settlement fund is preferable to lodestar-based
fee awards.  The American Law Institute, with University of Texas
professor Charles Silver as its reporter, drew on the task force
findings and other analysis to conclude in its 2010 treatise on
aggregate litigation that judges should use the percentage method
when settlements include a common fund.

Both Messrs. Miller and Silver are among the professors who signed
the amicus brief in the Laffitte case, which points out that every
federal circuit, including the 9th, and almost every state system
permits judges to award fees as a percentage of common funds; two
federal circuits require percentage-based fee awards. The most
recent scholarship on the competing fee schemes found that fewer
than 10 percent of fee awards in class actions are based on
lodestar billings.

In a separate amicus brief filed on Dec. 15 the Impact Fund, the
Western Center on Law and Poverty and 14 other California legal
services groups argue that Brennan's proposal to restrict fees to
hourly billings would stop lawyers from taking on risky civil
rights cases.  If the state Supreme Court strips trial judges of
the discretion to set fees, the brief warned, "the most qualified
private counsel will be far less willing to pursue, or join amici
and others in pursuing, such socially desirable yet professionally
difficult cases on behalf of underserved groups."

It's rare, as you know, for class action fee challenges to reach
appellate heights. More often, objectors drop appeals in exchange
for a payment from class counsel. So you have to give credit to
Messrs. Brennan and Schonbrun for seeing their cause to the state
Supreme Court.

The case docket did not indicate when the California justices will
hear arguments.


SANDISK CORP: Summary Judgment Motion Pending in Ritz Case
---------------------------------------------------------- SanDisk
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 27, 2015, that in the Ritz Camera federal
antitrust class action, the Company's renewed motion for summary
judgment has yet to be heard.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court.

On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted Ritz's motion to
substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz
bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this case. On October 1,
2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM Electronics Inc.
and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a
cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a
named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims.

On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015,
the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class
notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt
out has expired.

After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion
for summary judgment, which motion has yet to be heard.


SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Samsung Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that discovery remains
stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in the Samsung
federal antitrust action against Panasonic and SD-3C.

On July 15, 2010, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung") filed
an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court") alleging various claims against
Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
(collectively, "Panasonic") and SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C") under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, and
under California antitrust and unfair competition laws relating to
the licensing practices and operations of SD-3C. The complaint
seeks an injunction against collection of Secure Digital ("SD")
card royalties, treble damages, restitution, pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, as well as a
declaration that Panasonic and SD-3C engaged in patent misuse and
that the patents subject to such alleged misuse should be held
unenforceable. The Company is not named as a defendant in this
case, but it established SD-3C along with Panasonic and Toshiba,
and the complaint includes various factual allegations concerning
the Company. As a member of SD-3C, the Company may be responsible
for a portion of any monetary award. Other requested relief,
including an injunction or declaration of patent misuse, could
result in a loss of revenue to the Company. The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on September 24, 2010, and Samsung filed a first
amended complaint on October 14, 2010.

On August 25, 2011, the District Court dismissed the patent misuse
claim with prejudice but gave Samsung leave to amend its other
claims. Samsung filed a second amended complaint on September 16,
2011. On January 3, 2012, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss Samsung's complaint without leave to
amend. Samsung appealed.

On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(the "Appeals Court") issued a decision reversing the District
Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and remanding
the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The
Appeals Court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing and
issued its mandate to send the case back to the District Court. On
November 12, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme
Court subsequently denied. Samsung filed a third amended complaint
on January 20, 2015.

On February 13, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
which the District Court granted with respect to certain antitrust
allegations, with leave to amend, and with respect to Panasonic's
U.S. subsidiary and denied in all other respects on September 30,
2015. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the
pleading stage.


SANDISK CORP: Discovery Remains Stayed in Federal Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that discovery remains
stayed until after completion of the pleading stage in a federal
antitrust class action against SanDisk, et al.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v. SD-
3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, LLC ("SD-3C"),
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under
federal antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
California antitrust and unfair competition laws, and common law.

The complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused the plaintiffs to
pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are similar to,
and incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic
Corporation of North America; and SD-3C LLC.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
On May 14, 2014, the appeals court issued a decision reversing the
District Court's dismissal on statute of limitations grounds and
remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings.
The appeals court denied the defendants' petition for rehearing
and issued its mandate to send the case back to the District
Court.

On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the U.S. Supreme
Court subsequently denied. On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint in the District Court. On
February 27, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
the District Court granted, with leave to amend, on September 30,
2015. Discovery remains stayed until after completion of the
pleading stage.


SANDISK CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
SanDisk Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 27, 2015, that in the federal
securities class action against SanDisk et al., the defendants'
motion to dismiss has yet to be heard.

Starting on March 30, 2015, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in three putative class action lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Glore v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on March 30, 2015;
Bowers v. SanDisk Corp. et al. filed on May 6, 2015; City of
Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v. SanDisk
Corp. et al. filed on May 27, 2015). Two of the complaints are
allegedly brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015,
and one is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between April 16, 2014 and April 15,
2015. The complaints generally allege violations of federal
securities laws arising out of alleged misstatements or omissions
by the defendants during the alleged class periods. The complaints
seek, among other things, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
and costs on behalf of the putative classes.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed
Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as
lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015. On September 30, 2015, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss, which motion has yet to be heard.


SANTA CLARA, CA: Sheriff Sued Over Use of Solitary Confinement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Davis, writing for The Intercept, reports that Santa Clara's
sheriff is facing a class action.

Brian Chavez was considered a model inmate, a "trustee" granted
special privileges for his good behavior during the first three
years he was in jail.  Then, last November, Mr. Chavez was moved
with no explanation to the jail's maximum security unit and placed
in a 6-by-7-foot cell, where he was often locked up for 47 hours
straight.

Mr. Chavez is one of two plaintiffs -- both inmates in Santa Clara
County, California -- named in a federal class-action lawsuit
filed by the Berkeley-based Prison Law Office against the
Sheriff's Office.

The lawsuit argues that Santa Clara's sheriff is locking up
hundreds of inmates in small filthy jail cells and allowing them
out for as few as three hours a week.  Inmates held in isolation,
the lawsuit argues, are subjected to conditions that "serve no
penological purpose."  In addition to having very little out-of-
cell time, inmates receive limited visiting time and are
completely shackled whenever they leave their cells. They are
regularly strip-searched -- "sometimes up to six times a day," the
lawsuit alleges -- and are denied access to "physical exercise,
fresh air, sunlight, normal human contact, meaningful activity,
and environmental stimulation."

Inmates in solitary confinement are barred from using any sort of
cleaning tools in their cells -- brooms, mops, sponges, rags, or
towels -- except for the inmate's personal towel.  Meanwhile,
these units often house mentally ill inmates, who sometimes throw
feces and urine or smear it around their cells.

Rarely are inmates given a clear reason for why they've been
isolated, said Prison Law Office staff attorney Kelly Knapp.
"They've been told various things by various officers," she said,
"including that they're there for their charges, gang status, or
some made-up or minor behavioral problem."

Jail policy requires that an inmate's housing status be reviewed
every 30 days to ensure it's appropriate, and any inmate who feels
he's been unfairly housed can file a grievance.  Both Mr. Chavez
and Brandon Bracamonte, the other plaintiff named in the suit,
have filed numerous grievances, the lawsuit says, but are
repeatedly told they're "properly housed."  Mr. Bracamonte, like
Chavez, had also been granted jail "trustee" status for good
behavior before he was moved to solitary confinement.

Both men were indicted on gang charges in May 2013, 18 months
before they were moved to isolation.  Mr. Bracamonte was arrested
in April 2012 for carjacking, and Mr. Chavez was arrested in
November 2011 on narcotics charges.  Mr. Bracamonte has since
pleaded guilty to carjacking; both men have pleaded not guilty to
the gang charges and are awaiting trial.

A Santa Clara County sheriff's spokesperson told The Intercept
that the department appreciates the Prison Law Office's input and
takes its concerns seriously.  The lawsuit follows the August
beating death of a mentally ill inmate by three jail deputies and
a San Jose Mercury News investigation that revealed deputies
rarely investigate inmate complaints of excessive force.  In
November, the sheriff convened a Blue Ribbon Commission to
investigate jail operations.

While there have been a number of legal challenges to the use of
solitary confinement over the last few decades, this is the first
to take on its use in jails.  Other lawsuits have sought relief
for state prisoners, who often spend decades in solitary
confinement, or vulnerable populations, like juveniles or mentally
ill inmates.  Amy Fettig, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's
National Prison Project, calls the Santa Clara lawsuit
"groundbreaking."

"It represents the next wave of civil rights litigation
challenging the practice of solitary confinement," she said,
spurred by a better understanding of the damaging effects of the
practice.  "Now we have international human rights standards,"
Ms. Fettig said.  "Anything beyond 15 days is considered prolonged
isolation."

According to the complaint, Mr. Chavez has a hard time
communicating with people and even the slightest noise irritates
him.  He's only 35, but has become "preoccupied with fears of
dying alone, unnoticed in his cell."  Mr. Bracamonte suffers from
insomnia and fatigue, the lawsuit says.  An avid reader when he
was in the jail's general population, he now has a difficult time
getting through a few paragraphs.  He spends most of his time
pacing his cell.

The lawsuit asks that Mr. Bracamonte, Mr. Chavez, and all Santa
Clara inmates who "don't pose a legitimate security threat" be
returned to the jail's general population and that the sheriff use
a more objective, risk-based housing classification system.  For
inmates who remain in solitary confinement, the lawsuit asks that
the jail put an end to "isolation, sensory deprivation, lack of
social and physical human contact, unsanitary conditions, and
environmental deprivation."  The lawsuit comes just a couple of
months after California corrections officials agreed to
significantly scale back the use of solitary confinement in state
prisons, reserving it only for serious rule violations.  Under the
agreement -- the result of a lawsuit brought by the Center for
Constitutional Rights on behalf of inmates at Pelican Bay State
Prison -- confining someone to the prison's secure housing unit,
or SHU, indefinitely is forbidden. Prior to the settlement, it was
common practice to put inmates with gang ties into the SHU for
years, even decades, where they were locked up for 22 to 23 hours
a day.

But the Pelican Bay case had no bearing on California's 123 jails,
which are under local control.  Although each jail system sets its
own policies, those policies are guided by the state's Minimum
Standards for Local Detention Facilities, also known as Title 15.
Title 15 recommends that jails allow inmates a minimum of three
hours of recreation time each week. In many jails, this is the
standard for inmates in solitary confinement, not the minimum --
and "recreation" is loosely interpreted.

For seven months, from November 2014 until this past June, inmates
housed in the jail's Third West Max unit, including Mr. Chavez and
Mr. Bracamonte, spent their three hours of weekly recreation time
in an empty cell.  Prison Law Office Executive Director
Don Specter noted this in a June 25 letter to Sheriff Laurie
Smith.

"During that seven-month period," Specter wrote, "their only
'yard' was a small, empty cell in their unit.  In this 'yard,'
they had no access to fresh air or natural light, and no room to
exercise.  This is in stark contrast to the SHU at Pelican Bay
State Prison where convicted prisoners in the most restrictive
setting receive 10 hours of outdoor yard time each week."

After Specter's letter, Mr. Chavez, Mr. Bracamonte, and other
inmates in their unit were given access to the jail's "sundeck"
for an hour a week, where they were placed in individual 7-by-15-
foot cages. "The cages are located in an area completely enclosed
by tall concrete walls and steel mesh overhead," the complaint
says. "There is nothing in the cages --- no place to sit, no
exercise equipment, no toilet, no access to water."

Ms. Knapp said the conditions she's seen in Santa Clara aren't
unique among California jails. Once this case is finished, they'll
sue another county.


SONUS NETWORKS: Filed Motion to Transfer "Huang" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2015, that the Company filed
on September 22, 2015, a Motion to Transfer the class action case
b Ming Huang to the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts (the "Motion to Transfer"). The Plaintiff filed
his opposition to the Motion to Transfer on October 5, 2015, and
the Company filed its reply to the Motion to Transfer on October
13, 2015.

Ming Huang, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a Class
Action Complaint (Civil Action No. 3:15-02407) on April 6, 2015,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws (the
"Complaint") in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey (the "Court"), against the Company and two of its
officers, Raymond P. Dolan, the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Mark T. Greenquist, the Company's Chief
Financial Officer (collectively, the "Defendants").

On September 21, 2015, in response to motions subsequently filed
with the Court by four other purported shareholders of the Company
seeking status as lead plaintiff, the Court appointed Richard
Sousa as lead plaintiff (the "Plaintiff") in this case. The
Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from October 23, 2014 to March 24, 2015,
and seeks unspecified damages. The principal allegation contained
in the Complaint is that the Defendants made misleading forward-
looking statements concerning the Company's fiscal first quarter
of 2015 financial performance.

The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the allegations made in the Complaint and does not expect the
results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or
consolidated financial statements.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Class Action Mulled Over Natural Gas Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Vercammen, writing for CNN, reports that Southern California
Gas Company may face class action over methane gas leak.

Yitz Dekel walked his dogs outside his temporary home, a
residential hotel in Calabasas, California, and described the
massive natural gas leak he says forced him out of his suburban
Los Angeles retirement community in Porter Ranch.

"A nightmare," the 79-year-old began.  "Unsettling, very
depressing, very confusing."

Dekel and his wife Stella represent just one of the 1,675
households Southern California Gas Company says it has paid to
relocate because of methane leaking at a storage facility it owns
in the Santa Susana Mountains.

"We had, especially for my wife, some dizziness," Dekel said.
"Then in my case inexplicable fatigue.  And my neighbors, some in
ill health, had major coughing and irritation in the eyes and
throat.  Some had nose bleeding."

SoCal Gas is being vilified by angry Porter Ranch residents and
local politicians. One affected family has already filed a
lawsuit.

The utility vows it's working around the clock to stop the leak,
first reported on October 23.

Relief wells and no-fly zones

The gas company's prime focus now, after other failed capping
attempts, is drilling a relief well, a process that will take
months.

"It could take up to three of four months," said Jimmie Cho, SoCal
Gas' senior vice president of gas operations.  "The reason why (it
will take that long) is we are literally going underground about
8,500 feet. We've got to locate this well and intercept it and
pour the cement necessary to kill the well."

While workers in goggles and hard hats try to stop the leak, the
Federal Aviation Administration says it invoked a no-fly zone over
the project, in response to fears fumes from the gas leak could be
ignited from the air.

The temporary flight restrictions extend up to 2,000 feet and a
half mile around the site and were requested by state and county
emergency management offices, according to the FAA.

How toxic is it?

Several government agencies are working in and around Porter Ranch
to try to determine just how toxic the gas leak may be.

The Air Quality Management District, a government agency which
regulates air quality in Southern California, reports finding in
Porter Ranch significantly elevated levels of methane and slightly
elevated levels of hydrocarbons, including propane and ethane.

What's the biggest concern coming out of the leak? Benzene.

"We found benzene levels three to five times higher than what we
see in urban Los Angeles," said Sam Atwood, the Air Quality
Management District's media office manager.  "Benzene is a concern
because it is known to cause cancer in humans."

On November 19, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Heath
posted a statement that said the "exposures do not constitute an
immediate danger to life, and permanent or long term health
effects are not expected."

But when the health department held a community meeting in Porter
Ranch on exposure to methane and mercaptans (the foul smelling
odorants added to natural gas), health officials said nausea,
dizziness, vomiting, shortness of breath and headaches are among
the health complaints "consistent with inhalation exposure to
mercaptans."

Disrupted lives

Kyoko Hibino and her boyfriend Matt Pakuchko live just over a mile
from the storage facility where the methane is leaking and say
nausea, headaches, congestion and more forced them, and their five
cats, into temporary housing at a hotel in Burbank.

"From day one (SoCal Gas) didn't correctly inform us," Ms. Hibino
said.  "They said it was just part of maintenance and it would be
over in a few hours."

The couple has founded the group Save Porter Ranch and suggest a
class action lawsuit may be in the works.

Brian and Christine Katz, parents of five children, have already
filed suit against SoCal Gas, saying their 2-year-old daughter Ava
has suffered greatly from the leak.

"She spent four nights in (intensive care) for 'upper respiratory
symptoms' with no prior health problem," the lawsuit states. "She
experienced some form of seizure and is now listless, suffering
from persistent rashes, and painful nausea."

'Slow moving tsunami'

SoCal Gas says it's doing everything possible to help residents
and has been upfront about the leak from the beginning.

"We have not been slow to respond to this," SoCal Gas spokesperson
Javier Mendoza told CNN. "We've been working tirelessly."

There's been little rest for the displaced, many of whom are
clustered around several relocation hotels in the San Fernando
Valley.

Yitz Dekel compared the wave of people leaving Porter Ranch due to
the gas leak to a slow moving tsunami.

"In a way, without fire and brimstone, this is a natural
disaster," Dekel said.  "A technological failure and natural
disaster."

But as Dekel and others argue, the Porter Ranch leak hasn't caused
an international media sensation, yet, because there's no lava or
giant waves, but mainly colorless gas that's upended thousands of
lives.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Appeal in Cass Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2015, that
plaintiff's appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against the Company, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The court-
appointed lead plaintiffs - two pension funds that claim to
represent a class of investors in the Company's stock - filed an
amended complaint on April 7, 2014, naming as additional
defendants Spirit's Vice President of the B787 Program Terry J.
George and former Senior Vice President of Oklahoma Operations
Alexander K. Kummant. The amended complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the market
price of the Company's stock by making false statements and
omissions about certain programs' performance and costs. It
contends that the alleged scheme was revealed by the Company's
accrual of $590.0 million in forward loss charges on October 25,
2012. The lead plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all
persons other than defendants who purchased Holdings securities
between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012, and seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of the putative class.

In June 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the claims
set forth in the amended complaint. On May 14, 2015, the District
Court granted Spirit's motion to dismiss and dismissed the matter
with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on June
11, 2015, which is pending. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against these allegations, and management believes the
resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


SUBARU: Quebec Man Files Class Action Over Oil Issues
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Peplowski, writing for CJAD News, reports that a Quebec man
has filed a request to launch a class action lawsuit against
Subaru because his car is an oil guzzler.

David Champagne says his 2012 Subaru needs to be topped up with
oil every 2000 kilometers, despite the fact that there are only
40,000 kilometers on the odometer.

La Presse says the problem is persisting despite a complete engine
overhaul.

The suit is on behalf of the owners of all Subaru model vehicles
from the 2012 model year to now.

It seeks a 20% refund on the purchase price plus $100 in punitive
damages.

La Presse says two class action suits were filed against Subaru in
the United States in 2014 for the same problem.


SUBWAY: CCAF Objects to Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a class-action
activist is taking aim at a proposed settlement in litigation over
marketing for Subway's 6- and 12-inch sandwiches, saying the deal
offers nothing to putative class members despite allocating
$525,000 for class counsel and named plaintiffs.

In an objection filed on Dec. 15, Center for Class Action Fairness
founder Ted Frank asked U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin to withhold final approval of a deal
aimed at resolving multidistrict litigation alleging that Doctor's
Associates Inc., which does business as Subway, billed sandwiches
as being longer than they actually were.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Defendant in 2 Putative Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the Bank is a
defendant in two putative class actions alleging claims under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the
plaintiffs assert that they received calls on their cellular
telephones relating to accounts not belonging to them.

In both cases, the complaints allege that the Bank placed calls to
consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-
recorded message or automated voice without their consent and seek
up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in
the aggregate is unspecified. Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital
Retail Bank was filed on August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, originally naming
GECC as the defendant.

In August 2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion
to dismiss the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed
and the plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the
defendant.

On March 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) (for
damages) and denying class certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) (for injunctive relief). The Bank is
seeking reconsideration of the order.

Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on November 4, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

In addition to the Abdeljalil and Hofer developments discussed,
the Bank has resolved five other putative class actions that made
similar claims under the TCPA on an individual basis with the
class representative. Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank
and Allied Interstate LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
dismissed on October 9, 2014. Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc.
and GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina and dismissed on
October 20, 2014. Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May
14, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut and dismissed on July 8, 2015.  Pittman et al. v. GE
Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on July 29, 2014 in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and
dismissed on August 20, 2015. Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., for which the Bank indemnified the defendant, was filed on
February 27, 2015 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and dismissed on September 1, 2015.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Two Fraud Class Actions Underway
--------------------------------------------------
J.W. August, writing for NBC 7, reports that while the
Donald Trump candidacy is on many voter's minds across the
country, two lawsuits filed against the presidential candidate
have been quietly working their way through federal court in San
Diego.

Two class-action lawsuits filed against Trump University allege
that 5,000 students, many of whom are in San Diego, paid course
fees up to $35,000 to attend the university.  However, court
filings reveal the courses failed to deliver and the university
operated as an unlicensed educational institution.

A court order signed by the judge in the cases say "all
depositions, including that of the Defendant, must be completed by
December 18th, 2015."

Court sources tell Mr. Trump was deposed in the case in New York
City.

The suits are alleging "Trump University lures consumers in with a
free introductory seminar, which turns out to be nothing more than
an infomercial to 'up-sell' and persuade students" to buy a $1,495
apprenticeship course.

If the students buy in, then the non-accredited University, using
"misleading, fraudulent and predatory practices" tries to convince
students to purchase Trump U's Gold course for $35,000.

Mr. Trump is named as a defendant because his is owner, founder
and chairman of Trump University.

Magistrate Judge William Gallo of the Southern District Court of
San Diego will determine whether the depositions are confidential,
sealed or open to the public, though a date has not yet been set.

A legal expert told NBC7 that even if the judge rules the
depositions are public, it may be some time before any of the
depositions become public.

It is expected that members of the media will argue the
depositions should be public, especially given Trump's candidacy
for president.

In Tarla Makaeff v. Trump University, a final pretrial conference
is set for April 8, though it could occur before.  In the other
case, Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, a mandatory settlement
conference is set for Jan. 27 with Gallo sitting as judge.  That
lawsuit was filed five years ago.

Eric Schneiderman, Attorney General for New York, who is also
suing Trump and Trump University, has said more than 5,000 people
across the country were deceived by the university's promises.
That number includes an unknown number of San Diegans who entered
Trump University after seeing featuring Trump, claiming his
program would provide them "amazing instructors AND priceless
information . . . all for FREE."

The ads, which ran in places like the Los Angeles Times,
encouraged consumers to "learn from the Master ? Donald Trump."
The sales pitch claimed Trump created the university because he
could only work with one person a year on "The Apprentice," a show
he hosted prior to his run for the presidency.

The Makaeff case is certified as a class action lawsuit in
California, New York and Florida. The Cohen lawsuit asserts claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
has been certified as a class action.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and for Trump did not respond to
NBC 7's request for comment.


VITAL THERAPIES: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Dec. 16
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of Vital Therapies,
Inc. violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
April 17, 2014 and August 21, 2015, by making materially false and
misleading statements about Vital Therapies' business prospects.
Vital Therapies is a biotherapeutic company that focuses on
developing a cell-based therapy for the treatment of acute liver
failure in the U.S.  Its product candidate, the ELAD System, is an
extracorporeal human allogeneic cellular liver treatment designed
to allow the patient's liver to regenerate to a healthy state, or
to stabilize the patient until liver transplant.  The company's
major studies include: VTI-208, VTI-210, and VTI-212.

Vital Therapies Accused Of Issuing Misleading Information About
Its Clinical Trials

According to the complaint, during 2015, Vital Therapies filed an
Annual Report on Form 10-K and several Quarterly Reports on Form
10-Q with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  These
reports said that if the VTI-208 trial was unsuccessful, the
company intended to conserve cash to be able to complete the VTI-
210 trial.  However, these statements were allegedly misleading
because they did not disclose that each of the three trials was of
stand-alone significance, and that if the VTI-208 study failed,
the company would terminate the VTI-210 and VTI-212 studies and
would not conserve cash to continue the VTI-210 trial.

The truth was revealed on August 21, 2015, when the company issued
a press release announcing that the VTI-208 trial failed to meet
the primary endpoint of overall survival through at least 91 days.
The company also announced that it will stop the VTI-210 and VTI-
212 clinical trials, and plans to meet with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to discuss restructuring its clinical development
program. During a conference call held on the same day, the
company's Chief Executive Officer, Terry Winters, refused to give
a time frame when asked when the VTI-210 and VTI-212 trials would
be restarted.  On this news, Vital Therapies stock plunged 73.4%,
from $17.68 per share on August 21, 2015, to close at $3.65 per
share on August 24, 2015.

Vital Therapies Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned holders of Series A Preferred Units who would like more
information about their rights and potential remedies can contact
attorney Darnell R. Donahue at (800) 350-6003,
DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the shareholder information form
on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Employees Under Probe Amid Emissions Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Boston and Ulrike Dauer, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that German prosecutors are investigating
employees at Robert Bosch GmbH in connection with Volkswagen AG's
emissions fraud, expanding their probe beyond the German car maker
to one of its key suppliers.

The probe of employees at Stuttgart-based Bosch, one of the
world's biggest auto suppliers, is the first acknowledged
investigation of a supplier in connection with the Volkswagen
emissions crisis.

Separately, Volkswagen received preliminary approval from German
regulators to update tainted engine-control software on affected
diesel-powered vehicles totaling 8.5 million in Europe.  The fix
for the European cars doesn't apply to the about 500,000
Volkswagen diesel-powered vehicles affected in the U.S.

Prosecutors in Stuttgart said their investigation is at an early
stage and targets unidentified Bosch employees who assisted in
installing engine control software as part of a routine contract.
No Bosch employee has been charged with wrongdoing.

"In the wake of the emissions scandal, it became clear that
Volkswagen didn't itself develop the software.  It became obvious
which company came into question, and we decided to take a closer
look," said Claudia Krauth, a spokeswoman for the Stuttgart
prosecutor's office.

Ms. Krauth declined to elaborate.

Under German law, companies can't be held liable for criminal
wrongdoing.  Instead, prosecutors must investigate individual
employees suspected of being responsible.

"Bosch is fully cooperating with authorities, assisting them in
clarifying the facts concerning the exhaust-gas treatment issue,"
said Rene Ziegler, a Bosch spokesman, declining to comment on
specifics of the prosecutors' investigation.

The part supplier previously said it provided two components for
exhaust treatments used in Volkswagen models involved in the
emissions scandal, but has said it isn't responsible for how the
parts are integrated into vehicles.

Bosch has said that it delivered the parts to Volkswagen according
to the auto maker's specifications.  "How these components are
calibrated and integrated into complete vehicle systems is
fundamentally the responsibility of each auto maker," Bosch said.

German weekly newspaper Bild am Sonntag reported on Sept. 27 that
Bosch warned Volkswagen in a letter in 2007 that the car maker's
intended use of the software provided by Bosch could be illegal.
Bild didn't provide a source for its information.

A spokesman for Volkswagen declined to comment, saying that if
such a letter existed it would be part of the company's
investigation.

Bosch also declined to comment on the letter, citing
confidentiality of correspondence with customers.

Ms. Krauth, spokeswoman for the Stuttgart prosecutor, said media
reports played a role in prompting the investigation of Bosch
employees, but wouldn't confirm the letter nor elaborate on the
role of the Bild report.

Volkswagen's emissions fraud was first disclosed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on Sept. 18.  The EPA said
Volkswagen installed so-called "defeat devices" on nearly 500,000
diesel-powered cars in the U.S.

The admission sparked criminal investigations in the U.S. and
Europe and an onslaught of class-action suits.

One civil suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Detroit,
accused Bosch of assisting Volkswagen in committing civil fraud
and racketeering, according to the 56-page court filing.

"Volkswagen's fraudulent scheme was facilitated and aided by
defendant Bosch, which created the software used in Volkswagen's
defeat device," the suit states, adding that "Bosch's 'hear-no-
evil, see-no-evil' rationale" couldn't shield the company from
prosecution.

Mr. Ziegler, the Bosch spokesman, declined to comment, but said
the company takes this and other class-action suits in the U.S.
seriously.

Volkswagen declined to comment on the class-action suit, citing
ongoing investigations.

In Brussels, the European Union's antifraud office, known as OLAF,
said on Dec. 16 it had launched a probe into Volkswagen related to
its diesel crisis, but declined to elaborate.

OLAF is in charge of investigating suspected misappropriation of
EU funds and serious misconduct in EU institutions.

"We are surprised that the agency would go public with this
without first informing the affected party," said Eric Felber, a
Volkswagen spokesman. "Volkswagen has been engaged for months in
confidential talks with the European Investment Bank.  We have
disclosed how these loans were used."

The European Investment Bank, the EU's developing bank, already
started investigating several weeks ago Volkswagen's use of some
EUr4.5 billion ($4.9 billion) in loans received since 1990, an EIB
official said.  Of those, around EUr1.9 billion still need to be
repaid by Volkswagen, the official said.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which
supports projects in the EU and its neighborhood, said it had put
on hold a planned EUr300 million loan to help Volkswagen build a
car plant in Wrzesnia, Poland.  A spokesman for the EBRD declined
to give a reason for the bank's decision.

In Germany, the Federal Motor Vehicle Agency gave preliminary
approval on a procedure to repair 1.2-liter, 1.6-liter and 2.0-
liter EA 189 diesel engines affected by the cheating software.

Volkswagen officials have said that a software update would be
installed, requiring about 30 minutes, on 1.2-liter and 2.0-liter
engines.  For 1.6 liter engines, the repair will involve a
software update and a simple hardware fix that alters the air flow
to enhance emissions reduction, taking about one hour to complete,
Volkswagen said.

Volkswagen and Audi technicians are in talks with U.S.
environmental authorities to determine how to fix U.S. vehicles
affected by the cheating software.  Those vehicles are expected to
require more elaborate repairs.


WEST BANCORPORATION: Ruling in Case Appeal Expected in 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that West Bank
believes the opinions in a class action appeal will be released
during the first half of 2016.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a class action
lawsuit that, as amended, asserts nonsufficient funds fees charged
by West Bank to Iowa resident customers on debit card transactions
are usurious under the Iowa Consumer Credit Code, rather than
allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly
posted debit card transactions for payment violated various
alleged duties of good faith and ordinary care. Plaintiffs are
seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief,
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of
fees and attorney fees.

The case is currently being brought by Darla and Jason T. Legg, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, in the
Iowa District Court for Polk County, Iowa. West Bank believes it
has substantial defenses and is vigorously defending the action.
The trial court entered orders on preliminary motions on March 4,
2014. It dismissed one of the plaintiffs' claims and found that
factual disputes precluded summary judgment in West Bank's favor
on the remaining claims. In addition, the court certified two
classes for further proceedings.

West Bank appealed the adverse rulings to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The Iowa Supreme Court heard oral arguments on October 13, 2015.
The cases have now been submitted for decisions, and West Bank
believes the opinions will be released during the first half of
2016. The amount of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated now because of the unresolved legal issues and because,
among other things, the multiple alternative claims involve
different time periods, burdens of proof, defenses and potential
remedies.


YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss N.D. Cal. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2015, that a hearing on a motion to
dismiss has been rescheduled for November 10, 2015.

In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits
allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by the Company and its officers for allegedly making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and operations between October 29, 2013 and April 3,
2014. These cases were subsequently consolidated and, in January
2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint seeking
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on
April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
May 21, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the Company and the other named
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint,
and a hearing on this motion had been rescheduled for November 10,
2015.


YELP INC: Suit by Former Eat24 Customer Support Employees Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit was
filed by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County, naming as defendants the Company and Eat24. The
lawsuit asserts that the defendants failed to permit meal and rest
periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24
customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief. On May 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.


YELP INC: Defending Class Action by Former Eat24 Sales Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. is defending a class action filed by a former Eat24
sales employee, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former
Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that
Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages,
allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and
asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief. On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint asserting an additional cause of action for
penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act.


                            *********

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  * * *