CAR_Public/151228.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, December 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 256


                            Headlines


ACE HARDWARE: Recalls Blower/Vac Products Due to Burn Hazard
ACUITY BRANDS: Recalls LED Fixtures Due to Injury Risk
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Must Respond to Discovery Requests
ALAMEDA COUNTY INDUSTRIES: Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
BASLER ELECTRIC: Recalls Electrical Transformers

BONAVISTA FOODS: Recalls Cured Pork Products
CANADA: Metis School Survivors Seek Reconciliation
CARGO FORCE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
CASABLANCA FAN: Recalls Ceiling Fans Due to Injury Hazard
COST PLUS: Recalls Reading Chairs Due to Fall Hazard

CVS HEALTH: Trial to Begin February 2016 in "Lauriello" Action
CVS HEALTH: Bellevue Case in Early Stages of Discovery
CVS HEALTH: 3rd Amended Complaint Permitted in Pension Fund Case
CVS HEALTH: $48MM Agreement Reached in Securities Class Action
CVS HEALTH: Defendant in Class Action Against Omnicare

CVS HEALTH: Corcoran and Podgorny Class Actions Filed
EL MICHOACANO: Faces "Rosales" Suit Seeking to Recover Back Wages
ELI LILLY: 96% of Claimants Opted Into Actos Resolution Program
ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Actos Class Actions in Canada
ELI LILLY: Defendant in 500 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits

ELI LILLY: Defendant in 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
ELI LILLY: Employee Litigation Pending in Brazil
ENERGY FUTURE: Class Claimants' Motion for Certification Denied
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Settles Dispute with Former Drivers
FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

FLINT, MI: Class Action Mulled Over Contaminated Water Supplies
FOCUS BICYCLES: Recalls Izalco Max Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
GOYA FOODS: Faces "Tsvettsikh" Suit Over Salsa Picante Hot Sauce
GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION: Discovery Okayed in "Groshek" Suit
GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Assured Burn Relief Gel

HARBOR FREIGHT: Recalls Cordless Drills Due to Fire & Burn Hazard
HOMELAND PATROL: Faces "Saint Fleur" Suit Over FLSA Violation
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Defendant in MERSCORP Litigation
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: "Powell" Parties Await Oral Argument
JOFRAN SALES: Recalls Dining Room Tables Due to Injury Hazard

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Okayed in Suit v. OCD
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case Adjourned
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Defending Suits Filed by Contact Lens Patients
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Third-Party Payors Filed Suit in E.D. La.
KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Teryx Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles

KUBOTA TRACTOR: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
LIMOSS US: Recalls Lithium Ion Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
LIPO ESCULTURA: Recalls Lipo Escultura Products Due to Diclofenac
LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini White Powder Capsules
LVNV FUNDING: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Denial

M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Case in Discovery Phase
MARS CHOCOLATE: Recalls Chocolate Assortment Snowflakes
MICHIGAN: Faces "Mays" Suit Over Flint River Water Pollution
MORRISON MILLING: Recalls Corn Products Due to Metal Mesh
NDL CONTRACTING: Faces "Moore" Suit Alleging Bias, FLSA Breach

NEWPARK RESOURCES: Trial of Wage and Hour Case Set for Sept. 2016
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in "Christensen" Action
NORTH CENTRAL: Recalls Fireworks Fountains Due to Fire Hazard
OFFICE DEPOT: Delaware Court of Chancery Approved Case Dismissal
OLD NATIONAL: May 9-13 Bench Trial Set in Class Action

OLD REPUBLIC: Individual Consumer Protection Claim Settled
OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss 2 Cases
OPEN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Underwriter Defendants Seek Case Dismissal
PALM USA: Faces "Roberson" Suit in Ill. Alleging FLSA Violation

PFIZER INC: Court Okays Amendment to 1992 Class Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in ADESF Class Action in Brazil
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Public Prosecutor Case Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing on Merits Appeal in "Letourneau"
PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing on Merits Appeal in "Blais"

PHILIP MORRIS: 80 Smoking and Health Cases Pending at October 27
PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Canada Remains Pending
PHILIP MORRIS: Motions Pending in "Adams" Case in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Case in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Motions Pending in "Dorion" Case in Canada

PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defending "McDermid" Case in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defending "Bourassa" Case in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defending "Jacklin" Case in Canada
PHILIP MORRIS: 3 Lights Cases Pending at October 27
PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Public Civil Actions in Argentina and Venezuela

PINE VALLEY: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Milk and Egg
PINNACLE WEST: Appeal in Consumer Class Action Pending
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Polaris Snowmobiles Due to Crash Risk
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
REESNA INC: Recalls Fuel Up Dietary Supplements

SKIP HOP: Recalls Crib Mobiles Due to Injury Hazard
SMARTLIPO365: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sibutramine
SOCIAL SECURITY: Dismissal Bid in "Martin" Suit Granted
SOUTHWEST GLASS: Faces "Zamora" Suit Under FLSA, Min. Wage Act
SR SMITH: Recalls Pool and Spa Lifts Due to Fall Hazard

STATE FARM: Motion for Remand or Abstention Denied in "Papurello"
STELLA & CHEWY'S: Recalls Pet Food Products Due to Listeria
SUN NOODLE: Recalls Tonkotsu Ramen Products Due to Egg
SWEET LEAF: Recalls Tea Products Due to Glass Fragments
TARGET: Gift Registry Apps Easy to Hack, Tech Security Firm Says

TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Lamps Due to Electric Shock Risk
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL: "Hussey" Contaminated Water Case Remanded
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Ginger Brew Products Due to Bottle Bursting
UBER: Interns in China Complain Over Labor Practices
URBANDADDY INC: Faces "Smith" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Trade Practices
WAL-MART STORES: Trial, Deadlines in "Ridgeway" Case Pushed Back
WESTERN UNION: Appeal From Attorney Fee Award Dismissed
ZATARAIN'S: Recalls Red Beans and Rice Products Due to Dairy

* Canadian Businesses Face More Privacy Breach Class Actions





                            *********


ACE HARDWARE: Recalls Blower/Vac Products Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ace Hardware Corporation, of Oak Brook, Ill; Orchard Supply
Hardware, of San Jose, Calif.; and Sears, Roebuck & Co., of
Hoffman Estates, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about
74,000 Blower/Vac. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The blower/vac's motor can catch fire, posing fire and burn
hazards.

This recall involves two models of Craftsman 12 amp electric
blower/vacs. The blower/vacs have a red motor housing and a black
blower tube and restrictor nozzle, and measure 12 inches high by
34 inches long. Blower/vacs with model number 138.74898 or
138.74899 are being recalled. Model 138.74898 has a variable speed
switch and a serial number between SES0100001 and SES1951280.
Model 138.74899 has a two-speed switch and a serial number between
SER3561101 and SES2141280. The model number, serial number,
"Craftsman" and "AC BLOWER / VAC" are printed on the side of the
motor housing.

Seven reports of the blower/vacs catching fire have been received.
One injury has been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bsh9Sj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at ACE
Hardware, Orchard Supply Hardware, and Sears stores nationwide and
online from January 2013 through October 2015 for between $50 and
$100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower/vacs
and contact the Craftsman brand hotline for a full refund.


ACUITY BRANDS: Recalls LED Fixtures Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc., of Conyers, Ga., Lithonia Lighting
is a division, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,500 JHBL
LED Fixtures. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell
a recalled consumer product.

The metal hub used to mount the light fixtures to the ceiling can
break and allow the fixture to fall unexpectedly, posing a risk of
injury from impact.

This recall involves JHBL LED light fixtures manufactured between
August 2014 and June 20, 2015. Manufacture dates are located on
the product label near the top of the light fixture. The light
fixtures measure 16-inches high by 22-inches wide and weigh about
40 pounds.  The fixtures are painted white die castings with
raised heat dissipating fins every 2 inches.  The lower die
casting with fins is approximately 4 inches from the driver
compartment box. Units shipped after June 20, 2015 are not
included in the recall.

Lithonia Lighting has received eight reports of hubs on the light
fixture breaking, including four reports of the fixtures falling.
No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico, and sold at
Electrical distributors nationwide from August 2014 through June
2015 for about $520.

Consumers should immediately contact Lithonia Lighting to receive
a free chain to secure the fixture to the ceiling. Lithonia
Lighting is contacting all known customers.


ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Must Respond to Discovery Requests
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted in part
Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling defendant to respond
to certain discovery requests in the case captioned ABAK HATAMIAN,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00226-YGR (JSC), (N.D. Cal.).

In this securities fraud putative class action, Plaintiffs contend
that defendant Advanced Micro Devices made misrepresentations
regarding the launch of its "Llano" microprocessor, and in
particular, misstatements regarding the Llano manufacturing
plant's chip yield. Now pending before the Court is the parties'
joint letter brief regarding a discovery dispute. Specifically,
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendant to (1) expand the
temporal scope of discovery, (2) identify and provide contact
information for its customer, and (3) produce all human resources
documents for certain current and former employees.

In her Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BrNNcRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley granted in part
Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling AMD to respond to
certain discovery requests.  The Court directed AMD to:

     (1) produce relevant documents from the time period of
         April 2010 through December 31, 2012, excluding
         custodians relevant only to the Llano inventory
         write-down and documents responsive to the 2012
         forecasting allegations; and

     (2) respond to Interrogatories Nos. 1 through 4 by
         providing the identity and requested contact information
         for its customers and motherboard manufacturers involved
         with the Llano microprocessing chip at issue in this
         litigation.

Plaintiffs' request for the human resources-related documents
requested in RFP Nos. 73 and 74 is denied. Balancing the
employees' significant interest in their human resources files
with Plaintiffs' interest in the documents, the Court concluded
that Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating a
compelling need for the information that could not be obtained
through other sources.

Joy Ann Kruse, Esq. -- jakruse@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP serves as counsel for Plaintiff Babak
Hatamian

Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. -- Patrick.Gibbs@lw.com -- Kala
Sherman-Presser, Esq. -- kala.sherman-presser@lw.com -- Matthew
Rawlinson, Esq. -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Melanie Marilyn
Blunschi, Esq. -- melanie.blunschi@lw.com and Ming M Zhu, Esq. --
ming.zhu@lw.com -- of Latham and Watkins LLP serve as counsel for
Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.


ALAMEDA COUNTY INDUSTRIES: Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato granted the motion for final
settlement approval, and granted in part the motion for fees,
costs and service awards in the case captioned MARIA GRANADOS
FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY INDUSTRIES INC,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-03011-JD, (N.D. Cal.)

In this wage-and-hour class and collective action, the Court
previously granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action
settlement. Following a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for final
settlement approval, the parties modified the settlement to
increase the amount of the settlement fund available to the class
members. The final order resolves plaintiffs' unopposed motions
for: (1) final settlement approval and certification of a
settlement class; and (2) attorneys' fees, costs, and class
representative service awards.

In his Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Sg68f2from Leagle.com, Judge Donato granted
Plaintiff's (1) motion for final approval of class settlement and
for final certification of settlement class, and (2) motion for
attorneys' fees and costs. The Court grants final approval of the
proposed settlement, finally certifies the class and  Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) class as proposed, and confirms the
appointment of Maria Granados Flores, Ignacia Garcia, Griselda
Mora, Pablo Rodriguez and Divina Saguilan as class representatives
and Leonard Carder, LLP as class counsel.

The Court approved the payment of $118,207 in attorneys' fees and
$21,582 in costs to class counsel. Plaintiff's motion for
incentive pay to class representatives Maria Granados Flores,
Ignacia Garcia, Griselda Mora, Pablo Rodriguez and Divina
Saguilan, is granted in part, and these named plaintiffs may be
reimbursed for any out-of-pocket costs and any work missed. The
parties are ordered to comply with the remaining terms of the
revised settlement agreement, and the Clerk is requested to close
the file and terminate any pending matters.

Philip Carl Monrad, Esq. -- pmonrad@leonardcarder.com -- and Aaron
D. Kaufmann, Esq. -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- of Leonard
Carder, LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiffs

Felicia R. Reid, Esq. -- freid@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Amy Atherton
Durgan, Esq. -- adurgan@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Kristin L.
Oliveira, Esq. -- koliveira@hkemploymentlaw.com -- and Curiale
Dellaverson Hirschfeld, et al. of Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP serve as
counsel for Defendant Alameda County Industries Inc.


BASLER ELECTRIC: Recalls Electrical Transformers
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Basler Electric Company, of Highland, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 11,900 Electrical transformers. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The circuit breaker in the transformer can fail to trip, posing
fire and electrical shock hazards.

This recall involves Basler Class 2 electric transformers with
date codes between 1435 and 1446 which use a Tyco circuit breaker.
The date code is located on the top line of the transformer's data
plate.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/T8KjYw

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Basler Electric to manufacturers and distributors of end products
that contain these transformers from September 2014 to November
2014 for various prices.

Manufacturers and distributors should immediately stop
distributing the recalled transformers and contact Basler to
receive free replacement transformers. Due to the risk of shock,
consumers should not attempt to open or replace the recalled
transformers on their own but should contact the manufacturer of
their product for further instructions. Basler has notified
manufacturers and distributors about the recall directly.


BONAVISTA FOODS: Recalls Cured Pork Products
--------------------------------------------
Bonavista Foods Inc., Ovid, N.Y. establishment, is recalling
approximately 4,338 pounds of cured pork products that were not
presented at the U.S. point of entry for inspection, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a
possibility of adverse health consequences exists.

The cured pork back items were imported on Nov. 17, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- Combo bin containing "GRAS DE DOS DE PORC SALE sel ajoute
      CURED PORK FATBACK salt added PRODUCT IF U.S.A./PRODUIT DES
      E.U.A." with a packaging date of Nov. 30, 2015, and package
      code 306.
  --- 50-lb. boxes of "CURED PORK FATBACK PRODUCT OF THE U.S.A"
      with a packaging date of Nov. 27, 2015.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "Est.
17978" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to a warehouse and retail locations in Brooklyn, N.Y. and
Canada.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS surveillance
activities of imported products.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Angelo Gaetano, Owner, at (607) 869-9939.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


CANADA: Metis School Survivors Seek Reconciliation
--------------------------------------------------
Leslie Young, writing for Global News, reports that as Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau talks about a new relationship with
Canada's indigenous peoples, many find themselves on the outside
looking in.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission process and residential
school settlement did not include Metis, people who attended day
schools rather than residential schools and people who attended
residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The government is fighting two of those groups in court as class
action lawsuits seek the same kind of compensation offered to
other school survivors.

Josie Penny watched TRC event in tears.

But there was no reconciliation for her, or recognition for her
years in a residential school in Labrador.


"It's the way it's always been," she said.

"We're very seldom ever included in Labrador.  It just seems like
nobody cares.  It hurts.  If everybody else can get the attention
that they so rightly deserve, as we also deserve and are not
getting, it hurts."

Ms. Penny testified in a St. John's court as part of the ongoing
class action lawsuit there.

It wasn't easy.  She wishes there was another way to resolve
things that didn't involve the witness stand.

Clement Chartier is also among those left out: The president of
the Metis National Council spent 10 years in a residential school
but his experience hasn't been recognized.

"We again reminded the Prime Minister that the Metis residential
schools have not been dealt with yet," he said at a press
conference on Dec. 16.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission Chair Justice Murray Sinclair
acknowledged on Dec. 15 that the process isn't comprehensive.

"There are many thousands of indigenous people whose treatment
over the years mirrors that of those in residential schools but
who have not yet been fully acknowledged," he said.

Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde vowed on
Dec. 15 to keep pressure on the government to recognize these
people.

"They were forgotten. they were left out. So we're seeking justice
for all that have been hurt by this travesty and we will keep
supporting it.  And I will say sometimes you need a legal strategy
to put enough pressure on so there's a political strategy going
forward."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said that his government is looking
into an "appropriate response" to the Newfoundland and Labrador
survivor and other court cases.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs minister Carolyn Bennett
acknowledged on Dec. 15 that the government has more on its plate
than the 94 TRC recommendations, and suggested they may move to
end the ongoing class actions.

"Our government's view of reconciliation is bigger than the court-
directed mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission," she
said.

"We do believe that getting things out of the courts is going to
be the way forward and a way that's less painful for so many
survivors in some of these complex situations that didn't end up
being in the original class action."

The government has yet to offer timelines or concrete plans for
settlements.  In the meantime, government lawyers are fighting
these residential school survivors in court.

Penny says she's hopeful that the cases will be resolved.  "The
new government sounds promising.  Whether or not they're going to
follow through it's really hard for us to say.  It's hard for us
to trust anybody at this point."


CARGO FORCE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan O. Rodriguez and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Cargo Force, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-24257-JLK (S.D.Fla., November
16, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cargo Force is a service company providing full aircraft ground
support, and cargo handling services to airlines serving Miami
International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd.
     Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CASABLANCA FAN: Recalls Ceiling Fans Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Casablanca Fan Company, of Memphis, Tenn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 30,000 Casablanca ceiling fans. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The fan motor and attached blades can separate from the adapter
when operating in reverse updraft mode, causing the fan motor and
blades to fall, posing an injury hazard.

This recall involves 43 models of Casablanca ceiling fans
manufactured in 2013 and 2014. Casablanca fan styles including:
Alessandria, Aris, Bel Air, Bullet, Caneel Bay, Heritage, Isotope,
Riello, Stealth, Tercera, Trident, Whitman and Zudio.  Affected
models have a gold label on top of the motor housing that includes
"Casablanca" and a model number.  Some Casablanca models also have
the Casablanca logo on the switch housing or on the end of the
pull chain.  The production date code is a four digit code on top
of the motor housing near the center down rod. Fans with a Cat.
No. "A01", the last two digits of the four digit date code ending
in "13" or "14" and no green dot on top of the motor housing are
included in the recall.

Casablanca ceiling fan model numbers and production dates included
in this recall are:

  Model Numbers     Production         Factory   Green Dot
                    Date = last        Code      on Motor
  -------------     two digits of      -----     Housing
                    production                   ----------
                    code
                    -------------
  59018, 59019,     Production codes   A01        No
  59020, 59021,     xx13 and xx14
  59022, 59023,
  59057, 59059,
  59060, 59061,
  59062, 59064,
  59065, 59068,
  59069, 59070,
  59076, 59077,
  59078, 59081,
  59082, 59083,
  59090, 59091,
  59092, 59093,
  59094, 59105,
  59106, 59107,
  59109, 59110,
  59111, 59113,
  59114, 59119,
  59121, 59123,
  59124, 59164,
  59165, 59527,
  59528

For all Isotope model ceiling fans (model numbers: 59018, 59019,
59020, 59021, 59022, 59023), the canopy ring next to the ceiling
must be twisted and lowered to see the product information labels
and the presence of a green dot.

Casablanca has received eight reports of the fan motor and blades
falling, including one report of minor injury and one report of
minor property damage.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/X8T7tZ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Lighting store showrooms nationwide and major home improvement
online retailers from January 2013 through December 2014 for
between $350 and $620.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ceiling fans
and contact Casablanca for a free in-home inspection and repair.


COST PLUS: Recalls Reading Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 2,700 Reading Chairs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The front leg on reading chairs sold without front leg support
blocks can bend or break, posing a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves high-back upholstered reading chairs sold in
a black and white floral print. The chairs are 37-inches tall by
30-inches wide, and have four wooden legs with the front two on
casters. SKU number 473747 is printed on a UPC sticker affixed to
the underside of the chair.

Cost Plus World Market has received eight reports of front chair
legs bending or breaking, including one report of an injury when a
consumer fell out of the chair.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/wy5xE1

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cost
Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide and online at
www.worldmarket.com from January 2015 through September 2015 for
about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
inspect the front legs for support blocks. Chairs without support
blocks can be returned to any Cost Plus World Market for a free
exchange. Consumers should contact Cost Plus World Market or log
onto www.worldmarket.com for instructions on how to inspect the
chair legs for support blocks.


CVS HEALTH: Trial to Begin February 2016 in "Lauriello" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 trial is scheduled
to begin in February 2016 in the class action lawsuit filed by
John Lauriello.

Caremark (the term "Caremark" being used to generally refer to any
one or more PBM subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable) was
named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in
Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of
participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class
action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other
defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to
Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello
lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages
plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the
amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits
was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,
Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,
but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.

Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).

In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class
representatives and class counsel. On September 12, 2014, the
Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's August 15, 2012
Order. The case is proceeding and trial is currently scheduled to
start in February 2016.


CVS HEALTH: Bellevue Case in Early Stages of Discovery
------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 parties in the
Bellevue case are in the early stages of discovery.

Starting in August 2003, various lawsuits were filed by
pharmacies alleging that Caremark and other PBMs were violating
certain antitrust laws. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert
Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co.
d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and
the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative
class action against Caremark in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking treble damages
and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration
based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark,
but later returned to federal court, where it currently remains.

In addition, in October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs,
Inc., filed three separate putative class action complaints in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama,
all seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. One complaint
named three Caremark entities as defendants, and the other two
complaints named PBM competitors. The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities was transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; the
case against the third Caremark entity was sent to arbitration
based on contract terms between the pharmacies and that entity.

The arbitration was stayed at the parties' request and later
closed by the American Arbitration Association.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring all related PBM antitrust cases,
including the North Jackson Pharmacy cases, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
coordinated and consolidated proceedings with the cases originally
filed in that court, including the Bellevue matter. The
consolidated action is now known as In re Pharmacy Benefit
Managers Antitrust Litigation. A motion for class certification
filed by the North Jackson Pharmacy plaintiffs against the
Caremark defendants on August 31, 2015 is currently pending. In
the Bellevue matter, the parties are in the early stages of
discovery.


CVS HEALTH: 3rd Amended Complaint Permitted in Pension Fund Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 court has
granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint in
the case, Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers
Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana
State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare
Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The consolidated
complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and
two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all
open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3,
2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought
shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare's public offering in
December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and
injunctive relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States
Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. In October
2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended
complaint.


CVS HEALTH: $48MM Agreement Reached in Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 parties in a
securities class action reached an agreement in principle to
settle the case for $48 million.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
by Richard Medoff, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS
Health Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009.
An amended complaint extended that time period back to October 30,
2008. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as
defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating
to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM
business and allegations of insider trading.

In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by Mark
Wuotila in December 2009 in the same court against the directors
and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which has
remained stayed pending developments in the related securities
class action, includes allegations of, among other things,
securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties
and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase
of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase
program.

In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In August
2015, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Medoff action for $48 million. In September 2015, the Parties
filed a joint stipulation seeking preliminary approval for this
settlement.

The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to
avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation. The
settlement will be funded by insurance proceeds. The Wuotila
derivative matter remains pending.


CVS HEALTH: Defendant in Class Action Against Omnicare
------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 a consolidated
class action complaint was filed on July 27, 2015, by plaintiffs
naming Omnicare, the members of the Omnicare Board of Directors,
CVS Health, CVS Pharmacy and its merger subsidiary as defendants.
The complaint alleged that the members of the Omnicare Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Omnicare's
stockholders during merger negotiations by entering into the
merger agreement and approving the merger, and the CVS parties
aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. In September
2015, the court granted plaintiffs' voluntary notice of dismissal
of all allegations against the defendants.


CVS HEALTH: Corcoran and Podgorny Class Actions Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 related putative
class actions were filed against the Company in July and September
2015 in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of
California and the Northern District of Illinois, respectively.
The first case was brought by Christopher Corcoran and six other
individuals who allegedly overpaid for prescriptions for generic
drugs filled at CVS pharmacies. The second case was brought by
Robert Podgorny and another individual on the same theory. Both
complaints seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes and common laws of certain states.


EL MICHOACANO: Faces "Rosales" Suit Seeking to Recover Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Rosales, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, v. El Michoacano LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company d/b/a El Tarasco Mexican Restaurant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00711-SPC-CM (M.D.Fla., November 13, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aneli Murthy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road-Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954-318-0268
     Fax: 954-327-3016
     E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com



ELI LILLY: 96% of Claimants Opted Into Actos Resolution Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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, that in the Actos(R)
Product Liability Litigation, Takeda announced in September 2015
that more than 96 percent of eligible claimants have opted into
the resolution program that was announced in April 2015.

Eli Lilly said, "We are named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as
a defendant in approximately 6,500 product liability cases in the
U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-
promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general,
plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or
contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active
cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation
in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a
coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated
state court proceeding in Illinois. We believe these lawsuits are
without merit, and we and Takeda are prepared to defend against
them vigorously."

"In April 2014, a jury in the Western District of Louisiana found
in favor of the plaintiffs in the case of Allen, et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064. In September 2014,
judgment was entered awarding $1.3 million in compensatory damages
to plaintiffs (allocated 75 percent to Takeda and 25 percent to
us) and punitive damages of $6.00 billion against Takeda and $3.00
billion against us. In October 2014, the judge reduced the amount
of punitive damages awarded to approximately $28 million against
Takeda and approximately $9 million against us. We continue to
believe the evidence did not support plaintiffs' claims and
strongly disagree with the verdict. We and Takeda appealed this
judgment and plaintiffs filed a cross-appeal objecting to the
reduction in punitive damages; however, in light of the proposed
resolution described below, both appeals have been dismissed
without prejudice, subject to reinstatement by any party within
six months of the dismissal.

"Our agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and
indemnify us against our losses and expenses with respect to the
U.S. litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of
Actos and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of
the agreement. After the jury reached its verdict in Allen, Takeda
notified us that it was reserving its right to challenge its
obligations to defend and indemnify us with respect to the Allen
case. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of our
losses and expenses in Allen and all other U.S. cases; however,
there can be no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in
obtaining full indemnification.

"In April 2015, Takeda announced they will pay approximately $2.4
billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability
lawsuits involving Actos, including Allen, and the other cases
involving us. This resolution will become effective if at least 95
percent of current litigants opt into the Actos product liability
resolution program, and will release us and Takeda of all
remaining liability for these cases.

"In September 2015, Takeda announced that more than 96 percent of
eligible claimants have opted into the resolution program that was
announced in April 2015. Takeda is now evaluating the submissions
to determine whether they satisfy various criteria specified under
terms of the resolution program. Takeda expects the resolution
program to become effective upon completion of that review."


ELI LILLY: To Defend Against Actos Class Actions in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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, that the Company is
named along with Takeda as a defendant in three purported product
liability class actions in Canada related to Actos, including one
in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North
America, Inc., et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly
et al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).

"We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009. These claims are not part
of the U.S. resolution program. We believe these claims are
without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously,"
the Company said.


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 500 Byetta Product Liability Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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, that the Company is
named as a defendant in approximately 500 Byetta product liability
lawsuits involving approximately 1,050 plaintiffs.

Approximately 110 of these lawsuits, covering about 640
plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in
a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 380 lawsuits, covering
about 385 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of
which are coordinated in a multi-district litigation in the
Southern District of California. The remaining approximately five
lawsuits, representing about 20 plaintiffs, are in various state
courts.

Approximately 435 of the lawsuits, involving approximately 675
plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or contributed
to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer or thyroid
cancer).

"We are aware of approximately 220 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit," the Company said. "The majority of these
additional claims allege damages for pancreatitis. We believe
these lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to
defend against them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Defendant in 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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, that the Company is
named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily
related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or
contributed to birth defects in the children of women who ingested
the drug during pregnancy.

"We are named as a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits
primarily related to allegations that the antidepressant Prozac
caused or contributed to birth defects in the children of women
who ingested the drug during pregnancy," the Company said. "We are
aware of approximately 535 additional claims related to birth
defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these lawsuits
and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against
them vigorously."


ELI LILLY: Employee Litigation Pending in Brazil
------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and 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, that the Company's
subsidiary in Brazil, Eli Lilly do Brasil (Lilly Brasil), is named
in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the
Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging
possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure
to heavy metals at a former Lilly manufacturing facility in
Cosmopolis, Brazil, operated by the company between 1977 and 2003.

The Company said, "The plaintiffs allege that some employees at
the facility were exposed to benzene and heavy metals; however,
Lilly Brasil maintains that these alleged contaminants were never
used in the facility. In May 2014, the labor court judge ruled
against Lilly Brasil. The judge's ruling orders Lilly Brasil to
undertake several actions of unspecified financial impact,
including paying lifetime medical insurance for the employees and
contractors who worked at the Cosmopolis facility more than six
months during the affected years and their children born during
and after this period. While we cannot currently estimate the
range of reasonably possible financial losses that could arise in
the event we do not ultimately prevail in the litigation, the
judge has estimated the total financial impact of the ruling to be
approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (approximately $250
million as of September 30, 2015) plus interest. We strongly
disagree with the decision and filed an appeal in May 2014."

"We are also named in approximately 30 lawsuits filed in the same
court by individual former employees making similar claims. We
believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to
defend against them vigorously."


ENERGY FUTURE: Class Claimants' Motion for Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the Chapter 11 cases of Energy Future Holdings Corp., et al.,
Michael Cunningham, Joe Arabie, and Michelle Ziegelbaum ("Class
Claimants") filed a motion seeking an order exercising the
Bankruptcy Court's discretion to apply Rule 7023 of the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to Class Claimants' "Proof of
Unmanifested Asbestos Claim" and certifying a class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The Debtors filed an
objection to the motion.

On Dec. 16, 2015, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi ruled that the
Motion is denied for the reasons set forth on the record at the
hearing.  The judge also ruled that:

   * The Court will not apply Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
7023 to Class Claimant's "Proof of Unmanifested Asbestos Claim."

   * "Class Proof of Claim Form" numbers 14519, 14520, and 14521
will be expunged from the claims register to the extent they
purported to be filed on behalf of anyone other than the named
claimant.

   * The Court will not certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.


FEDERAL EXPRESS: Settles Dispute with Former Drivers
----------------------------------------------------
Laura Stevens and Josh Beckerman, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that FedEx Corp. on Dec. 16 said that this year's
peak holiday season is its busiest ever, and the pace has been
consistent since Cyber Monday.

"There's no sign it's going to let up," FedEx Ground Chief Henry
Maier said during the company's quarterly earnings call following
the announcement of a 4% increase in profit for the quarter ended
Nov. 30.

Company executives said that the boom in e-commerce has resulted
in a higher than expected number of packages during this holiday
season.  On Dec. 14, the company picked up more than 26 million
packages globally, executives said, and demand has been
particularly high in the Northeast.

Shares of the delivery company rose 5% to $156.25 in after-hours
trading on the New York Stock Exchange, after the company beat
Wall Street's expectations.

Some e-commerce shippers are doing better than others this holiday
season, said Chief Executive Fred Smith.  Some retailers hadn't
done a good job of forecasting demand.

"The people that have the real problem in the e-commerce business
by and large are those that view the transportation companies as
some sort of utility or a vendor and they make some really, really
bad decisions," Mr. Smith said.  He didn't elaborate.

The FedEx executives said the company has been able to divert
volume in the Northeast and that its technology in sorting hubs
gives it a competitive advantage.  The company also is running its
network around the clock during the holidays.  FedEx also is
capping volume when necessary, which is likely to mean that those
poor planners might not get all their packages shipped in time.

Additionally, despite rate increases designed to encourage
retailers to ship smaller packages, oversize packages have
accounted for a large slice of volume this year-nearly 10% of home
deliveries. That will affect future pricing decisions, according
to the company.

For the quarter, Ground's average daily volume rose 9%, while
revenue increased 32% to $4.05 billion, in part due to the
purchase of logistics provider Genco.  The company said it would
again invest $1.6 billion in its Ground network to accommodate
growth next year, backing away from a plan to decrease spending
going forward.

Both United Parcel Service Inc. and FedEx have been hoping to
avoid a repeat of 2013, when millions of packages failed to reach
their destinations in time for Christmas as online shoppers were
placing orders at the last minute.  Last year, UPS overran on
costs as it staffed up too much for the holidays.

Previously, FedEx had said it expected volume to grow 12% to 317
million packages over the holidays.  The executives on Dec. 16
didn't quantify the increase in volume.

Separately, the company said its deal to acquire Dutch parcel firm
TNT Express NV is on track.  It expects final approval from
European regulators in January, and for the deal to close in the
first half of next year.  It still needs approval from seven
countries, including Brazil and China.

In addition, FedEx said it settled a dispute with former drivers
regarding their employee status for $25 million net of taxes.
FedEx has been involved in several class-action suits regarding
its former practice of classifying some of its U.S. delivery
drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. It
stopped using the disputed model in 2011.

FedEx reported a profit of $691 million, or $2.44 a share, up from
year-earlier earnings of $663 million, or $2.31 a share.

Excluding certain items, profit rose to $2.58 a share from $2.16.
Revenue increased 4% to $12.5 billion.

At the FedEx Express segment, revenue fell 6% to $6.59 billion as
lower fuel surcharges and unfavorable currency rates more than
offset base yield growth.  However, operating income increased 26%
to $622 million as executives said restructuring of that division
to improve profitability was ahead of schedule.

In September, FedEx lowered its earnings guidance for the year,
projecting weak demand in its freight segment and higher costs in
its ground segment.


FELT BICYCLES: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Felt Bicycles, of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
645 Mountain Bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The carbon seat post originally sold with the bicycle can crack
and break, posing injury and fall hazards to the rider.

This recall involves all model year 2015 Felt Double Double 30,
NINEe 20 and Edict 1 mountain bicycles. The bicycles were sold
with carbon fiber seat posts. The model name is printed on the top
tube of the bicycles. The Felt logo is on the down tube of the
Double Double 30 and the NINEe20, and on the top tube of the Edict
1. The Double Double 30 was sold in the color blue. The NINEe 20
was sold in a gray and orange color scheme. The Edict 1 was sold
in a black and blue color scheme.

Felt has received 10 reports of the seat post cracking. No
injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Bicycle specialty stores nationwide from August 2014 through
September 2015 for between $2,000 and $5,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact their local Felt Bicycles dealer for a free inspection and
seat post replacement.


FLINT, MI: Class Action Mulled Over Contaminated Water Supplies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Walters, writing for The Guardian, reports that the city of
Flint, Michigan, has declared a state of emergency over
contaminated water supplies amid calls for a criminal
investigation, the resignation of the state governor and a class
action lawsuit that could top $1bn.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) sent 28,000 bottles
of water to the city on Dec. 14 just hours before the mayor
declared: "The city of Flint has experienced a manmade disaster."

Critics believe the entire city has been affected to varying
degrees by high levels of lead and other pollutants in the water.
This includes the 100,000 residents and those who commute to Flint
for work.

At a city council meeting on Dec. 14, Mayor Karen Weaver said
Flint needed federal help to deal with a crisis over water
supplies tainted with lead.

The Flint authorities had switched the public water supply in
April 2014 from Lake Huron to the Flint river.  The river flows
through the city but had not been used for consumption since the
early 1960s because of industrial pollution.

After the switch, many residents immediately reported that the
water coming out of their taps was yellowy, cloudy and odorous.
People reported suddenly breaking out in rashes or losing their
hair.

Public protests followed, but the authorities repeatedly said the
water was safe, despite stepping up water treatment and
occasionally issuing advice to residents to boil it.

But in October 2015, the city returned to its previous supplier,
the city of Detroit, which treats water from Lake Huron then
passes it on to Flint, 66 miles to the north-west.

By that time, experts at Virginia Tech university, called in by
activists, had already issued an alarming report about lead levels
in the river water, while a pediatrician at Flint's Hurley Medical
Center hospital, Dr Mona Hanna-Attisha, had discovered elevated
levels of lead in blood tests carried out on local children.

Lead in the environment is particularly dangerous to young
children, whose fast-developing brains are prone to damage that
often does not show up until years later, in the form of learning
disabilities or behavioral problems.

"We are dealing with an invisible killer. Parents are expecting
that within five years there will be signs of attention deficit
disorder in children who have been affected and later there could
be problems with mental disorders.  People here are very upset and
angry," Flint-based attorney Tracelle Young told the Guardian.

Health effects in adults could include a higher risk of cancer,
Young said.

Ms. Young and a number of other attorneys in the area represent a
small group of residents who are heading a lawsuit against the
authorities that is currently going through the legal process to
be classified as a class action on behalf of many more of Flint's
citizens.

"The numbers are going to be astronomical, the whole city used
that water supply.  I think we will have thousands on top of
thousands of people in a class action.  I don't know how you
calculate what appropriate damages would be, I think it could
reach $1bn," she said.

Ms. Young said the city took almost a year to acknowledge publicly
that there was a problem with the water.

"The city and state knew.  And we believe they knew before they
made the switch from Detroit water to the Flint river that the
water was no good," she said.

Ms. Young has called for a federal investigation and for Governor
Rick Snyder's head.

"I think the governor needs to either resign or be investigated
for a crime.  We want to see people in criminal court, not just
civil court for this.  It's a travesty," she said.

Flint is best known as one of the regional manufacturing bases of
General Motors.  But automotive and other industries were not kind
to environmental assets such as the Flint river.  The city stopped
using it as a water supply in 1964.

Devastating levels of deindustrialization left Flint with high
debt, unemployment and crime from the 1990s onwards, while the
urban population shrunk steadily.

With the city in financial dire straits, the state of Michigan put
Flint under emergency management from 2002 until 2004 and again in
2011, when it went into receivership.  The city was being run
under state-imposed emergency powers when it converted to use the
local water supply in April 2014, in an effort to save money.

Initial reports of high bacterial and chemical pollutants in the
water reportedly necessitated higher levels of chlorination, which
then resulted in Flint violating the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act during three tests in 2014.  Reports also found that the
treated water was more corrosive than previous supplies and caused
high levels of lead to leach out of the city's ageing pipes into
the drinking supply.

Six months after the switch to the Flint river supply, General
Motors stopped using Flint water at one of its engine plants in
the area because it was rusting the machinery.

Julie Hurwitz, another lawyer working on the lawsuit, said that
city and state authorities had repeatedly scoffed at Flint
residents and worried parents who complained that the water was
making them and their children ill, only now to see the city
declare an emergency.

She accused the authorities of a cover-up, having known that the
water was dangerous.

"It's mind-boggling, to say the least.  We are living in a time
when truth is crazier than fiction.  The almighty dollar was put
over the safety and wellbeing of the people of Flint, especially
working-class and low-income residents who were less able to go
out and buy their own water in order not to be poisoned,"
Ms. Hurwitz said.

The lawsuit, filed in US district court in Detroit on 13 November,
claims 14 officials, including Governor Snyder and former Flint
mayor Dayne Walling are responsible for replacing water in Flint
with a supply that was "dangerous, unsafe and inadequately treated
. . . in conduct that was so egregious and so outrageous it shocks
the conscience".


FOCUS BICYCLES: Recalls Izalco Max Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Focus Bicycles USA, Inc., of Carlsbad, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 470 Focus Izalco Max Bicycles (an
additional 31 sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The headset could cause the carbon-fiber fork steer tube to crack,
posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves the 2014-2015 Focus Izalco Max bicycles with
Acros-brand upper headsets. The headsets are black with the word
"Acros" printed in white on the upper headset.

The firm has received 11 reports of incidents outside the United
States, including one reported injury in France. No incidents have
been reported in the United States.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany or Taiwan and
sold at Independent bicycle retailers nationwide, and online at
www.bikebling.com and carbonconnection.com from January 2014
through August 2015 for between $1,800 and $9,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and
contact Focus Bicycles to schedule a free repair.


GOYA FOODS: Faces "Tsvettsikh" Suit Over Salsa Picante Hot Sauce
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Tsvettsikh, individually and on behalf of fall others
similarly situated, v. GOYA FOODS, INC., a New Jersey Corporation,
Case No. cv 15-6556 (E.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015), seeks to
secure, among other things, equitable and declaratory relief,
restitution, and alternative damages, for similarly situated
United States purchasers, against GOYA, for (1) deceptive acts or
practices in relation to its sale of GOYA(R) Salsa Picante Hot
Sauce in violation of New York's Deceptive Acts or Practices Law,
General Business Law: (2) Breach of Express Warranty; (3)
Negligent Misrepresentation and; (4) Unjust Enrichment.

Defendant develops, markets and sells food products under the
"GOYA(R)" brand name throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION: Discovery Okayed in "Groshek" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Peterson denied Defendant Great Lakes's
motion to dismiss in the case captioned CORY GROSHEK, Plaintiff,
v. GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Defendant, No.
15-CV-143-JDP, (W.D. Wis.)

Plaintiff Cory Groshek sued defendant Great Lakes Higher Education
Corporation in a proposed class action for allegedly violating the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq.
Groshek seeks statutory damages rather than actual damages, but
statutory damages are available only for willful violations. Great
Lakes moved to dismiss Groshek's class action complaint,
contending that it fails to adequately plead willfulness.

Great Lakes also objected to the magistrate judge's order granting
Groshek's motion to compel discovery.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/lFXgwGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Peterson denied the
motion to dismiss.  Judge Peterson overruled the Defendant's
appeal of the magistrate judge's decision granting Plaintiff's
motion to compel. Defendant is ordered to supplement its response
to Interrogatory No. 2 to provide the names and contact
information of job applicants for whom it has requested a credit
report on or after March 5, 2010. The individuals for whom Great
Lakes obtained a credit report after March 5, 2010, are potential
class members unless and until discovery reveals that they became
aware of the alleged violation more than two years before Groshek
filed his complaint.

The Court said any later exclusion of the potential class members
will be attributable to the applicability of Great Lakes's statute
of limitations defense, not because the substance of their claims
lacks commonality with the rest of the class. In the meantime, the
best way to learn whether and when they each learned of an alleged
violation is by communicating with them. Other options, like
asking the third-party agency whether and when it sent
notifications to class members, would not be as effective because
the critical information is the members' own knowledge of the
facts comprising the potential violation of the FCRA.

The Court also said Groshek has alleged sufficient circumstantial
facts concerning Great Lakes's potential willfulness to clear that
low hurdle. Great Lakes's motion to dismiss will therefore be
denied.

Heath P. Straka, Esq. -- straka@gcllawyers.com -- and Robert John
Gingras, Esq. -- gingras@gcllawyers.com -- of Gingras, Cates &
Luebke, S.C. -- Michael J. Modl, Esq. -- mmodl@axley.com and John
C. Mitby, Esq. -- jmitby@hbslawfirm.com -- of Axley Brynelson, LLP
serve as counsel for Plaintiff Cory Groshek

Michelle L. Dama, Esq. -- mldama@michaelbest.com -- Albert
Bianchi, Jr., Esq. -- abianchi@michaelbest.com -- and Farrah N.W.
Rifelj, Esq. -- fnwrifelj@michaelbest.com -- of Michael Best &
Friedrich LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Great Lakes Higher
Education Corporation


GREENBRIER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Assured Burn Relief Gel
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Greenbrier International, Inc., of Chesapeake, Va., announced a
voluntary recall of about 325,000 Assured Burn Relief Gel.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child resistant as required by the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act. The burn relief gel contains lidocaine,
posing a poisoning risk if swallowed.

The recalled burn relief gel is packaged in a blue box with white
letters "Burn Relief" and red letters "Burn Relief Gel".  The
brand name is Assured TM.  Inside the box is a blue and white tube
labeled "Burn Relief Gel" and measuring approximately 5 inches
long by 1 inch wide and weighs about 0.7 ounces (20 grams).  The
packaging contains the UPC bar code: 6 39277 09311 0.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/223G4t

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Dollar Tree, Dollar Bill$, Dollar Tree $1 Stop, Deal$, Deals and
Dollar Tree Deal$ stores nationwide from March 2015 to October
2015 for $1.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled burn relief
gel and take the gel to the store where purchased for a full
refund.


HARBOR FREIGHT: Recalls Cordless Drills Due to Fire & Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Harbor Freight Tools, of Camarillo, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.7 million units Drill Master 18-Volt Cordless
Drills. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

An internal switching mechanism can become stuck in the "on"
position and overheat, posing fire and burn hazards.

This recall involves Drill Master 18-volt cordless drills with
item number 68239 and item number 68287. The drills are black with
a red switch and were sold with an 18 volt rechargeable battery
pack. Item number 68239 was sold individually and item number
68287 was sold as part of a kit, which included a flashlight. The
flashlight is not included in the recall. The item number is
located on a black label on the right side of the drill, just
beneath the serial number. Drills with item number 69651 and item
number 69652 are not included in the recall.

Harbor Freight Tools has received 25 reports of the drill switch
overheating, including six reports of burns to the hands and
fingers, and five reports of minor property damage.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/agf9sO

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Harbor Freight Tools stores nationwide, Harbor Freight Tools
catalog, and online at www.harborfreight.com between May 2011 and
September 2015 for about $35 for item number 68239 and $46 for
item number 68287.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled drills and
return the unit to the nearest Harbor Freight Tools store to
receive a replacement drill.


HOMELAND PATROL: Faces "Saint Fleur" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nixon Saint Fleur, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B), v. Homeland Patrol Corporation, a Florida For-
Profit Corporation, Mirtha E. Cordero, Individually, and Augusto
Cordero, Individually, Case NO. 1:15-cv-24255-CMA (S.D.Fla.,
November 16, 2015), requests an award of his actual damages
arising from the retaliatory termination of his employment, with
interest; requests an award of an equal amount in liquidated
damages; an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the
instant suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Homeland Patrol Corporation is a security guard agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dale L. Friedman, Esq
     Robert A. Bouvatte, Jr., Esq
     Conroy Simberg
     3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Second Floor
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: (954) 961-1400
     Fax: 954-518-1252
     E-mail: dfriedman@conroysimberg.com
             rbouvatte@conroysimberg.com


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Defendant in MERSCORP Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated 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 an action filed on January 17, 2012 against
MERSCORP, Inc. and numerous other financial institutions that
participate in the mortgage electronic registration system (MERS).
The putative class action was filed on behalf of all 88 counties
in Ohio. The plaintiffs allege that the recording of mortgages and
assignments thereof is mandatory under Ohio law and seek a
declaratory judgment that the defendants are required to record
every mortgage and assignment on real property located in Ohio and
pay the attendant statutory recording fees. The complaint also
seeks damages, attorney's fees and costs. Huntington filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, which has been fully briefed, but
no ruling has been issued by the Geauga County, Ohio Court of
Common Pleas.

Similar litigation has been initiated against MERSCORP, Inc. and
other financial institutions in other jurisdictions throughout the
country, however, the Bank has not been named a defendant in those
other cases.


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: "Powell" Parties Await Oral Argument
-----------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated 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
parties in the case, Powell v. Huntington National Bank, await the
scheduling of oral argument.

The Bank is a defendant in a putative class action filed on
October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia
state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia
mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in
violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs
seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and
attorney's fees. The Bank removed the case to federal court,
answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is
preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to the Bank.
Following further briefing by the parties, the federal district
court denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings on
September 26, 2014.

On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
Bank's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's
decision. The matter has been briefed, and the parties await
scheduling of oral argument.


JOFRAN SALES: Recalls Dining Room Tables Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jofran Sales, Inc., of Norfolk, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall of about 300 Boulder Ridge Dining Room Table. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A stress fracture can form in the table, posing an injury hazard.

The Boulder Ridge Rectangular 78" Dining Room Table has a cement
top with a wooden base. The serial numbers on the recalled tables,
found on the underside of the cement top, begin with V12760A,
V12760B, V12860A or V13034.

The firm received reports of 71 incidents of cement top stress
fractures or cement tops breaking. No known injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/eKRy69

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at
Jordan's Furniture, Kittles Home Furnishings, Nebraska Furniture
Mart, W.E. Smithe Furniture and other retailers nationwide from
May 2015 through October 2015 for about $1100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the stop using the
recalled table and contact the Jofran dealer where the table was
purchased to schedule a free repair.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Renewed Class Cert. Bid Okayed in Suit v. OCD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 a U.S. district
court has again granted the motion by Plaintiffs for class
certification in the class action against Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics, Inc.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the
divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that
may result from these cases.

In August 2012, the District Court granted a motion filed by
Plaintiffs for class certification. In April 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the class
certification ruling and remanded the case to the District Court
for further proceedings. In October 2015, the District Court again
granted the motion by Plaintiffs for class certification. The
Company is evaluating its options for appeal.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Cert. Hearing in "Field" Case Adjourned
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 the class
certification hearing scheduled for October 2015 in the case
commenced by Nick Field has been adjourned, and there is currently
no date set for that hearing.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing scheduled for October 2015 was adjourned, and there is
currently no date set for that hearing.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Defending Suits Filed by Contact Lens Patients
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 March and April
2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by
contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United
States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, alleging
vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of
contact lenses. The complaints alleged that the manufacturers
reached agreements between each other and certain distributors and
retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could
be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015
along with the related case filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Third-Party Payors Filed Suit in E.D. La.
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson 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 two third-party
payors filed in August 2015 a purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
against Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC,
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ortho-McNeil-Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, and Johnson & Johnson (as well as certain Bayer
entities), alleging that the defendants improperly marketed and
promoted XARELTO(R) as safer and more effective than less
expensive alternative medications while failing to fully disclose
its risks.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.


KAWASAKI MOTORS: Recalls Teryx Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 19,500 Teryx recreational off-highway
vehicles (an additional 11,000 were recalled for the same hazard
in July 2014 and 7,000 for a different hazard in August 2012).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Sticks or other debris can break through the vehicle's floor board
and protrude into the foot rest area, posing an injury hazard to
the operator and front passenger.

The recall involves 2012 and 2013 model year Teryx4(TM) 750 4x4
(four seats) and 2014, 2015, 2016 model year Teryx(R) 800 4x4 (two
seats) and 2014, 2015 and 2016 model year Teryx4 800 4x4 (four
seats) recreational off-highway vehicles.  These four-wheel off-
highway vehicles have automotive style controls and seating for
two or four. The Teryx 800 has side-by-side seating for two
people, two doors, a roll bar with hand holds and a cargo bed. The
Teryx4 750 and Teryx 4 800 have side-by-side seating for four
people, four doors, a roll bar with hand holds and a cargo bed.
The models come in three different styles: Non-EPS, EPS and EPS
LE.  The LE style has a roof and aluminum wheels. The model name
is printed on the driver's side of the hood or on the left and
right front fender.

The 2012 Teryx4 750 model comes in blue, camo, green, yellow, and
red.  The 2013 Teryx4 750 model comes in black, camo, green, red,
white, and yellow.  The 2014 Teryx4 800 model comes in green,
camo, yellow, and orange. The 2015 Teryx4 800 model comes in
green, orange, white, camo, and black. The 2016 Teryx4 800 model
comes in camo, white, green, red, and gray.  The 2014 Teryx 800
model comes in camo, green, and blue.  The 2015 Teryx 800 comes in
green, white, black and camo.  The 2016 Teryx 800 comes in green,
gray, camo, and white.

Kawasaki has received 628 incident reports of debris cracking or
breaking through the floor boards of the vehicles, including eight
reports of injuries to riders' lower extremities.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xPnr3P

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from November 2011 through November
2015 for between $13,400 and $16,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact an authorized Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free repair,
consisting of the installation of floor board guards and replacing
damaged floorboards. Consumers with previously repaired vehicles
should contact Kawasaki dealers to receive this additional repair.


KUBOTA TRACTOR: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kubota Tractor Corp., of Torrance, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 11,500 Utility Vehicles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Combustible debris can make contact with the exhaust manifold and
ignite, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves model year 2013, 2014 and 2015 Kubota RTV-
X1100C series diesel-powered utility vehicles. Recalled utility
vehicles come in the colors orange and camouflage and have serial
numbers ranging from 10001 to 23172. The model number is on the
side of the unit and on the data plate on the back of the cab,
between the cab and the bed. The serial number is also on the data
plate.

Kubota has received seven reports of debris-related fires. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xZZ0s6

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Authorized Kubota dealers nationwide from October 2013 to
October 2015 for between $21,000 and $22,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled utility
vehicles, park them away from combustible materials and contact an
authorized Kubota dealer for a free inspection and free repair and
should follow their directions. Kubota is contacting consumers
directly.


LIMOSS US: Recalls Lithium Ion Battery Packs Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Limoss US LLC, of Baldwyn, Miss., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,500 Limoss lithium ion battery power packs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery power packs can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Limoss AKKU-PACK rechargeable lithium ion
battery power packs sold as accessories for Palliser, Flexsteel
and Best Home Furnishing power recliners and lift chairs. They are
used to power the chair when an electrical outlet is not
available.  "Limoss Li-ion Battery Pack," model number ZB-B1800,
code MC 160 and dates codes of 11-0102011 through 6-14-2012 are
printed on a white sticker on the side of the unit. Recalled
battery power packs are black and measure 6 inches long by 3
inches wide.

Limoss has received two reports of the battery pack overheating,
including one incident that resulted in undetermined fire damage.
No injuries were reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jzD6mY

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Home Furnishing, Flexsteel and Palliser dealers nationwide and
online at amazon.com and other websites from November 2011 through
August 2012 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled battery power
packs and contact Limoss for a free replacement.


LIPO ESCULTURA: Recalls Lipo Escultura Products Due to Diclofenac
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lipo Escultura Corp. of Brooklyn, NY dba JAT Productos Naturales
Corp., and JAT Natural Products Corp. are voluntarily recalling
all Lipo Escultura within expiry to the consumer level. The Lipo
Escultura capsules were tested by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and have been found to contain two potentially
harmful ingredients -- sibutramine and diclofenac.

Risk Statement: Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant now a
controlled substance that was removed from the market for safety
reasons. Sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood
pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a
significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery
disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias, or stroke.
Diclofenac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (commonly
referred to as NSAIDs). NSAIDS may cause increased risk of
cardiovascular events, such as heart attack and stroked, as well
as serious gastrointestinal damage, including bleeding,
ulceration, and fatal perforation of the stomach and intestines.

The product is used as a weight loss dietary supplement and is
packaged in a white plastic bottle with green and lime labeling
with white capsules. Products were sold/distributed Nationwide by
JAT Productos Naturales Corp. via internet sales on
www.lipoesculturatreatment.com, through Lipo Escultura Corp. 888
Wyckoff Ave. Brooklyn, NY 11237, a retail store and 1360 Hancock
Street, Brooklyn, NY 11237, a home office.

The recall was initiated after a consumer illness was reported to
the FDA and it was discovered that the product labeling does not
reveal the presence of sibutramine or diclofenac.

Immediately discontinue the use of this product. Consumers with
questions should contact Julio Tapia at (718) 415-2611 or (347)
867-9988 Monday through Friday from 9am to 5pm Eastern Standard
Time.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting programdisclaimer icon either online, by regular mail or
by fax.

Online: www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/default.htmdisclaimer icon
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmdisclaimer icon.
Mail to address on the pre-addressed form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

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


LUCY'S WEIGHT: Recalls Pink Bikini White Powder Capsules
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucy's Weight Loss System is voluntarily recalling all lots of
Pink Bikini White powder Capsules, 30 white (750MG per capsule) to
the consumer level. Pink Bikini has been found positive for
diclofenac after FDA sampling and testing.

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). This
medicine works by reducing substances in the body that cause pain
and inflammation.  Diclofenac can increase your risk of fatal
heart attack or stroke, especially if you use it long term or take
high doses, or if you have heart disease.  For those that are
pregnant, taking diclofenac during the last three months of
pregnancy may harm the unborn baby. This undeclared ingredient
makes this product an unapproved new drug for which safety and
efficacy have not been established. Lucy's Weight Loss System has
not received any complaints to date. Lucy's Weight Loss System has
not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall
to date.

The product is used as a weight loss dietary supplement and is
packaged in clear bottle in white powder capsules. The affected
Pink Bikini and lots include the following expiration date
7/30/2017. Product was distributed nationwide to consumers via
PinkBikini.BigCartel.comdisclaimer icon and Waisted With Lucy
Retail store.

Lucy's Weight Loss System is notifying its customers by Press
Release and is arranging for return. Consumers that have recalled
Pink Bikini should stop using and discard.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Lucy's
Weight Loss System by phone (682)-308-0199 or pbfitme@gmail.com on
Monday thru Friday 10:00am to 5:30pm CST. Consumers should contact
their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug
product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online: FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmdisclaimer icon
or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete
and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by
fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


LVNV FUNDING: 7th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey J. Lee, Esq. -- mlee@mauricewutscher.com -- in article for
Maurice Wutscher LLP, report that the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit recently reversed a district court's denial of
class certification in a putative class action alleging that a
debt collector violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA") by sending supposedly misleading letters to Illinois
residents trying to collect time-barred debts.

A copy of the opinion is available at http://is.gd/Qp821d

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant debt collector violated
the FDCPA because it sent "dunning letters containing language
that would mislead an unsophisticated consumer into believing that
the debt is legally enforceable" even though the statute of
limitations had run.

This was the second time appeal in the case.  In the first appeal,
the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal
"because the offer of settlement [the] plaintiff received did not
promise a full resolution of the matter and thus did not moot his
interest in the case."  The Court explained in the first appeal
that "dunning letters such as the one [the plaintiff] received
'misrepresented the legal status of the debts, in violation of the
FDCPA,' because an 'unsophisticated consumer' who read such a
dunning letter 'could have been led to believe that her debt was
legally enforceable.'"

After the first appeal, the plaintiff filed a motion to certify
the class in the district court under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3),"which requires the district court to find
'that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

Although the district court "was satisfied that the proposed class
met the numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)", it decided
that the class did not meet the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)
because "issues commons to the class did not predominate over
issues affecting individual class members."  The trial court's
ruling was based on the fact that the class included persons who
sought actual damages because they paid part of the debt after
receiving the dunning letter, which would require individualized
determinations of causation and damages.

The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the order denying class
certification, but the district court denied it.  The plaintiff
then petitioned for an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f),
which the Seventh Circuit granted "[b]ecause it appears that the
denial of class status is likely to be fatal to this litigation
and that an appeal may promote the development of the law."

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the plaintiff's
argument that "the district court exceeded the bounds of its
discretion when it denied class certification."  The Court
explained that the district court's analysis was inconsistent with
prior rulings of the Seventh Circuit, and "suggests that the
existence of individual issues of causation automatically bars
class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). That overstates the
case."

The Seventh Circuit held that, although "[p]roximate cause. . . is
necessarily an individual issue," it had previously held that "the
need for individual proof alone does not necessarily preclude
class certification."  The Court went on to explain that "[it] is
well established that, if a case requires determination of
individual issues of causation and damage, a court may 'bifurcate
the case into a liability phase and a damage phase.'"

The Court also reasoned that the district court's analysis was
"internally inconsistent" because it simultaneously found that
"the amount of each class member's actual damages is 'capable of
ministerial determination' yet that the question of causation is
not."  This reasoning was faulty because "a plaintiff must prove
causation to establish actual damages."  If actual damages could
be determined ministerially, "causation must likewise be capable
of ministerial determination."

Finally, the Court reasoned that another reason proof of causation
was irrelevant "to determining class membership in this case: The
FDCPA is a strict-liability statute, and so members of the class
would be entitled to statutory damages for a violation of the Act
regardless of any actual damages."

The Court vacated the district court's order denying class
certification and remanded the case for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.


M&T BANK: Wilmington Trust Securities Case in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank 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 parties in In
Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR), are engaged in the
discovery phase of the lawsuit.

Starting on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust, alleging that Wilmington Trust's
financial reporting and securities filings were in violation of
securities laws. The cases were consolidated and Wilmington Trust
moved to dismiss. The Court issued an order denying Wilmington
Trust's motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014.


MARS CHOCOLATE: Recalls Chocolate Assortment Snowflakes
-------------------------------------------------------
Mars Chocolate North America Issues Allergy Alert Voluntary Recall
on Undeclared Peanuts, Wheat and Egg Ingredient for DOVE(R)
Chocolate Assortment Snowflakes, 24.0 oz. Bag, Sold Only at One
Major Retailer with Stores Across the U.S. Mars Chocolate North
America announced a voluntary recall of its DOVE(R) Chocolate
Assortment Snowflakes, 24.0 oz. bag -- this is a seasonal item
only sold at one major retailer with stores across the U.S.

Item# 10139802 - UPC# 400050521
LOT CODE: 537CG4PA30, 537DG4PA30, 538AG4PA30, 538AM4PA30,
541AG4PA20, 542EM4PA20

This item is a purple 24 oz. bag clearly marked with DOVE(R)
Chocolate Assortment Snowflakes branding on the front of
packaging. The code dates and UPC code are located on the back of
the packaging on the lower right side.

Approximately 6,700 cases of this item may contain some
SNICKERS(R), MILKY WAY(R) and TWIX(R) pieces that contain peanuts,
wheat and/or eggs, but these ingredients are not listed on the
outer package ingredient label. People who have allergies to
peanuts, wheat and/or eggs have the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No
adverse reactions have been reported to date.

This item was shipped and distributed to only one retailer and
sold at retail food stores starting September 19, 2015 through
December 1, 2015 to the following locations: AZ, GA, MA, MS, OH,
VA, CA, IA, MD, NH, OK, VT, CO, IL, ME, NJ, OR, WA, CT, IN, MI,
NM, PA, WI, DE, KS, MN, NV, RI, WY, FL, KY, MO, NY and TX.

The issue was identified after a consumer notified Mars Chocolate
North America of finding a SNICKERS(R) piece in this Dove
Chocolate Assortment Snowflakes, 24.0 oz. bag.

Mars Chocolate is working with the impacted retailer to ensure
that the recalled product is removed from sale. In the event that
consumers believe they have purchased this item and have allergy
concerns, they should return this product to the store where they
purchased it for a full refund. Consumers with questions or
concerns may call our toll-free number at 1-800-551-0907.

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


MICHIGAN: Faces "Mays" Suit Over Flint River Water Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
Melisa Mays, individually and as next friend of three minor
children, Michael Mays, Jacqueline Pemberton, Keith John
Pemberton, Elnora Carthan, and Rhonda Kelso, individually and as
next friend of one minor child, all on behalf of themselves and a
class of all others similarly situated, v. Governor Rick Snyder,
in his official capacity, and the State of Michigan for
prospective relief only; Daniel Wyant, Liane Shekter Smith, Adam
Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley
Wurfel all in their individual capacities; Darnell Earley, Gerald
Ambrose, Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow and
Daugherty Johnson in their individual and official capacities, and
the City of Flint, a municipal corporation, jointly and severally,
Case No: 2:15-cv-14002-JCO-MKM (E.D.Mich., November 13, 2015), is
pursued on behalf of tens of thousands of residents of the City of
Flint, who from April 25, 2014 to the present, have allegedly
experienced and will continue to experience serious personal
injury and property damage caused by the Defendants' deliberate
decision to expose them to the extreme toxicity of water pumped
from the Flint River into their homes, schools, hospitals,
workplaces and public places.

Michigan is a midwestern state with its largest city, Detroit,
famed as the seat of the U.S. auto industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
     Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
     Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
     PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, PC
     117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Phone: 248-398-9800
     E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
             cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
             brivers@pittlawpc.com


MORRISON MILLING: Recalls Corn Products Due to Metal Mesh
---------------------------------------------------------
The Morrison Milling Company has initiated a voluntary recall of
certain corn products due to the possible presence of fragments of
flexible metal mesh caused by a faulty screen at our production
facility which could present a choking hazard. The problem was
detected by our quality department during routine production line
checks.

There have been no consumer complaints, illnesses or injuries
reported to date.

Affected products are distributed through retail outlets
throughout the Southwestern United States. The specific varieties
of corn products listed below are potentially affected and include
all code dates and best buy dates for products purchased before
December 06, 2015.

  --- 5 LB. MORRISON'S WHITE CORNMEAL
  --- 5 LB. MORRISON'S SELF-RISING YELLOW CORNMEAL
  --- 2 LB. HILL COUNTRY FARE WHITE CORNMEAL
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S CORN-KITS
  --- 6 OZ. PARADE YELLOW CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S COARSE GROUND YELLOW CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 10 OZ. HEB ORIGINAL SEASONED FISH FRY MIX
  --- 6 OZ. FIESTA MART YELLOW CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S CORN-KITS, 6 OZ. PIONEER COMPLETE PANCAKE
      MIX
  --- 13.3 OZ. HEB MAPLE BACON CORNBREAD
  --- 12 OZ. HEB BLACK PEPPER PARMESAN FISH BREADER MIX
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S TEXAS STYLE HONEY SWEET CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 2 LB. PIONEER NO-FAT COMPLETE BUTTERMILK PANCAKE & WAFFLE
      MIX
  --- 5 LB. GREAT VALUE WHITE CORN MEAL
  --- 5 LB. MORRISON'S SELF-RISING WHITE CORNMEAL
  --- 5 LB. HILL COUNTRY FAIR YELLOW CORNMEAL
  --- 2 LB. PARADE YELLOW CORNMEAL
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S TEXAS STYLE WHITE CORN BREAD MIX
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S TEXAS STYLE MEXICAN CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 6 OZ. PARADE WHITE CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 10 OZ. HEB LEMON SEASONED FISH FRY MIX
  --- 16 OZ. HEB LEMON SEASONED FISH FRY MIX
  --- 13.3 OZ. HEB SWEET & SPICY CORNBREAD
  --- 13.3 OZ. HEB ROSEMARY OLIVE OIL CORNBREAD
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S CORN-KITS
  --- 2 LB. PIONEER ORIGINAL BUTTERMILK PANCAKE & WAFFLE MIX
  --- 5 LB. PIONEER ENRICHED WHITE CORN MEAL
  --- 6 OZ. PIONEER MAPLE FLAVOR PANCAKE & WAFFLE COMPLETE MIX
  --- 5 LB. MORRISON'S PREMIUM YELLOW CORNMEAL
  --- 2 LB. HILL COUNTRY FARE YELLOW CORNMEAL
  --- 5 LB. PARADE YELLOW CORN MEAL
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S TEXAS STYLE YELLOW CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S TEXAS STYLE HONEY SWEET CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 10 OZ. HEB ORIGINAL SEASONED CATFISH FRY MIX
  --- 10 OZ. HEB SEASONED SHRIMP & OYSTER FRY MIX
  --- 16 OZ. HEB ORIGINAL SEASONED FISH FRY MIX
  --- 13.3 OZ. HEB CHEDDAR BACON CORNBREAD
  --- 12 OZ. HEB MANGO HABANERO FISH BREADER MIX
  --- 6 OZ. MORRISON'S TEXAS STYLE YELLOW CORNBREAD MIX
  --- 2 LB. PIONEER COMPLETE BUTTERMILK PANCAKE & WAFFLE MIX
  --- 2 LB. PIONEER WHITE CORN MEAL

All Morrison Milling production lines have comprehensive metal
control programs that include magnets and metal detection devices.
Some pieces of the fine wire may have been too small to be
detected and could have found their way into the finished product.
While no metal has been found in finished product, as a
precaution, we initiated this voluntary recall.

The Morrison Milling Company is committed to providing high-
quality products, and the safety of our consumers is the company's
utmost priority. We are working with the FDA and expect a quick
resolution to this issue. Consumers who have purchased the product
before December 06, 2015 can return it to its place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may call our Customer
Service Center at 1-800-847-5608 or by e-mail at
customerservice@chg.com for more information. Our customer service
desk will be staffed in person from 8am to 5pm CST Monday to
Friday.


NDL CONTRACTING: Faces "Moore" Suit Alleging Bias, FLSA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milton Moore, Individually and on Behalf of Similarly Situated
Individuals v. NDL Contracting Texas, LLC and Diligent Delivery
Systems, f/k/a NDL Contracting Texas, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03373
(S.D.Tex., November 16, 2015), seeks injunctive relief plus
compensatory and punitive damages, plus lost wages (past, present,
and future), liquidated damages, plus attorney's fees, taxable
court costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as a
result of alleged race and age discrimination and violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

NDL Contracting Texas, LLC offers transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shelby C. Vick, Esq.
     Bruce A. Coane, Esq.
     COANE AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     5177 Richmond Ave., Suite 770
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: 713-850-0066
     Fax: 713-850-8528
     E-mail: shelby@coane.com
             bruce.coane@gmail.com


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Trial of Wage and Hour Case Set for Sept. 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, 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 trial of a
wage and hour litigation has been scheduled for September 2016.

During the second quarter of 2014, a lawsuit was filed by Jesse
Davida, a former employee, in Federal Court in Texas against
Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties
for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field
service employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and pay them on
an hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery
on his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated employees. The Court has conditionally certified a class
of plaintiffs as those working as fluid service technicians for
Newpark Drilling Fluids for the past 3 years.

Starting in early March of 2015, notification was given to 658
current and former fluid service technician employees of Newpark
regarding this litigation and those individuals were given the
opportunity to "opt-in" to the Davida litigation. The opt-in
period closed in early May of 2015 and a total of 91 individuals
have joined the Davida litigation. Counsel for the plaintiffs' has
moved to add state law class action claims for current and former
fluid service technicians that worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids
in New York, North Dakota, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

"The Court granted the motion, but had given Newpark until
November 23, 2015, to file a motion to dismiss these new claims,
which we intend to file with regard to New York, and Ohio," the
Company said. "Among other reasons, we intend to seek dismissal of
those state law claims on the basis that an insufficient number of
employees are located in those states to support a class action.
We expect that the effect of the amendment (excluding New York and
Ohio claims) will be to include in the litigation approximately 48
current and former fluid services technicians who worked in
Pennsylvania that have not opted into the pending litigation, and
approximately 42 current and former fluid services technicians who
worked in North Dakota that have not opted into the pending
litigation. Discovery is in process. The trial of the case has
been scheduled for September 2016."


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in "Christensen" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, 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 discovery is
in process in the class action filed by Josh Christensen.

A case was filed by Josh Christensen in the fourth quarter of
2014, in Federal Court in Texas alleging that individuals treated
as independent contractors should have been classified as
employees and, as such, are entitled to assert claims for alleged
violations of the FLSA (similar to the claims asserted in the
Davida matter). Five additional plaintiffs joined this litigation
after it was filed.

In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification. Counsel for the plaintiffs did
not appeal that ruling and have now filed individual cases for
each of the original plaintiffs plus three new plaintiffs, leaving
a total of nine independent contractor cases pending. Discovery is
in process.


NORTH CENTRAL: Recalls Fireworks Fountains Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
North Central Industries Inc., of Muncie, Ind., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,600 Fireworks Fountains. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The rear plug of the candle can dislodge while lit, posing burn
and fire hazards to the user if the user is holding the device.

This recall involves all mammoth Great Grizzly brand California
Candles. The recalled candles are hand-held fireworks fountains
that make crackling noises and display flowering tulips, blue
pearls and gold showers. Each candle is approximately 2 inches in
diameter and 30 inches long. The candles were sold in packs of
three. One candle is labeled with the name "Glow Beam," one has
the name "Dazzling Diamonds" and one has the name "Touch of
Sparkle." Each candle has the Great Grizzly logo on the label near
the beginning of the candle name.

North Central Industries has received six reports of a candle's
rear plug dislodging while the firework was lit, resulting in burn
injuries to the person holding the device. No reports of property
damage have been received.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/k82rAk

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Albertson's and Kings Circle Assembly, both of Corvallis, Ore.;
six locations of Fundz4Kidz, of Eugene and Springfield, Ore.;
Uncle Sam's, of Allenton, Wis.;  Boomer's Fireworks, of Muncie,
Ind.; Dixie Dragon Fireworks, of Jeffersonville, Ind.; Holiday
Packaging, of Marion, Ind.; Krazy Dan's Fireworks, of Gary, Ind.;
Parkway Fruit Market, of Louisville, Ky.; Mr. Fireworks of Kokomo,
of Kokomo, Ind.; Uncle Sam's Sales, of Hammond, Ind.; and World
Cup Inc., of Villa, Ill., from May 2015 through June 2015 for
between $15 and $25.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fireworks and
contact North Central Industries for a full refund.


OFFICE DEPOT: Delaware Court of Chancery Approved Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, that the
Delaware Court of Chancery has approved a stipulation under which
lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a class action with
prejudice as to themselves and without prejudice as to the
putative class members.

On February 4, 2015, Staples, Inc. ("Staples"), Staples AMS, Inc.
("Merger Sub") and Office Depot, Inc. (the "Company" or "Office
Depot") entered into that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger
under which the companies would combine in a stock and cash
transaction. Beginning on February 9, 2015, a number of putative
class action lawsuits were filed by purported Office Depot
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court") challenging the transaction and alleging that the
defendant companies -- Office Depot, Staples, Merger Sub, and
Starboard Value LP -- and individual members of Office Depot's
Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their
fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The
plaintiffs sought among other things, injunctive relief and
rescission, as well as fees and costs. The Court subsequently
consolidated all nine of the Delaware cases and named Jamison
Miller and Steve Renous as lead plaintiffs. The consolidated case
is named In re Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 10655-CB. After limited discovery, the
plaintiffs and defendants agreed on certain additional disclosures
to the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on May 18, 2015,
which were made in a Form 8-K filing on June 5, 2015, and the
plaintiffs withdrew from the calendar their planned motion to
preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger.

On September 18, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved a
stipulation under which lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
action with prejudice as to themselves and without prejudice as to
the putative class members. The Court retained jurisdiction solely
for the purpose of adjudicating lead plaintiffs' counsel's
anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses in connection with the disclosures in
the June 5, 2015 Form 8-K. The Company subsequently agreed to pay
$0.5 million to lead plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and
expenses in full satisfaction of their claim for attorneys' fees
and expenses in the action. The Court of Chancery has not been
asked to review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment of a
fee or its reasonableness.

Additionally, in February 2015, two lawsuits were filed in Palm
Beach County Circuit Court, namely Keny Petit-Frere v. Office
Depot, Inc., et al. and John Sweatman v. Office Depot, Inc., et
al. making the same allegations as in the Delaware actions. The
lawsuits generally sought injunctive relief enjoining the
consummation of the transaction, rescission of the transaction in
the event it is consummated, damages, fees, costs, and other
remedies. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Florida
lawsuits for improper venue, and that motion was granted on May
15, 2015.


OLD NATIONAL: May 9-13 Bench Trial Set in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
A bench trial has been set for May 9, 2016 through May 13, 2016,
in a class action against Old National Bancorp, 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.

The Company said, "In November 2010, Old National was named in a
class action lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our
checking account practices associated with the assessment of
overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is
similar to other class action complaints filed against other
financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial
amounts."

On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a
First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and
amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other
relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act.

On June 13, 2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On
September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides
for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of
Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the
applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010,
incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest.

Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class
certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. On
June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment asserting
the law as applied to the material facts not in dispute should
result in judgment in favor of Old National. On September 16,
2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and the
Motion was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014.

Subsequently, Old National sought and was granted leave to appeal
the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 11, 2014,
the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and the parties
fully briefed the matter as of February 23, 2015.

On April 23, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and
reversed in part the Circuit Court's denial of Old National's
Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit
Court for further proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals
rejected Old National's contention that all of plaintiffs' claims
were preempted by federal law but did agree that plaintiffs' state
law claims of conversion, unconscionability and unjust enrichment
were unsupported under Indiana law.

The dismissal of these claims removes any claims which would
entitle plaintiffs to treble damages. The Court of Appeals
determined Old National had not negated plaintiffs' state law
claim for breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing as to
the deposit account agreement and remanded that claim back to the
Circuit Court.

On May 22, 2015, Old National filed a Petition to Transfer the
Case to the Indiana Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to
accept an appeal of the remaining count. On July 23, 2015, the
Indiana Supreme Court declined to accept transfer of the case. The
case has returned to the trial court for further proceedings on
the sole remaining count. A bench trial has been set for May 9,
2016 through May 13, 2016.

"At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible for
management of Old National to determine the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any
loss," the Company said.


OLD REPUBLIC: Individual Consumer Protection Claim Settled
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International 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 remaining individual consumer protection claim
alleged against ORNTIC has now been settled.

A certified class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The
plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). ORNTIC
challenged the certification of the consumer protection class and
the RESPA class based on more recent case precedents.

On May 28, 2015, the consumer protection class was decertified and
ORNTIC's motion for summary judgment on the RESPA claim was
granted and that claim was dismissed. The remaining individual
consumer protection claim alleged against ORNTIC has now been
settled.


OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss 2 Cases
---------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International 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 Republic Mortgage Insurance Company's ("RMIC") has
filed motions to dismiss the cases:

     * White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services
       Group (as successor to National City Bank) et al.),

     * Ba, Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in
alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance
arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance
subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the
anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and
8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The
remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the
return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been
certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the
cases.


OPEN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit in Tex. Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nina Louden and Johanna Condley, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals, v. Open Mortgage, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01037 (W.D.Tex., November 16, 2015), seeks damages and
other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant is a mortgage banker providing a wide variety of
mortgage programs, including conventional mortgages, refinance,
loans, and reverse mortgages. The Defendant provides loan
origination, processing, and underwriting services at its 15
branches in several states throughout the United States, including
Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
     Reena I Desai, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 215-6870
     E-mail: lukas@nka.com
             rdesai@nka.com


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: Underwriter Defendants Seek Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer 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
Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to dismiss a class action.

On May 15, 2015, plaintiffs IBEW Local No. 58 Annuity Fund and
Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local No. 58,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") relating to EveryWare
Global, Inc. ("EveryWare") in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. The CAC names as defendants certain
current and former officers and directors of EveryWare, Monomoy
Capital Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates, as well as
Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., CJS Securities, Inc., Telsey Advisory
Group, LLC, Imperial Capital, LLC and BTIG, LLC (collectively, the
"Underwriter Defendants"), Plaintiffs allege that, among other
things, the Registration Statement issued in connection with a
secondary offering of EveryWare's stock on or about September 16,
2013 contained misrepresentations and omissions of material facts.

In the secondary offering, the Underwriter Defendants sold
1,750,000 shares to the public at a price of $11.50 per share. The
CAC alleges claims against the Underwriter Defendants for
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933. Plaintiffs purport to bring their action on behalf of a
class comprising all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired EveryWare securities between May 21, 2013 and
May 16, 2014. The CAC seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 14, 2015, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC. The Underwriter Defendants, including
Oppenheimer, believe they have meritorious defenses to the CAC,
and Oppenheimer intends to vigorously defend the matter.


PALM USA: Faces "Roberson" Suit in Ill. Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Roberson et al.,v. Palm USA, Inc. d/b/a City Sports, Case
No.: 1:15-cv-10349 (N.D.Ill., November 16, 2015), claims for
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

City Sports describes itself as "the leading athletic inspired
footwear and urban apparel retailer in the Chicagoland area."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron B. Maduff, Esq.
     Walker R. Lawrence, Esq.
     MADUFF & MADUFF, LLC
     205 N. Michigan, Ave., Suite 2050
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312/276-9000


PFIZER INC: Court Okays Amendment to 1992 Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black granted the joint motion for final
approval of a proposed amendment to the settlement and the
proposed distribution in the case captioned ARTHUR RAY BOWLING, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C-1-91-256, (S.D. Ohio)

The original Settlement Agreement in this case was signed on
January 23, 1992. The parties thereafter executed various
modifications and supplements in response to class members'
objections to the Settlement Agreement. Some objections were
resolved through modifications or supplements executed before or
during the original fairness hearing, which took place in June and
July of 1992 before Judge Spiegel. Objections that remained
unresolved following the fairness hearing were highlighted in an
interim opinion issued by Judge Spiegel. For example, class
members objected to the lack of any cash compensation for spouses
of individuals who had been implanted with the Bjork-Shiley
convexoconcave ("BSCC") artificial heart valve.  Ultimately, $10
million was added to the fund for the spouses of the BSCC
patients.

The parties executed a range of other beneficial amendments (e.g.,
liberalized benefits for certain foreign claimants with outlet
strut fracture ("OSF")). From 1979 to 1986, Shiley, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Pfizer, produced thousands of BSCC heart valves.
Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 of these valves were
implanted in patients from all over the world. It is now thought
that about 450 of these heart valves have fracture, resulting in
approximately 300 fatalities. Critics of Pfizer-Shiley have
alleged that Bjork-Shiley convexo/concave heart valves have a
tendency to fracture because of design and manufacturing defects.
Pfizer-Shiley denies any design or manufacturing defects and
claims that its heart valves are not any more likely to fracture
than other heart valves available on the market.

In his Amended Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/HHwcmhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Black granted the joint
motion for final approval of proposed amendment to the settlement
and the proposed distribution. The long-form notice explained the
proposed Amendment and the proposed distribution, including the
dollar amounts that would be distributed and held back, and the
approximate dollar amount that each class member could expect to
receive under each proposal. That notice also adequately informed
class members of the scheduled hearing and of their opportunity to
comment on or object to the proposed Amendment and the proposed
distribution before or at that hearing. It also properly advised
class members on the importance of updating their personal
information (e.g., change of address, death of implantee or
spouse, etc.) to help ensure the efficiency and accuracy of the
proposed cash distribution, if one were to be ordered; and it
adequately described the various means by which class members
could do so (i.e., online via a website, by email, by mail, or by
calling the settlement administrator's office free of charge).

For the Medic Alert registrants only, the proposed long-form
notice properly explained that any distribution to a Medic Alert
registrant would be contingent on the individual granting
permission to the settlement administrator to add his or her name
to the list of registered class members and provided directions on
the various means by which Medic Alert registrants could grant
such permission (again, online via a website, by email, by mail,
or by calling the settlement administrator's office free of
charge). The Court approved the long-form notice and the proposed
procedures for its dissemination in the Order dated July 24, 2015.

Under the Amendment, Shiley and Pfizer would continue to
compensate class members for any individual valve-fracture claims,
including paying the additional or alternative benefits referred
to in Paragraph 5.6 of the Settlement Agreement. These additional
or alternative benefits include payment of $38,000 for all
miscellaneous costs and expenses relating to and following
hospitalization for qualifying valve replacement surgery; payment
for such class member's actual lost income due to time lost from
work (up to $1500 per week up to 16 weeks, and longer in the case
of a class member who becomes disabled as a result of the surgery)
to the extent not otherwise covered by workers' compensation, sick
pay, disability, or other benefits; and other payments in the
event such class member dies or becomes disabled as a result of
qualifying valve replacement surgery. Moreover, as also noted
above, claims by eligible class members for reimbursement of the
uninsured costs of qualifying valve replacement surgeries would
continue to be paid out of the hold-back.

The Court agrees with Class Counsel, Pfizer, Special Counsel, and
Public Citizen that money from the Patient Benefit Fund should be
distributed directly to the members of the class; that each living
implantee-class member should receive a share of the distribution,
as would each living spouse of an implantee-class member who was
married to that implantee as of January 23, 1992 and who is still
married to that implantee when the proposed distribution is
approved; that the total amount of money available for the
spouses' aggregate share would be one-eighth of the total amount
of money available for the implantees' aggregate share, just as
with the original distribution; and that each qualifying implantee
would receive a percentage of the implantees' aggregate share that
is similar but not identical to the percentage they received in
the original distribution, and each qualifying spouse would
receive a percentage of the spouses' aggregate share that is
similar but not identical to the percentage they received in the
original distribution. The Court accepts the unanimous assessment
of Class Counsel, Pfizer, Special Counsel, Public Citizen, and the
Special Master/Trustee that the proposed hold-back of $1,619,835
would be more than sufficient to cover the reasonable and
foreseeable (a) costs of reimbursing qualified class members'
uninsured expenses related to explant surgeries under subsection
5.2.3, including those who qualify under the Supervisory Panel's
guidelines and those later diagnosed with single-leg fractures;
(b) fees and expenses of the Settlement Administrator; (c) fees
and expenses of the Special Master/Trustee; (d) fees for any
necessary tax return preparation and accounting and for a biennial
review of the remaining funds by a qualified outside accounting
firm; (e) costs associated with administering, implementing,
and/or enforcing the terms of the Settlement, including any
additional expenses of the Supervisory Panel or its members and
any further work that the Court might ask of the Panel or any of
its members; and (f) fees and expenses related to the
distribution. This hold-back will cover the foregoing expenses and
any other costs associated with carrying out the purposes of the
Settlement Agreement in future years.

Accordingly, the Court (1) approves the proposed Amendment and the
proposed distribution, (2) determines that $1,619,835 is an
appropriate amount to be held back for the purposes mentioned in
new Paragraph 5.5(a) through (f), (3) orders that this amount be
held back for these purposes, and (4) instructs the Special
Master/Trustee and the administrator to carry out the distribution
forthwith.

Paul M De Marco, Esq. -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- and Terence
Richard Coates, Esq. -- tcoates@msdlegal.com -- of Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco, LLC and Stanley Morris Chesley, Esq. of Waite
Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA serve as counsel for Plaintiff
Arthur Ray Bowling

James Ralph Adams, Esq. --james@adamslawnevada.com -- Maris
Veidemanis, Esq. and Gregory J Wallance, Esq. --
gregory.wallance@kayescholer.com -- of Kaye Scholer Fierman Hays &
Handler and Jack B. Harrison, Esq. of Cors & Bassett LLC serve as
counsel for Defendant Pfizer Inc.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal Pending in ADESF Class Action in Brazil
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
appeal in the Smoker Health Defense Association class action in
Brazil remains pending.

In a class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health Defense
Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the Company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for all addicted smokers and former smokers,
and injunctive relief.

In 2004, the trial court found defendants liable without hearing
evidence and awarded "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately
$260) per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the
rate of 1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did
not award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011,
the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff appealed the
decision.

In February 2015, the appellate court unanimously dismissed
plaintiff's appeal. In September 2015, plaintiff appealed to the
Superior Court of Justice. In addition, the defendants filed a
constitutional appeal to the Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis
that plaintiff did not have standing to bring the lawsuit. This
appeal is still pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Public Prosecutor Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
appeal in the case, Public Prosecutor of Sao Paulo v. Philip
Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., remains pending in the
Superior Court of Justice in Brazil.

In a class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of Sao
Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda., Civil
Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6, 2007, the
Company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the Public
Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i) damages on
behalf of all smokers nationwide, former smokers, and their
relatives; (ii) damages on behalf of people exposed to
environmental tobacco smoke nationwide, and their relatives; and
(iii) reimbursement of the health care costs allegedly incurred
for the treatment of tobacco-related diseases by all Brazilian
States and Municipalities, and the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment.

In April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the Company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010.

In March 2012, the trial court dismissed the case on the merits.
In January 2014, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals rejected
plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the trial court decision. In July
2014, plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court of Justice.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
Report.


PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing on Merits Appeal in "Letourneau"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
Court of Appeal in Canada has scheduled a hearing for the merits
appeal in November 2016 in the class action filed by Cecilia
Letourneau.

In a class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the Company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
(Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are
defendants.  The plaintiff, an individual smoker, sought
compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the class who
is deemed addicted to smoking.

The class was certified in 2005.  Trial began in March 2012 and
concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on
May 27, 2015.

The trial court found the Company's subsidiary and two other
Canadian manufacturers liable and awarded a total of CAD 131
million (approximately $99.6 million) in punitive damages,
allocating CAD 46 million (approximately $35 million) to the
Company's subsidiary. The trial court found that defendants
violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human
Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by
failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The trial
court also found that defendants conspired to prevent consumers
from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court further held
that these civil faults were a cause of the class members'
addiction. The trial court rejected other grounds of fault
advanced by the class, holding that: (i) the evidence was
insufficient to show that defendants marketed to youth, (ii)
defendants' advertising did not convey false information about the
characteristics of cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit
a fault by using the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with
a lower tar delivery. The trial court estimated the size of the
addiction class at 918,000 members but declined to award
compensatory damages to the addiction class because the evidence
did not establish the claims with sufficient accuracy. The trial
court ordered defendants to pay the full punitive damage award
into a trust within 60 days and found that a claims process to
allocate the awarded damages to individual class members would be
too expensive and difficult to administer. The trial court ordered
a briefing on the proposed process for the distribution of sums
remaining from the punitive damage award after payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

"In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by
filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment
with the Court of Appeal of Quebec," the Company said. "Our
subsidiary also filed a motion to cancel the trial court's order
for payment into a trust within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In
July 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion to cancel and
overturned the trial court's ruling that our subsidiary make the
payment into a trust within 60 days."

In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court of Appeal
seeking security in both the Letourneau case and the Blais case.

"In October 2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and
ordered our subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226
million (approximately $171 million), in the form of cash into a
court trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive
quarterly installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million
(approximately $28.5 million) beginning in December 2015 through
March 2017," the Company said. The Court of Appeal has scheduled a
hearing for the merits appeal in November 2016.

"Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and
damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any
one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that
defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of
the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members
knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that
plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all
class members, (iv) holding that the addiction class members'
claims for punitive damages were not time-barred even though the
case was filed more than three years after a prominent addiction
warning appeared on all packages, and (v) awarding punitive
damages to punish defendants without proper consideration as to
whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct," the Company said.


PHILIP MORRIS: Nov. 2016 Hearing on Merits Appeal in "Blais"
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that a
Court of Appeal in Canada has scheduled a hearing for the merits
appeal in November 2016 in the class action filed by Conseil
Quebecois Sur Le Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais.

In a class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois Sur Le
Tabac Et La Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd.,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp., Quebec
Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the Company's
subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers (Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. and JTI-MacDonald Corp.) are defendants. The
plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an individual smoker,
sought compensatory and punitive damages for each member of the
class who allegedly suffers from certain smoking-related diseases.

The class was certified in 2005. Trial began in March 2012 and
concluded in December 2014. The trial court issued its judgment on
May 27, 2015.

The Company said, "trial court found our subsidiary and two other
Canadian manufacturers liable and found that the class members'
compensatory damages totaled approximately CAD 15.5 billion,
including pre-judgment interest (approximately $11.8 billion). The
trial court awarded compensatory damages on a joint and several
liability basis, allocating 20% to our subsidiary (approximately
CAD 3.1 billion, including pre-judgment interest (approximately
$2.36 billion)). In addition, the trial court awarded CAD 90,000
(approximately $68,000) in punitive damages, allocating CAD 30,000
(approximately $22,800) to our subsidiary and found that
defendants violated the Civil Code of Quebec, the Quebec Charter
of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the Quebec Consumer Protection
Act by failing to warn adequately of the dangers of smoking. The
trial court also found that defendants conspired to prevent
consumers from learning the dangers of smoking. The trial court
further held that these civil faults were a cause of the class
members' diseases."

"The trial court rejected other grounds of fault advanced by the
class, holding that: (i) the evidence was insufficient to show
that defendants marketed to youth, (ii) defendants' advertising
did not convey false information about the characteristics of
cigarettes, and (iii) defendants did not commit a fault by using
the descriptors light or mild for cigarettes with a lower tar
delivery. The trial court estimated the disease class at 99,957
members. The trial court ordered defendants to pay CAD 1 billion
(approximately $760 million) of the compensatory damage award into
a trust within 60 days, CAD $200 million (approximately $152
million) of which is the Company's subsidiary's portion and
ordered briefing on a proposed claims process for the distribution
of damages to individual class members and for payment of
attorneys' fees and legal costs.

"In June 2015, our subsidiary commenced the appellate process by
filing its inscription of appeal of the trial court's judgment
with the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Our subsidiary also filed a
motion to cancel the trial court's order for payment into a trust
within 60 days notwithstanding appeal. In July 2015, the Court of
Appeal granted the motion to cancel and overturned the trial
court's ruling that our subsidiary make an initial payment within
60 days. In August 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion with the Court
of Appeal seeking an order that defendants place irrevocable
letters of credit totaling CAD 5 billion (approximately $3.8
billion) into trust, to secure the judgments in both the
Letourneau and Blais cases. Plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their
motion for security against JTI-MacDonald Corp. and proceeded only
against our subsidiary and Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. In October
2015, the Court of Appeal granted the motion and ordered our
subsidiary to furnish security totaling CAD 226 million
(approximately $171 million) to cover both the Letourneau and
Blais cases. Such security may take the form of cash into a court
trust or letters of credit, in six equal consecutive quarterly
installments of approximately CAD 37.6 million (approximately
$28.5 million) beginning in December 2015 through March 2017.

The Court of Appeal ordered Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. to
furnish security totaling CAD 758 million (approximately $574
million) in seven equal consecutive quarterly installments of
approximately CAD 108 million (approximately $82 million)
starting in December 2015 through June 2017. The Court of Appeal
ordered that the security is payable upon a final judgment of the
Court of Appeal affirming the trial court's judgment or upon
further order of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has
scheduled a hearing for the merits appeal in November 2016.

"Our subsidiary and PMI believe that the findings of liability and
damages were incorrect and should ultimately be set aside on any
one of many grounds, including the following: (i) holding that
defendants violated Quebec law by failing to warn class members of
the risks of smoking even after the court found that class members
knew, or should have known, of the risks, (ii) finding that
plaintiffs were not required to prove that defendants' alleged
misconduct caused injury to each class member in direct
contravention of binding precedent, (iii) creating a factual
presumption, without any evidence from class members or otherwise,
that defendants' alleged misconduct caused all smoking by all
class members, (iv) relying on epidemiological evidence that did
not meet recognized scientific standards, and (v) awarding
punitive damages to punish defendants without proper consideration
as to whether punitive damages were necessary to deter future
misconduct."


PHILIP MORRIS: 80 Smoking and Health Cases Pending at October 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as
of October 27, 2015, there were a number of smoking and health
cases pending against the Company, its subsidiaries or
indemnitees:

     * 69 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(31), Brazil (21), Canada (2), Chile (8), Costa Rica (2), Greece
(1), Italy (2), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared
with 64 such cases on October 30, 2014, and 61 cases on October
30, 2013; and

     * 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 11 such
cases on October 30, 2014 and 11 such cases on October 30, 2013.

These cases primarily allege personal injury and are brought by
individual plaintiffs or on behalf of a class or purported class
of individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in
these cases are based on various theories of recovery, including
negligence, gross negligence, strict liability, fraud,
misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of
express and implied warranties, violations of deceptive trade
practice laws and consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs in
these cases seek various forms of relief, including compensatory
and other damages, and injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses
raised in these cases include licit activity, failure to state a
claim, lack of defect, lack of proximate cause, assumption of the
risk, contributory negligence, and statute of limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: "Kunta" Suit in Canada Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend the case, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In the class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Winnipeg,
Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild
reversible lung disease resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, as well as restitution of
profits, and reimbursement of government health care costs
allegedly caused by tobacco products.

In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he
did not anticipate taking any action in this case while he pursues
the class action filed in Saskatchewan.


PHILIP MORRIS: Motions Pending in "Adams" Case in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
preliminary motions are pending in the class action Adams v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In the class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Saskatchewan,
Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the Company, its subsidiaries, and
its indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges her own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary
motions are pending.


PHILIP MORRIS: No Activity in "Semple" Case in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that no
activity is anticipated in the case, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In the class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial court),
Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, we, our subsidiaries,
and our indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker,
alleges his own addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting
from the use of tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan.


PHILIP MORRIS: Motions Pending in "Dorion" Case in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that
preliminary motions are pending in the class action Dorion v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.

In the class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench, Alberta,
Canada, filed June 15, 2009, we, our subsidiaries, and our
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her
own addiction to tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and
severe sinus infections resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their
estates, dependents and family members, restitution of profits,
and reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused
by tobacco products.

"To date, we, our subsidiaries, and our indemnitees have not been
properly served with the complaint," PM said.

No activity in this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel
pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defending "McDermid" Case in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants in the class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, PM said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2015.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and punitive damages
on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were
alive on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defending "Bourassa" Case in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants in the case, Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada
Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada, filed
June 25, 2010, PM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015.

The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June 12, 2007,
and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. In December
2014, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim.


PHILIP MORRIS: Still Defending "Jacklin" Case in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc., its subsidiaries, and its
indemnitees (PM USA and Altria), and other members of the industry
are defendants in the class action pending in Canada, Suzanne
Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al.,
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, PM said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2015.

The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who have
smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly suffered,
or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well as
restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that he
does not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PHILIP MORRIS: 3 Lights Cases Pending at October 27
---------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as
of October 27, 2015, there were 3 lights cases brought by
individual plaintiffs pending against the Company's subsidiaries
or indemnitees in Chile (2) and Italy (1), compared with 2 such
cases on October 30, 2014, and 2 such cases on October 30, 2013.

The Lights Cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on behalf
of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of the
term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.


PHILIP MORRIS: 2 Public Civil Actions in Argentina and Venezuela
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2015, that as
of October 27, 2015, there were 2 public civil actions pending
against the Company's subsidiaries in Argentina (1) and Venezuela
(1), compared with 2 such cases on October 30, 2014, and 3 such
cases on October 30, 2013.

Claims have been filed either by an individual, or a public or
private entity, seeking to protect collective or individual
rights, such as the right to health, the right to information or
the right to safety. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these
cases are based on various theories of recovery including product
defect, concealment, and misrepresentation. Plaintiffs in these
cases seek various forms of relief including injunctive relief
such as banning cigarettes, descriptors, smoking in certain places
and advertising, as well as implementing communication campaigns
and reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by public or
private institutions.

"In the public civil action in Argentina, Asociacion Argentina de
Derecho de Danos v. Massalin Particulares S.A., et al., Civil
Court of Buenos Aires, Argentina, filed February 26, 2007, our
subsidiary and another member of the industry are defendants," the
Company said. "The plaintiff, a consumer association, seeks the
establishment of a relief fund for reimbursement of medical costs
associated with diseases allegedly caused by smoking. Our
subsidiary filed its answer in September 2007. In March 2010, the
case file was transferred to the Federal Court on Administrative
Matters after the Civil Court granted the plaintiff's request to
add the national government as a co-plaintiff in the case. The
case is currently in the evidentiary stage."

"In the public civil action in Venezuela, Federation of Consumers
and Users Associations ("FEVACU"), et al. v. National Assembly of
Venezuela and the Venezuelan Ministry of Health, Constitutional
Chamber of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, filed April 29, 2008, we
were not named as a defendant, but the plaintiffs published a
notice pursuant to court order, notifying all interested parties
to appear in the case. In January 2009, our subsidiary appeared in
the case in response to this notice. The plaintiffs purport to
represent the right to health of the citizens of Venezuela and
claim that the government failed to protect adequately its
citizens' right to health. The claim asks the court to order the
government to enact stricter regulations on the manufacture and
sale of tobacco products. In addition, the plaintiffs ask the
court to order companies involved in the tobacco industry to
allocate a percentage of their "sales or benefits" to establish a
fund to pay for the health care costs of treating smoking-related
diseases. In October 2008, the court ruled that plaintiffs have
standing to file the claim and that the claim meets the threshold
admissibility requirements. In December 2012, the court admitted
our subsidiary and BAT's subsidiary as interested third parties.
In February 2013, our subsidiary answered the complaint."


PINE VALLEY: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Milk and Egg
--------------------------------------------------------
Pine Valley Foods, Inc. is voluntarily recalling Crazy about
Cookies Pre-portioned varieties after learning that a labeling
misstatement on the sugar cookie dough & walnut chocolate chunk
cookie dough that was sold and distributed. The sugar cookie dough
in question did not properly disclose "milk" as an ingredient or
allergen. The walnut chocolate chunk cookie dough in question did
not properly disclose "egg" as an ingredient or allergen.

People who have allergies to milk or egg run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to milk and
egg, or are lactose intolerant should not consume these products.
No other Pine Valley Food's products are affected, and the
recalled products may be safely consumed by those who do not have
an allergy or sensitivity to milk nor egg.

Pine Valley Foods, Inc. takes no chances when it comes to the
safety of our consumers.

The Pine Valley Food's cookie dough products that are affected by
the recall are clearly labeled with a product description and date
code on the packaging:

Produced Item Description  Date Code
Crazy about Cookies 2.7lb Sugar Cookies Pre-Portion Item # 25-2004
UPC Code - 698768102120  10/9/15 - 11/23/15 (Julian Dates - 15282
- 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2lb Holiday Decorated Sugar Cookies Item #03-
4034 UPC Code - 698768034346  10/9/15 - 11/23/15 (Julian Dates -
15282  - 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2lb Princess Decorated Sugar Cookies Item #
03-4031 UPC Code - 698768034315  10/9/15 - 11/23/15 (Julian Dates
- 15282  - 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2lb Monsters Decorated Sugar Cookies Item #
03-4032 UPC Code - 698768034322  10/9/15 - 11/23/15 (Julian Dates
- 15282  - 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2lb Birthday Decorated Sugar Cookies Item #
03-4033 UPC Code - 698768034339  10/9/15 - 11/23/15 (Julian Dates
- 15282  - 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2lb Hello Kitty Decorated Sugar Cookies Item #
03-4035 UPC Code - 698768034353  10/9/15 - 11/23/15 (Julian Dates
- 15282  - 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2lb DSC Custom Decorated Sugar Cookies Item #
101-2207 thru 101- 2355  UPC Code - None  10/9/15 - 11/23/15
(Julian Dates - 15282  - 15327)
Crazy about Cookies 2.7lb Walnut Chocolate Chunk Cookies Pre-
Portion Item # 25-2008 UPC Code - 698768102168  11/24/15 (Julian
Date 15328)


The Sugar & Walnut Chocolate Chunk Cookie Dough varieties were
distributed nationally to Distributors, Groups and Organizations
within the Fundraising Industry.

Consumers who have purchased any of the products should return
them to Pine Valley Foods, Inc. at 131 Frost Commercial Drive,
West Monroe, LA. 71292, for replacement or destroy the products
and provide proof of purchase for replacement. If you have any
questions please call Customer Service at 318-397-1124 during the
hours of 8AM - 5PM CST.

This recall is being conducted in cooperation with the Food and
Drug Administration.

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


PINNACLE WEST: Appeal in Consumer Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service
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 an appeal in a consumer
class action complaint is now fully briefed and pending before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.

On January 13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's
decision.  The appeal is now fully briefed and pending before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"We believe the District Court's decision will be upheld on
appeal, but cannot predict the outcome at the appellate court. If
the District Court's decision is reversed, the case would be
remanded for discovery and trial, and there is insufficient
information at this time to reasonably estimate any possible loss
or range of loss to APS and Pinnacle West," the Company said.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Polaris Snowmobiles Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,700 Polaris Snowmobiles. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The steering pitman arm or drag link can crack and result in a
loss of steering, posing a crash hazard.

This recall involves the following model year 2015 snowmobiles:
600 RUSH PRO-S, 600 RUSH PRO-X, 600 SWITCHBACK PRO-S, 600
SWITCHBACK PRO-X, 600 SWITCHBACK ADVENTURE, 800 RUSH PRO-S, 800
RUSH PRO-X, 800 SWITCHBACK PRO-S, 800 SWITCHBACK PRO-X, 550 INDY
Voyageur 155, and 550 INDY Adventure 155. The 2015 600 / 800 AXYS
RUSH and Switchbacks were solid in black, red/ white, and silver /
black color schemes. The AXYS RUSH and Switchbacks have either
"600" or "800" decal on the hood along with either "RUSH" or
"Switchback" on the rear of the left and right sides of the rear
suspension tunnel. The 550 INDY Adventures and Voyageurs were sold
in red or blue and have either "Adventure" or "Voyageur" decals on
the left and right engine compartment side panels. The model names
and numbers included in the recall are listed below:

Polaris Model Year 2015 Snowmobiles:

  Model Name(s)                 Model Number
  ------------                  ------------
  600 RUSH PRO-S                S15DP6PS / SA / SL
  600 RUSH PRO-X                S15DF6PEL
  600 SWITCHBACK PRO-S          S15DS6PS / SA / SL
  600 SWITCHBACK PRO-X          S15DR6PEL
  600 SWITCHBACK ADVENTURE      S15DA6PSL / SM
                                S15DA6PEL
  800 RUSH PRO-S                S15DP8PS / SA / SL
  800 RUSH PRO-X                S15DF8PS
                                S15DF8PEL
  800 SWITCHBACK PRO-S          S15DS8PS / SA / SL
  800 SWITCHBACK PRO-X          15DR8PS / EL
  550 INDY Voyageur 155         S15CU5BSL / EL
  550 INDY Adventure 155        S15CJ5BSL / EL

The model and VIN dumber are displayed on the right side of the
tunnel. A complete list of the recalled vehicles including the VIN
numbers are available at www.polaris.com.

Polaris has received 11 reports of cracked or broken steering
pitman arms of which 8 of the 11 reported loss of steering and 3
of the 11 reported a crash. One injury was reported. The consumer
did not provide any details as to the extent of the injuries. No
property damage claims have been received.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowmobiles
and contact their local Polaris dealer to schedule a free repair.
Polaris is contacting its customers directly and sending a recall
letter to each registered owner.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,230 Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles (ROV).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The vehicles' oil drain line can leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves model year 2016 Polaris RZR XP Turbo
recreational off-highway vehicles with Vehicle Identification
Numbers (VINs) 3NSVDE925GF454105 through 3NSVDE923GF459495.
RZR XP Turbos were sold in graphite, orange and blue color
schemes. A "Turbo" decal is located on the right and left front
fenders and a "RZR" decal on the right and left rear fenders.
The VIN is on the driver's side rear frame rail, above the PVT
cover. VINs are not sequential and not all VINs in the range are
included in this recall.
A complete list of recalled vehicles including VINs is available
at www.polaris.com

Polaris has received two reports of RZR XP Turbos with oil leaks
and two reports of the vehicles catching on fire. No injuries have
been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/V2HKV4

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Polaris dealers nationwide from September 2015 through November
2015 for about $25,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact their local Polaris dealer to schedule a free repair.
Polaris is contacting its customers directly and sending a recall
letter to each registered owner.


REESNA INC: Recalls Fuel Up Dietary Supplements
-----------------------------------------------
Reesna Inc., Canoga Park, CA, is voluntarily recalling all lots of
Fuel Up Plus and Fuel Up High Octane particularly distributed in
August 2015 due to containing undeclared
hydroxythiohomosildenafil, an analogue of sildenafil. Sildenafil
is an FDA-approved drug for the treatment of male Erectile
Dysfunction (ED), making Fuel Up an unapproved drug. The problem
was found after FDA sampled the product and the results were
positive for undeclared hydroxythiohomosildenafil.

Hydroxythiohomosildenafil is close in structure to sildenafil and
is expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event
profile. This poses a threat to consumers because sildenafil may
interact with nitrates found in some prescription drugs such as
nitroglycerin and may lower blood pressure to dangerous levels.
Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or
heart disease often take nitrates. No illnesses or injuries have
been reported to the company to date in connection with this
product.

Fuel Up is marketed as a dietary supplement sexual enhancer for
men. The product was sold to distributors and retail stores
nationwide and via internet sales.

Reesna Inc. is notifying its customers by email and telephone.
Consumers should not consume Fuel Up and should return it
immediately to the place of purchase for a full refund. Reesna is
taking this voluntary action because of the concern for the health
and safety of consumers. The company has discontinued distribution
of these affected products. Reesna sincerely regrets any
inconvenience to customers.

Consumers should contact their physician if they have experienced
any problems that may be related to taking this product. Consumers
with questions should contact Romy Navarro at 818-576-0576, Monday
through Friday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm, PST.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

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


SKIP HOP: Recalls Crib Mobiles Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Skip Hop Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 3,500 Skip Hop crib mobiles (an additional 850 were sold in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The strap attaching the product to the crib rail can break, posing
an injury hazard if the product falls on the infant in the crib.

This recall includes the Skip Hop Moonlight & Melodies projection
crib mobiles. The mobile has a white plastic arm that attaches to
the side of a crib with four blinking, glowing leaves with stuffed
animal attachments. The mobile also has a projector on the top of
the mobile that projects stars on the ceiling and plays eight
nursery lullabies. The dangling stuffed animals on the mobile
include a yellow and gray giraffe, a green turtle with a gray and
white polka-dot shell, a brown and tan monkey and a gray and white
striped owl. The mobiles measure 17.5 inches long by 14 inches
wide by 22 inches tall. SKIP HOP and the model number 185509 are
printed on the back of the mobile base.

Skip Hop has received 8 reports of the strap attaching the mobile
to the crib breaking. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/taoG1e

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Babies R Us, Buy Buy Baby and other independent juvenile specialty
stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com and skiphop.com from
July 2015 to November 2015 for about $65.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mobiles and
contact the firm for instructions on receiving a $75 coupon
towards the purchase of a new Skip Hop product.


SMARTLIPO365: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sibutramine
------------------------------------------------------------
SmartLipo365 of Dallas, TX, is voluntarily recalling all lots of
Smart Lipo (800, 900, 950 mg) capsules, to the consumer level.
FDA's analysis found the Smart Lipo products to contain undeclared
sibutramine, desmethylsibutramine, and phenolphthalein.

Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the
U.S. market in October 2010. Sibutramine is known to substantially
increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may
present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary
artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke.
Phenolphthalein is an ingredient previously used in over-the-
counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it
is not currently approved for marketing in the United States.
Health risks associated with phenolphthalein could include
potentially serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular
heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use. These undeclared
ingredients make these products unapproved new drugs for which
safety and efficacy have not been established. These products may
also interact in life-threatening ways with other medications a
consumer may be taking.

Smart Lipo is marketed as a dietary supplement and is packaged in
bottles of 30 capsules in 800mg, 900mg, and 950mg per capsule. The
affected Smart Lipo products include all expiration dates:. Smart
Lipo was sold in stores, Centro Naturista in Richardson, TX,
SmartLipo365 in Arlington, TX, as well as distributed nationwide
via the Internet, SmartLipo365.com.

Smart Lipo 365 has not received any complaints associated with
this product to date.

SmartLipo365 is notifying its distributors and customers by e-mail
and letter and will not continue the distribution of Smart Lipo.
Distributors and retailers should check their inventory and
discontinue the Smart Lipo products. Consumers should immediately
discontinue the use of these products.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
SmartLipo365 by calling 972-757-8136 on Monday through Friday from
10 A.M. to 5 P.M. (Central time). Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Dismissal Bid in "Martin" Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amul R. Thapar granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned CHERYL MARTIN and ROBERT MARTIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social
Security, Defendant, Civil No.: 15-46-ART, (E.D. Ky.)

Each of the plaintiffs sought disability benefits from the Social
Security Administration (SSA). To get benefits, they hired counsel
-- Eric C. Conn -- to assist them with the process.  Conn was
successful, and the plaintiffs obtained benefits. In 2015,
however, the SSA found reason to believe that the plaintiffs'
applications for benefits included fraudulent medical evidence.
Once the SSA suspects fraud, it must review the file without the
fraudulent evidence to determine if the claimant is entitled to
benefits. The SSA initially cut off the plaintiffs' benefits while
it redetermined the plaintiffs' eligibility.  After public outcry,
reason ultimately prevailed. The SSA reinstated the plaintiffs'
benefits and created a new process to determine whether the
plaintiffs were actually entitled to benefits.

The plaintiffs argue that "procedural due process" and
"Constitutional safeguards" require the SSA to do certain things
during the redetermination process and not to do others.
The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for, among
other things, lack of jurisdiction.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 16, 2015
available at http://is.gd/xA9rmCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Thapar
granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs cannot
prematurely obtain judicial review of the SSA's decision to reopen
their cases. They have not exhausted their administrative remedies
and they do not qualify for any exceptions. Nor can the Court
address the plaintiffs' claims under federal question or mandamus
jurisdiction.  Because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their
claims with the administrative agency, the Court lacks
jurisdiction. Thus, the case must be dismissed. All pending
motions are denied as moot, and this case is stricken from the
Court's active docket.

Anne Marie Regan, Esq. -- amregan@princelobel.com -- of Kentucky
Equal Justice Center; Ned Pillersdorf, Esq. --
pillersn@bellsouth.net -- of Pillersdorf, DeRossett & Lane and
Noah Robert Friend, Esq. of Noah R. Friend Law Firm, PLLC serve as
counsel for Plaintiffs Cheryl Martin and Robert Martin

Andrew M. Bernie, Esq. of U.S. Department of Justice - Federal
Programs Branch, serves as counsel for Defendant Commissioner of
SSA


SOUTHWEST GLASS: Faces "Zamora" Suit Under FLSA, Min. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Zamora; Henry Nez, Jr; Harold Brown; and Vernon Yazzie on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. Southwest
Glass And Glazing, Inc. Anthony S. Baca, Carol J. Mccarthy, And
Kira A. Sowanic, et.al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01041 (D.N.Mex.,
November 16, 2015), seeks to recover wages, at the appropriate
rate, for all hours worked, and an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs from
defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Mexico
Public Works Minimum Wage Act and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Southwest Glass is engaged in the performance of glass and glazing
construction work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Montalbano, Esq.
     Shane Youtz, Esq.
     YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C.
     900 Gold Avenue S.W.
     Albuquerque, NM, 87102
     Phone: (505) 244-1200
     Fax: (505) 244-9700

        - and -

     David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
     Caren P. Sencer, Esq.
     Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
     WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
     1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
     Alameda, CA 94501-1091
     Phone 510 337-1001
     Fax 510 337-1023


SR SMITH: Recalls Pool and Spa Lifts Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
S.R. Smith, LLC, of Canby, Ore., announced a voluntary recall of
About 1,800 Splash! pool lifts and 40 PAL Hi/Lo and Spa lifts.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Welds securing the lift base plate and/or mast can break, posing a
fall hazard.

This recall involves Splash! and PAL Hi/Lo and Spa pool access
lifts most commonly found in municipal and community swimming
facilities and hotels. Splash! lifts are permanently fixed to the
pool deck. PAL models  are portable, free-standing pool lifts that
can be fixed to the deck. The recall includes all models of
Splash! lifts with manufacturing dates between January 2013 and
September 2015, PAL Hi/Lo lifts with model numbers 250-0000, 250-
0005 and 250-0005K and Spa model 275-0000 with manufacturing dates
between December 2014 and September 2015. The model number and
date of manufacture can be found on the label at the base of the
mast. "Splash!" or "PAL" is printed on the base of the lifts.

The firm received reports of two incidents in which the lift fell
over due to inadequate welds in the base plate or mast. One
incident occurred when a person was seated in the lift chair. No
injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Pool
product distributors, including Baystate Pool Supplies,
Recreonics, and SCP Distributors nationwide and online at
intheswim.com from January 2013 through September 2015 for between
$6,000 and $9,750.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled pool lifts
and contact S.R. Smith for a free replacement base and/or mast
assembly.


STATE FARM: Motion for Remand or Abstention Denied in "Papurello"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti denied Plaintiffs' motion
for remand or abstention and denied in part and granted in part
Defendant's Rule 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss in the case captioned
VINCENT PAPURELLO and LINDA PAPURELLO, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE &
CAS. CO., Defendant, Civ. A. No.: 15-1005, (W.D. Pa.)

The insurance class action was removed to the District court from
the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Individually and on behalf of a putative class of Pennsylvania
homeowners, Plaintiffs Vincent and Linda Papurello allege
Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (Defendant or State
Farm) violated Pennsylvania law by paying initial amounts under
homeowners' insurance policies determined by a two-step procedure.
Under that procedure, State Farm made a payment under the first
step equal to the amount of estimated replacement costs of
materials, taxes, and labor less depreciation.

Plaintiffs filed a three-count class action complaint against
defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, alleging: (1) individual and class-wide Pennsylvania
common law breach of contract claims; (2) individual and class-
wide claims under Pennsylvania's insurance bad faith statute, 42
PA. CONS. STAT. Section 8371; and (3) individual and class-wide
claims under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (the CPL), 73 PA. STAT. Sections 201-1 et seq.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for remand to state court or abstention;
and Defendant filed motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In her Opinion dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kqR7E8from Leagle.com, Judge Conti denied
Plaintiffs'  motion for remand or abstention; and (2) denied in
part and granted in part Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. Plaintiffs' individual breach of contract and individual
statutory bad faith claims shall proceed. Plaintiffs' individual
CPL claim and class-wide breach of contract, statutory bad faith,
and CPL claims will be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6).

Daniel P. McDyer, Esq. -- info@ambylaw.com -- of Anstandig, McDyer
& Yurcon, P.C. serves as counsel for Plaintiffs Vincent Papurello
and Linda Papurello

Robert E. Dapper, Jr., Esq. -- rdapper@dapperlaw.com -- and Daniel
J. Twilla, Esq. -- dtwilla@dapperlaw.com -- of Dapper, Baldasare,
Benson, Behling and Kane, P.C.; Heidi Dalenberg, Esq. --
hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Esq. --
jcancila@schiffhardin.com -- and Suzanne L. Wahl, Esq. --
swahl@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff Hardin LLP serve as counsel
for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company


STELLA & CHEWY'S: Recalls Pet Food Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stella & Chewy's is voluntarily recalling four of its products
sold in the U.S. and Canada due to concerns of a possible presence
of Listeria monocytogenes. The recall affects a total of 990 cases
(964 cases in the U.S and 26 cases in Canada). The recall was
prompted by a positive test confirming Listeria monocytogenes in
Stella's Super Beef Dinner Morsels for Dogs 8.5 oz. frozen bags,
lot #165-15, "Use by 6-25-2016", during routine surveillance
testing by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development.

Listeria is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

As a precautionary measure, Stella & Chewy's is voluntarily
recalling all products from Lot # 165-15, which includes:

  Product          Size     UPC      Lot #      Use By
  Description      ----     ---      -----      ------
  -----------
  Frozen Stella's  8.5 oz.  186011   165-15     6/25/2016
  Super Beef                001554
  Dinner Morsels
  for Dogs
  Frozen Stella's  4 lb.    186011   165-15     6/25/2016
  Super Beef                001370              & 6/26/2016
  Dinner Morsels
  for Dogs
  Frozen Duck      1.25 lb. 186011   165-15     6/25/2016
  Duck Goose                001455
  Dinner Morsels
  for Cats

Moreover, while the below listed product has not tested positive
for Listeria monocytogenes, in an abundance of caution, we are
also recalling the following products which may have come into
contact with the affected lot:

  Product          Size     UPC      Lot #      Use By
  Description      ----     ---      -----      ------
  -----------
  Frozen Chick     1.25 lb. 186011   160-15     7/2/2016
  Chick Chicken             001448
  Dinner Morsels
  for Cats
  Frozen Chick     1.25 lb. 186011   152-15     7/2/2016
  Chick Chicken             001448
  Dinner Morsels
  for Cats

Retailers and consumers can find the full product recall list and
additional information at: http://www.stellaandchewys.com/stella-
chewys-recall-notice/disclaimer icon.

Consumers should look at the product descriptions, UPCs, lot
numbers, and "Use By" dates on each bag for an exact match to
determine if it is subject to the recall. Anyone who has purchased
these products are instructed to dispose of the food or return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/TwEfU6


SUN NOODLE: Recalls Tonkotsu Ramen Products Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------
Sun Noodle of Teterboro, NJ is voluntarily recalling its Tonkotsu
Ramen because it may contain undeclared egg. Individuals who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The Tonkotsu Ramen product was primarily sent to Asian food
distributors in the New Jersey, Georgia, Illinois and New York
areas, and then on to retail stores. The product is packaged in a
clear plastic clamshell, banded with a Sun Noodle Tonkotsu Ramen
label, with yellow font. These products contain a 2 pack red and
white colored soup base package on the bottom. The net weight of
the product is 12oz, with a UPC code of 0 85315 40003 5. The
products that are affected by the recall are labeled with lot
codes that range from 3114350 through 3215336. The lot code can be
found typically towards the bottom of the individual noodle
package.

No illnesses have been reported to date, and all affected product
has been isolated from distribution.

The error was discovered during a routine product review. The
recall was initiated after it was discovered that the egg-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of egg on the label. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a mis-labeling of the product.

Only one product- Tonkotsu Ramen- manufactured at the Sun Noodle
New Jersey facility was affected. All other products manufactured
at other Sun Noodle locations are properly labeled and the
Tonkotsu Ramen product is not made with any egg or egg white
powder.

The specific lot codes affected are as follows:

Specific Lot Codes Affected:

3114350  3115013  3115040  3115071  3115141  3115176  3115229
3115267  3115299  3115328
3214350  3215013  3215040  3215071  3215141  3215176  3215229
3215267  3215299  3215328
3114352  3115015  3115043  3115072  3115149  3115187  3115246
3115271  3115304  3115336
3214352  3215015  3215043  3215072  3215149  3215187  3215246
3215271  3215304  3215336
3114360  3115028  3115055  3115084  3115161  3115195  3115254
3115275  3115314
3214360  3215028  3215055  3215084  3215161  3215195  3215254
3215275  3215314
3115007  3115034  3115058  3115114  3115167  3115216  3115265
3115281  3115321
3215007  3215034  3215058  3215114  3215167  3215216  3215265
3215281  3215321

Consumers who have purchased the Tonkotsu Ramen are urged to
return the product to the original location of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact a toll free number at
the company, 1-844-201-1040, Monday through Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30
pm Central Standard Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/tPt0fh


SWEET LEAF: Recalls Tea Products Due to Glass Fragments
-------------------------------------------------------
The Sweet Leaf Tea Company announced that it is voluntarily
recalling Sweet Leaf(R) Tea in 16 ounce glass bottles out of an
abundance of caution because of the possible presence of glass
fragments. This was the result of glass breakage during the
filling process. Consumers could potentially be cut or injured if
ingested. The company has received 4 complaints of glass in the
product. No injuries were reported.

The voluntary recall is limited to specific production codes of
Sweet Leaf(R) Tea, as follows, which were distributed between
February 27, 2015 and December 6, 2015. Only 16 ounce glass
bottles are affected, and only those listed below:

  Sweet Leaf   Manufacture  Manufacture  Best     Bottle   Case
  16 ounce     Code         Date         By       Label    UPC
  glass        -----------  -----------  ----     Date     ----
  product                                         UPC
  only                                            ------
  ----------
  Sweet Leaf   0226150-     2/26/15      6/30/16  6-51538- 6-
  Tea          57WC402      4/23/15      8/31/160 6703-6   51538-
  Raspberry    04231511-    4/24/15      8/31/16           06803-
               3WC402       6/5/15       10/31/16          3
               04241511-
               4WC402
               06041515-
               5WC402
  Sweet Leaf   02271505-    2/27/15      6/30/16  6-51538- 6-
  Half and     8WC402       4/23/15      8/31/16  06708-1  51538-
  Half         04231511-    6/3/15       10/31/16          06808-
  Lemonade     3WC402                                      8
  Tea          06031515-
               4WC402
  Sweet Leaf   02261505-  2/26/15     6/30/16  6-51538-
                                                        6-
  Tea Original 7WC402       4/25/15      8/31/16  06700-5  51538-
               04251411-    4/24/15      8/31/16           06800-
               5WC402       6/3/15       10/31/16          2
               04241511-
               4WC402
               06031515-
               4WC402
  Sweet Leaf   02271505-    2/27/15      6/30/16  6-51538- 6-
  Tea Green    8WC402       4/24/15      8/31/16  06720-3  51538-
  Tea w/       04241511-    6/4/15       10/31/16          06820-
  Citrus       4WC402                                      0
               06041515-
               5WC402
  Sweet leaf   02261505-    2/26/15      6/30/16   6-51538- 6-
  Tea Peach    7WC402       4/23/15      8/31/16   06704-3 51538-
               04231511-    6/4/15       10/31/16          06804-
               3WC402                                      0
               06041515-
               5WC402
  Sweet leaf   02261505-    2/27/15      6/30/16   6-51538- 6-
  Tea Mint     8WC402       4/24/15      8/31/16   06701-2 51538-
  & Honey      04231511-    6/4/15       10/31/16          06801-
               4WC402                                      9
               06041515-
               5WC402


In order to determine the manufacturing date and best by date of a
bottle, consumers are advised to look for the manufacturing code
on the shoulder of a bottle or on the shipping case, as seen
below:

First Line
042415 - Production Date Code: mmddyy (e.g. April 24, 2015)
114 - Julian Date Code
WC40 - Factory Code
2 - Bottling Line Identification Code

Second Line
15:19 - Military Time
BB 08/31/16 - Best Before date mm/dd/yy (e.g. August 31, 2016)

The Sweet Leaf Tea Company is committed to ensuring the quality
and safety of all of its products. All recalled products are being
removed from store shelves. Consumers who have any of the glass
products with the affected date codes should not drink the
product, can contact the Sweet Leaf toll-free number 1-877-832-
5323 Monday through Friday 8am - 8pm EST for replacement product,
or return the product to the store of purchase for a refund.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of and in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/HdBpq3


TARGET: Gift Registry Apps Easy to Hack, Tech Security Firm Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lynn Smith, writing for Star Tribune, reports that beware if
you're making a wish list using the apps for Target or its gift
registries.  Your list, along with personal information, could be
accessed by hackers, according to an international security firm.

Unlike the 2013 Target data breach, customer financial information
is not compromised via the wish list or registry apps, according
to Patrick Dorn, a spokesman for Avast, the security firm that
used the holiday season to examine some popular shopping apps.
Researchers there wanted to determine what data was being
collected and how secure it was.

Avast researchers found that the Target app keeps a database of
users' wish lists, names, addresses and e-mail addresses.  That
information could be accessed because the Target app's Application
Program Interface (API) is easily accessible over the Internet by
those with the know-how, according to Filip Chytry, a researcher
with Avast, one of the world's largest anti-virus companies.

Target took Avast's assertions seriously, issuing a statement on
Dec. 15 that said, "Earlier this evening, it was brought to our
attention that there may be a potential issue with our guest
registry platforms.  Out of an abundance of caution, we have
disabled elements of our wish list app and gift registry while we
assess.  We apologize for any challenges guests may be facing
while trying to access their registry. Our teams are working
diligently overnight to resume full functionality."

The revelation about the Target app comes on the heels of the
massive data breach that allowed cyberthieves access to personal
data of 40 million customers.  The Minneapolis retailer agreed to
settle a class-action lawsuit brought by financial institutions
for $39 million.  It was the last major litigation tied to the
breach.

Avast security researchers randomly chose apps from Home Depot,
J.C. Penney, Target, Macy's, Safeway, Walgreens and Wal-Mart in an
effort to see what retailers knew about their customers, based on
the data they collected.  Avast focused on Target and Walgreens in
the company blog.

Accessing customer information via the gift registry is done
through the app's API, which is a set of conditions where if you
ask a question, it sends the answer, Mr. Chytry explained in the
Avast blog.  The Target API doesn't require any authentication, he
said.

"The only thing you need in order to parse all of the data
automatically is to figure out how the user ID is generated,"
Chytry wrote.  "Once you have that figured out, all the data is
served to you on a silver platter.. . . " The information Avast was
able to get included names, e-mails, shipping addresses, phone
numbers, the type of registries and the items on the registries.

"You should be able to get your list of gifts out to a specific
group of people who you want to see it," Avast's Dorn said.  "But
all your personal information shouldn't be accessible to anyone
who wants to go in and hack in there . . .  I do feel
uncomfortable when I find that my information can be easily
accessible to somebody. . . . It's kind of building a profile on
you."

When examining the apps for various retailers, Avast researchers
pointed the finger at the Walgreens app for requesting permissions
that are "completely unnecessary" for its app to function.  It
also requests more permissions than the other apps, with Home
Depot's app coming in second.

"The Walgreens app has permission to change your audio settings,
pair with Bluetooth devices, control your flashlight, and run at
start-up -- completely unnecessary for the app to function
properly," Mr. Chytry wrote.


TECHNICAL CONSUMER: Recalls LED Lamps Due to Electric Shock Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Technical Consumer Products Inc., of Aurora, Ohio, announced a
voluntary recall of about 25,000 Technical Consumer Products (TCP)
and Great Value LED lamps (in addition about 1,350 were sold in
Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Water can enter the lamp in wet location applications, posing an
electric shock hazard to the user.

This recall involves 14 watt LED wet location PAR38 lamps sold
under the TCP and Great Value Brand names.  These lamps are white
and produce a soft white (3000 Kelvin) or bright white (5000
Kelvin) color temperature. Recalled units have an item number of
"L14P38D30KFL", "L14P38D50KFL", "RLP381430WL" or "GVRLP381430WL"
and the date code printed directly on the white plastic heat sink
of the lamp, just above the screw in base. Consumers will need to
shut off power to the lights and disengage the lamp to check the
item number and date code.

  Item Number    Brand     UPC        Description      Date Code
  -----------    -----     ---        -----------      ---------
  L14P38D30KFL   TCP       7-621480-  14 watt LED      1523211
                           4626-4     PAR38 Wet        1523212
                                      Location 3,000K
  L14P38D50KFL   TCP       7-621480-  14 watt LED      1524211
                           4668-4      PAR38 Wet
                                      Location 5,000K  1528216
  RLP381430WL    TCP       7-621482-  14 watt LED      1532216
                           7059-1     PAR38 Wet        1530212
                                      Location 3,000K
  GVRLP381430WL  Great     6-811310-  14 watt LED      1527211
                 Value     7221-2     PAR38 Wet        1530212
                                      Location 3,000K

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/pc0T94

The recalled products were sold at Walmart and electrical
distributors nationwide from May 2015 through October 2015 for
about $20.

Consumers should immediately shut off power to the lights, remove
the lamps to check the item number/date code of the recall, and
contact TCP to receive a free replacement lamp with installation
instructions.


TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL: "Hussey" Contaminated Water Case Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst remanded the case captioned
Hussey, et al, v. Total Environmental Solutions, Inc., Civil
Action No.: 6:14-CV-2186, (W.D. La.)

Plaintiffs Dianna Hussey, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated filed a Petition for Damages and/or
class action in the 5th Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Lafayette, State of Louisiana, against defendant, Total
Environmental Solutions Inc. (TESI). TESI removed the action to
this Court asserting jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1331 and 1441, stating "in that, in the Petition, Plaintiffs claim
relief against TESI by virtue of and under laws of the United
States."

Plaintiffs allege in their Petition that TESI's water system
provides drinking water to approximately 65 households in the
Trewhill Subdivision located in Lafayette Parish. They further
allege that TESI is responsible for the monitoring of contaminants
in the drinking water, including the disinfection byproducts,
Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and Haloacetic Acids (HAA5), which
Plaintiffs contend are known carcinogens. Plaintiffs allege that
from May 2, 2013 to February 6, 2014, TESI's Trewhill Subdivision
Water System was determined to have violated the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules pertaining to
disinfectant byproduct contaminants on multiple occasions.
Plaintiffs assert causes of action in state law negligence for
various personal "injuries, damages, other relief, including . . .
medical monitoring." Plaintiffs bring their action for damages
pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 591, et
seq., seeking certification as a class action.

In her Order dated November 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xBYMkufrom Leagle.com, Judge Whitehurst remanded the
case to the 16th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia,
State of Louisiana, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The Court said Plaintiffs' complaint does not arise under federal
law. Plaintiff's Petition makes no mention of a citizens' suit
under either the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) or the Clean Water
Act (CWA). Nor is there any evidence that Plaintiff has timely
performed the jurisprudential statutory notice provisions. There
is no private right of action under the SDWA applicable here, and
the Petition does not implicate a substantial question of federal
law.

L Clayton Burgess, Esq. of Law Office of L Clayton Burgess serves
as counsel for Plaintiff Dianna Hussey

William A Barousse, Esq. -- wbarousse@glllaw.com -- Ernest P
Gieger, Jr., Esq. -- gieger@glllaw.com -- and John Michael
DiGiglia, Esq. -- mdigiglia@glllaw.com -- of Gieger Laborde &
Laperouse serve as counsel for Defendant Total Environmental
Solutions Inc.


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Ginger Brew Products Due to Bottle Bursting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's of Monrovia, CA is issuing a voluntary recall of all
codes purchased from 11/9/15 through 12/14/15 of Triple Ginger
Brew (SKU 51857) due to reports of unopened bottles potentially
bursting. Although the ginger brew does not pose a health risk if
consumed, all product has been removed from store shelves and
destroyed. No injuries or illnesses have been reported to date.
This precautionary action comes after the company received
inquiries from customers that had experienced unopened bottles
shattering or bursting. The potentially affected product was
distributed to Trader Joe's stores nationwide. Trader Joe's Triple
Ginger Brew is sold in 25.4 FL OZ (750 mL) glass bottles.

Customers who have purchased the Trader Joe's Triple Ginger Brew
are encouraged to handle it with care and dispose of it
immediately in an outside container. Trader Joe's will provide a
refund to customers who purchased the Triple Ginger Brew at any of
their store locations. Customers can call the company's Customer
Relations at (626) 599-3817 6:00AM-6:00PM PST, Monday - Friday,
with any questions.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OAowu6


UBER: Interns in China Complain Over Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------
Josh Horwitz and Echo Huang, writing for Quartz, report that
interns in China are the latest group to complain about Uber's
labor practices.

The company's lean business model in China, former interns and a
manager claim, relies on the exploitation of huge numbers of
barely paid students and recent graduates, who toil up to 15 hours
a day for as little as $5 a shift, and sometimes are paid nothing.
These interns are tasked with signing up hundreds of drivers in
one day, they allege, in addition to other tasks performed by
employees in other countries.

"It's normal for internships to be demanding, but I've never
experienced these sort of long hours, and repetitive, cumbersome
types of work" Li Yifan, a former operations coordinator at Uber
Guangzhou, told Quartz on the phone.  Li posted an open letter
(link in Chinese) on December 4 on Sina Weibo detailing his three-
month tenure at Uber, which alleges the company's reliance on
underpaid interns amounts to "discrimination" against China.

Although an Uber company spokesman declined to answer "item by
item" questions about the accusations, Uber generally denied
mistreatment of interns, noting it offers "a competitive package"
to interns and complies "with local laws and regulation."  Under
Chinese law, only students can be interns, and contracts and pay
are not required until they graduate, when they are defined as
employees.

Uber faces driver unionization in Seattle and a class action suit
in California over below minimum wage pay and the company's
refusal to pay benefits or expenses to its contract worker
drivers.  The allegations raise questions about how dependent the
$45 billion company may be on cheap, informal labor for its
expansion in China, at a time when competition from Didi Kuaidi, a
rival that's nabbing seven times as many daily bookings as Uber,
is heating up.


URBANDADDY INC: Faces "Smith" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Smith, and on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, v. Urbandaddy Inc. and Lance Broumand, Case No. 1:15-
cv-08979-PGG (S.D.N.Y., November 16, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of himself, and other similarly
situated, current and former non-supervisory employees who worked
at UrbanDaddy.

Urbandaddy Inc. is a digital media company that creates diverse
lifestyle content nationally and targets it to hyper-local geo-
located contexts for different audiences.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
     GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP
     11 Broadway Suite 2150
     New York NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 847-8315


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Trade Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Spungen, writing for LegalNewsline.com, reported that
two Arkansas residents are suing an automobile manufacturer and
sellers for what they claim are unfair and deceptive trade
practices in the marketing of so-called environmentally friendly
cars.

Dennis Shipley of Pulaski County and Cynthia Johnson of Pope
County filed suit against Landers Auto Group LLC, NP VKW LLC,
doing business as North Point Volkswagen, and Volkswagen Group of
America Inc. The lawsuit was originally filed on Sep. 22 in the
Pulaski County Circuit Court and was removed by defendants to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on Nov.
10.

Plaintiffs Shipley and Johnson allege they were induced to
purchase diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles based on the
representations of defendants that the vehicles were
environmentally friendly, produced low emissions, and provided
high efficiency and fuel performance. They further claim that
these vehicles, among others, were equipped with what is known as
a "defeat device" which only maximized the emissions controls
while the vehicles were being tested and thereafter shut off the
majority of the emissions controls, resulting in the car producing
pollution at up to 40 times the amount permitted under the
Arkansas state regulations and the Clean Air Act.

Their harm, plaintiffs allege, is in the reduction in value of the
vehicles given the deceptive practices of the defendants. Further,
the plaintiffs claim, defendants engaged in a deceptive and
fraudulent course of action resulting in the tolling of the
statute of limitations in this matter. Plaintiffs' allegations are
that defendants committed fraud, breached their contracts, and
breached the express and implied warranties provided in addition
to benefiting through unjust enrichment and violating the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The harm, as alleged by the
plaintiffs, is not only in the additional costs they paid for
these supposedly environmentally friendly vehicles compared with
their current value, but in the fact that the cars, in order to
obtain EPA compliance, will lose significant aspects of their
performance.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory and liquidated damages in an
unspecified amount as well as recovery of all costs and fees and
have demanded a jury trial. They are represented by attorneys
Allison Koile -- alison@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Maryna Jackson --
maryna@sanfordlawfirm.com -- and Josh Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- of the Sanford Law Firm PLLC in Little
Rock.

The case is in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas case number is 4:15-cv-00696-JLH.


WAL-MART STORES: Trial, Deadlines in "Ridgeway" Case Pushed Back
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston modified the case management schedule
in the case captioned CHARLES RIDGEWAY, JAIME FAMOSO, JOSHUA
HAROLD, RICHARD BYERS, DAN THATCHER, NINO PAGTAMA, WILLIE
FRANKLIN, TIM OPITZ, FARRIS DAY, KARL MERHOFF, and MICHAEL KROHN,
Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a
WAL-MART TRANSPORTATION LLC, and Does One through and including
Doe Fifty, Defendants. (Previously captioned as Bryan et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), Case No. 3:08-CV-05221-SI, (N.D. Cal.)

The parties move for the approval of their joint stipulation of
the changes to the existing schedule as follows:

     Event      Current Date     Proposed New Date

   Expert Designation      Oct. 19, 2015     April 29, 2016
   Expert Rebuttal         Oct. 28, 2015     May 20, 2016
   Dispositive Motions     Jan. 15, 2016     July 1, 2016
   Oppositions to
      Dispositive Motions  Jan. 29, 2016      July 15, 2016
   Replies In Support
      of Motions           Feb. 5, 2016       July 22, 2016
   Discovery Cutoff
      (Expert and
      Non-Expert)          Dec. 3, 2015       June 30, 2016
   Pretrial Conference     April 12, 2016     Sept. 6, 2016
   Trial                   April 25, 2016     Sept. 19, 2016
   Dispositive motion
      Hearing                                 Aug. 5, 2016
                                              at 9:00 a.m.

In his Amended Order dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kmAsbifrom Leagle.com, Judge Illston granted the
parties' motion for the approval of their stipulation of the
changes to the existing schedule.

Nicholas J.P. Wagner, Esq. -- rchavez@wagnerjones.com -- Andrew B.
Jones, Esq. -- ajones@wagnerjones.com -- Daniel M. Kopfman, Esq. -
- dkopfman@wagnerjones.com -- and Lawrence M. Artenian, Esq. --
lartenian@wagnerjones.com -- of Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenian
LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiffs

Catherine A. Conway, Esq. -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Julian W.
Poon, Esq. -- jpoon@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- Blaine H. Evanson, Esq. --
bevanson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; James
H. Hanson, Esq. -- jhanson@scopelitis.com -- of Scopelitis,
Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary, PC serve as counsel for Defendant
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.


WESTERN UNION: Appeal From Attorney Fee Award Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed an appeal
from the district court's award of attorney fees in a class action
lawsuit against The Western Union Company.

The appellate case is captioned JAMES P. TENNILLE; ROBERT SMET;
ADELAIDA DELEON; YAMILET RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE
WESTERN UNION COMPANY; WESTERN UNION FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants, No.: 14-1432, (10th Cir.).

Circuit Judge McHugh wrote the decision.

Western Union facilitates money transfers between customers in
geographically distant locations. A small number of these
transfers fail, usually because the sender provides invalid
contact information for the recipient or because the recipient
does not redeem the money. At any given time, Western Union holds
approximately $100 million in unredeemed customer proceeds.
Although the money remains the property of the sender, Western
Union retains the funds until the customer requests a refund or
until the money is subject to escheat under the relevant State's
laws. During the time these amounts remain in Western Union's
possession, Western Union collects interest and charges a small
monthly administrative fee, and it retains both of these amounts
after the principal is refunded or escheated. Western Union's
practice was to notify customers that their transfer had failed
and that Western Union had possession of the unredeemed sums
shortly before the money was to escheat to the States, often three
years after the failure of the original money transfer.
Historically, approximately 15% of Western Union customers
responded to these notices and obtained a refund.

Western Union Company and its subsidiary, Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. appeal the district court's award of $40 million in
attorney fees to class counsel after the settlement of a putative
class action against Western Union.

In his Opinion dated November 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/4Qw35Ifrom Leagle.com, Judge McHugh dismissed
Western Union's appeal, saying Western Union lacks standing to
challenge the attorney-fee award.  The Tenth Circuit said it does
not have subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.
Western Union lacks a legally protectable interest in the CSF that
would be injured by the award of attorney fees to Class Counsel.
Western Union's purported "reversionary" interest is merely a
right to reimbursement of the expenses it actually incurs from
litigation that may or may not be brought by third parties. And
the reimbursement of those expenses will come from a separate
indemnity fund that is to be created from a cy pres fund that will
be established with excess proceeds in the CSF. In turn, the
balance of the CSF is dependent on a variety of factors other than
the amount of attorney fees, including the number of class members
who seek relief. Accordingly, Western Union has not demonstrated
any concrete and particularized and actual or imminent injury it
will suffer as a result of the district court's approval of the
attorney-fee award to Class Counsel.

Charles G. Cole, Esq. -- ccole@steptoe.com -- and Thomas M. Barba,
Esq. -- tbarba@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe & Johnson -- Jason A.
Yurasek, Esq. -- jason@thejyfirm.com -- and Jess A. Dance, Esq. of
Perkins Coie LLP serve as counsel for Defendants-Appellants

Richard J. Burke, Esq. Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq. Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
and Grant Y. Lee, Esq. of Quantum Legal LLC; Diogenes P. Kekatos,
Esq. -- dkekatos@seegerweiss.com -- and Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. --
sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- and Jonathan Shub, Esq. --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- of Seeger Weiss LLP Seth A. Katz, Esq. of
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC Jim S. Calton, Jr., Esq.
of Calton Legal Services, SP; James E. Cecchi, Esq. --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein,
Brody & Agnello, P.C. and Mitchell Baker, Esq. serve as counsel
for Plaintiffs-Appellees


ZATARAIN'S: Recalls Red Beans and Rice Products Due to Dairy
------------------------------------------------------------
Zatarain's is initiating a voluntary recall of 8 oz boxes of Red
Beans and Rice Original with a "BEST BY" date of  JUL 31 16Z
distributed in the Midwest and Eastern regions of the U.S.  The
Red Beans and Rice Original product may actually contain Creamy
Parmesan Rice Mix with dairy ingredients.  Dairy allergens are not
labeled on the Red Beans and Rice Original package.  People with a
dairy allergy or sensitivity run the risk of a serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.
No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to date and
no other Zatarain's products are involved in this recall.

The product subject to this recall is:

  Zatarain's Red Beans and Rice Original 8 oz box
  -----------------------------------------------
  PACKAGE UPC NUMBER: 7142909849
  AFFECTED DATE CODE: BEST BY JUL 31 16Z
  SHIPPING DATES: August 7, 2015 through September 29, 2015
  STATES SHIPPED TO: FL, GA, IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MS,
                     NC, NY, OH, PA, SC, TN, VA, and WI

All retail outlets that sell these products are being notified to
remove the product with affected date code from their shelves and
warehouses immediately.

Consumers do not need to return the product to the store where it
was purchased.  Instead, consumers are urged to dispose of the
product and do not consume the product.  Consumers may contact
Zatarain's Consumer Affairs team at 1-877-837-3796 weekdays from
9:30 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Time) for a replacement or full
refund, as well as with general inquires.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.  The Company is also issuing an alert through the
Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nbOqo9


* Canadian Businesses Face More Privacy Breach Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Glaspell, Esq. -- BGlaspell@blg.com -- and Daniel Girlando,
Esq. -- DGirlando@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an
article for Lexology, report that two privacy breach class actions
recently certified against the Federal Government -- Condon and
John Doe -- demonstrate a timing dilemma faced by all Canadian
corporations hit with these sorts of claims.  On the one hand,
whether any proposed privacy breach class member will be
successful in proving legally recognizable damage is open to
considerable debate.  On the other, the key merits questions will
often be deferred, class certification addressing the form of
action as opposed to its substantive validity.  Accordingly,
defendants need to carefully weigh whether, and when, to move for
summary dismissal.

A Lost Hard Drive -- Condon v. Canada

Condon is the Federal Court of Canada's first "intrusion upon
seclusion" privacy breach class action.  An unencrypted hard drive
containing personal information of 583,000 students, having
received loans from the student program, was reported lost from a
filing cabinet.  Upon being notified, plaintiffs claimed costs
incurred in preventing identity theft; out-of-pocket expenses; and
unspecified amounts for inconvenience, frustration, anxiety and
increased risk of identity theft.

Despite the motion judge having certified an "intrusion upon
seclusion" class action, the proposed representative plaintiffs
appealed.  They requested, in addition, certification of common
issues in negligence and for breach of confidence.  The Federal
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Having noted the absence of
any evidence personal information has been inappropriately
accessed or that any plaintiff has been a victim of fraud or
identity theft, the appeal court still criticized the motion judge
for having weighed the claim's merits, finding no compensable
damage.  The Court of Appeal held that a mere pleading of out-of-
pocket expenses is sufficient, such that negligence and breach of
confidence could be part of the certified common issues.

The Revealing Letter Envelope -- John Doe v. Canada

In the second case, plaintiffs sue Health Canada for having
breached privacy by inadvertently disclosing their participation
in a marijuana medical access program.  Each class member,
approximately 40,000 individuals, was sent a letter in an envelope
identifying them as a program licensee.  The class action advances
six causes of action against Health Canada: breach of contract,
negligence, breach of confidence, intrusion upon seclusion,
"publicity given to private life", and breach of a Charter right
to privacy.  The Federal Court certified all six as common issues,
emphasizing the low threshold for certification as it does not
involve a merits assessment, only requiring plaintiffs to show
"some basis in fact" for each requirement.

Citing the Condon appeal decision, the John Doe court found a very
general damages plea to be sufficient to certify the claim in
negligence. That class members may not be successful in proving
damage at trial was not viewed as a basis for striking a
negligence claim early in the litigation.  With respect to the
asserted "publicity given to private life" tort, the John Doe
court held this claim is novel and should be allowed to proceed.
On the appropriateness of advancing a class action with anonymous
representative plaintiffs, and the tension between avoiding having
one's privacy interests further injured through litigation and the
open court principle, the John Doe court recommended that at least
one "public" class representative should be identified.

Weighing Summary Dismissal

Accidental data breaches and lost or stolen unencrypted USBs,
laptops, phones and hard drives have been leading, in certain
circumstances, to statutorily-required notices across Canada.
These notices may create an identifiable class. Class actions are
presently being certified for intrusion upon seclusion when the
facts suggest little or no actual damage.  It is important for
clients to bear in mind that on the Condon and John Doe facts, it
is unlikely plaintiffs will be able to establish at the common
issues trial the level of recklessness, as opposed to negligence,
necessary to substantiate this new intentional tort.  Accidental
data breach cases will not generally justify an intrusion upon
seclusion claim.

While the intentional intrusion upon seclusion tort may not
require proof of traditional damages, negligence claims still do
require compensable harm.  Where a plaintiff can neither satisfy
the requirement of reckless disclosure for intrusion upon
seclusion nor actual damages for negligence, a defence-side
summary judgment motion will often be appropriate, the timing of
which is open to professional judgment.

In contrast, the intentional tort may be made out against a rogue
employee who deliberately misuses personal data.  But a rogue will
likely have no eligible assets or insurance.  The question then
arises as to whether employers can be fixed with vicarious
liability for criminal or other illegal employee misuse of
personal information.  Whether vicarious liability exists in
respect of the intrusion upon seclusion tort has yet to be
determined by Canadian courts.



                            *********

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  * * *